MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Government Affairs
Seventy-Second Session
February 26, 2003
The Committee on Government Affairswas called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Wednesday, February 26, 2003. Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Mark Manendo, Chairman
Mr. Wendell P. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Tom Grady
Mr. Joe Hardy
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Susan Scholley, Committee Policy Analyst
Eileen O'Grady, Committee Counsel
Rosemary Zienter, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Brad Jerbic, City Attorney, Las Vegas, Nevada
Benjamin Blinn, Citizen of Nevada
John Perry Comeaux, Director, State of Nevada, Department of Administration
Chairman Manendo requested roll call, and introduced BDR 23-547.
· BDR 23-547—Makes changes to Public Employees’ Retirement System concerning certain retroactive payments and agency review of certain decisions. (A.B. 198)
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED FOR INTRODUCTION OF BDR 23-547.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. (Assemblyman Williams was absent for the vote.)
Assembly Bill 150: Amends Charter of City of Las Vegas to clarify that City Attorney and Deputy City Attorneys may represent indigent persons in certain circumstances. (BDR S-1054)
Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B.150, and he welcomed Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, District No. 8.
Ms. Buckley stated that she was pleased to present A.B. 150. She explained that she was the Director of the Clark County Legal Services, a non-profit organization that provided free legal services to low income people. One of the tasks of the agency was the pro-bono project for Clark County. In addition to the many lawyers and law students that were in the office every day providing free legal services, the agency attempted to get the lawyers to volunteer their time. She explained that Supreme Court Rule 191 stated that every lawyer should aspire to volunteer 20 hours per year. Ms. Buckley said that she attempted to get every lawyer to volunteer their time on one case per year. She stated that if every lawyer did one case, access to justice would be provided to people who could not afford the cost. Ms. Buckley explained that statistics indicated a large growth in population for the state of Nevada, and in some decades, a growth of 72 percent in the poverty population.
Ms. Buckley explained that what that meant for non-profit organizations was that there was not a way for non-profit organizations to keep up. She said that throughout the state, every day, people were being turned down for legal assistance. She stated that criminal cases were when someone was accused of a crime and they were facing jail time, and the clients were provided representation by a Public Defender; but ironically, if someone was a domestic violence victim, an abused child, or a senior who fell victim to a scam, they were not entitled to anything. Ms. Buckley said that the good part of that unfortunate truth was that a lot of volunteer lawyers, throughout the state, helped to meet the needs.
In Clark County, an initiative was introduced that suggested every lawyer take one case. The initiative brought about great success. She said that last month two Supreme Court Justices met with some of the managing partners of a very large law firm. Private lawyers were encouraging and recruiting other private lawyers to participate in the request for volunteerism. A public lawyer campaign was also launched because of the large number of lawyers who served the public agencies.
The American Bar Association developed guidelines on how public lawyers could get involved, realizing that taxpayer dollars could not be used to subsidize the project. The guidelines indicated that the lawyer had to do the work on their own time or by using vacation time. They could only use public agency resources if it was de minimis, such as one copy on a copy machine; but if it was a big project, the lawyer was required to make a reimbursement for the expenditure. The District Attorney’s Office represented Child Protective Services, and for that reason they would not take a case involving an abused child, because there could be a conflict of interest. In those situations, the United States Attorney’s Office or the City Attorney’s Office would undertake the representation. If a lawyer with a public or private agency volunteered, malpractice insurance was offered at no charge to the lawyer.
The State Bar of Nevada developed continuing legal education courses to train lawyers in areas in which they had not practiced before. Assemblywoman Buckley stated that in November of 2002, in an effort to assist attorneys in learning about all the opportunities available through volunteerism, a public information campaign was presented to all public lawyers that included district attorneys, public defenders, and city attorneys. During the campaign it was discovered that a conflict in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) prohibited the City Attorney’s Office of Las Vegas from becoming involved in the endeavor. NRS 7.065, passed in 1989, stated, “Any attorney employed by the State of Nevada, or any agency, or political subdivision, may represent an indigent person if: They receive permission, the interests do not conflict with the interest of the state or the political subdivision, the representation is provided in association with an organization that provides free legal assistance, and the attorney receives no compensation.”
Assemblywoman Buckley explained that it was thought to cover the state in all political subdivisions, but the author of the NRS statute in 1989 did not consider the fact that in A.B. 150 the charter stated, “The City Attorney and Deputy City Attorneys may not engage in the private practice of law.”
Ms. Buckley stated that it could be argued whether or not the private practice of law was volunteering under such tight guidelines, but the issue was cloudy enough that the city attorney, who wanted to encourage his deputies to volunteer, brought the bill forward. She explained that the city attorney who presented the bill volunteered on domestic violence issues and headed the Southern Nevada Domestic Violence Prevention Council. She said that the bill would allow deputy city attorneys to get involved, under very strict guidelines, and assist in the quest to provide access to justice so that victims would not be left without legal recourse. Ms. Buckley said that she would be happy to answer any questions the Committee might have.
Chairman Manendo thanked Assemblywoman Buckley for her testimony and indicated that many people were grateful for the services she and her organization provided to the community.
Assemblyman Knecht thanked Ms. Buckley for her comprehensive and detailed presentation. He said that Ms. Buckley posed a concern, which he appreciated, that was to insure all legal pro-bono work provided was something contributed by the city attorney or deputy city attorney from their own time and their own resources, and not from taxpayer resources that were oriented toward their regular jobs. Mr. Knecht stated that his other concern was the possibility of conflict. Mr. Knecht asked if there was a record kept or some way that the public could be assured that conflicts were not raised in the cases, and that the pro-bono workload was not interfering with getting the paid job done. He asked how a citizen in Las Vegas would determine that.
Ms. Buckley replied that anybody who wanted to find out about those concerns would probably contact the head of the public entity involved. Each office developed guidelines on how pro bono service would be done. In both the state statute and all policy guidelines, it was required that permission be granted, and a “conflicts check” conducted. The attorney in charge would keep track that the service was provided pro bono on the normal vacation and sick-leave schedules, and all attorneys would have to report on their activities. She said that the Supreme Court should adopt mandatory reporting of pro-bono activities, something she had been suggesting for the past two years, in order to keep track of all of the time that was volunteered. Internally, a policy manual existed for each public agency that documented the procedures, and the person in charge of the office kept a record.
Assemblyman Knecht said that the way he understood Ms. Buckley’s answer, currently there were procedural policy manuals in place, but should a citizen want to get a summary, or some detail, on what kind of services were being provided and by whom, there was no central repository of that information until the mandatory reporting became law.
Assemblywoman Buckley stated that currently a citizen would have to contact the head of each public entity and request the information. The agency would then need to compile that information and provide it to the citizen. Ms. Buckley said that within a year’s time there should be a central repository with the State Bar of Nevada.
Assemblywoman Weber asked Ms. Buckley if she knew how many hours attorneys were devoting to pro-bono work.
Ms. Buckley stated that in Clark County, last year, there were 5,100 volunteer hours from attorneys, and the figure represented the highest level of volunteer hours since the pro-bono project was taken over by Clark County Legal Services in Las Vegas. She stated that she did not have the statewide numbers available, but Washoe Legal Services had a pro-bono program for Reno, and the Nevada Legal Services in Carson City helped support the Volunteer Attorneys of Rural Nevada that coordinated volunteer services for the rural communities. Three years ago there were 188 volunteer attorneys in Clark County, and at the end of last year there were 485 volunteer attorneys. She added that last year the count was 3,000 active lawyers in Clark County, and the goal would be to reach the 50 percent mark. She stated that mandatory reporting would provide an accurate number. She explained that a long list of attorneys do a lot of volunteering, and they carry a load equal to 50 lawyers because of their involvement.
Assemblywoman Weber asked Ms. Buckley if she knew how many people had been helped by the attorneys participating in the program.
Assemblywoman Buckley said that in 2002, in Clark County, 10,000 people received some sort of legal advice or referral. Approximately 2,500 people benefited from free legal classes provided by Boyd Law School students who volunteered 50 hours as part of their law school curriculum. Of the 5,100 hours of pro bono service, she did not know how many people were represented by that figure. She stated that she would get the information to the Chairman. Ms. Buckley stated that the City Attorney of the City of Las Vegas supported the bill and would be proposing a different language that she believed accomplished the same goal, and supported their suggestion, or the will of the Committee.
Chairman Manendo acknowledged, via the simultaneous videoconference, Brad Jerbic, at the witness table in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Brad Jerbic, City Attorney, Las Vegas, Nevada, indicated that he was listening attentively while Ms. Buckley spoke about A.B. 150. He stated that he agreed with all of her comments, and reiterated that the Clark County pro-bono project was very worthwhile. He said that many people in his office, including himself, would like to participate in the program, and when he explained to Assemblywoman Buckley that a charter provision prohibited their involvement, she quickly introduced the bill, which would cure the problem. Mr. Jerbic reiterated his support of A.B. 150 in the form it was drafted and submitted by Ms. Buckley.
Chairman Manendo asked if other language would be submitted.
Ms. Buckley stated that she did not know if it would be submitted or not.
Mr. Jerbic replied that he had looked at some language that would expand his staff’s ability to provide pro-bono work, but because of the lateness of the hour, he believed Ms. Buckley’s language was probably better and would support the original language and not submit an amendment.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Jerbic, and he asked if anyone else wanted to testify.
Benjamin Blinn stated that he was a concerned citizen, and had the following comments:
I looked up in Black’s legal dictionary the word “pro bono,” but there is also another word there, publico, or something like that, which as you can guess means for the welfare of the general public is defined in the dictionary from wherever pro bono is the Latin term for a charitable, no fee, and for different people and for two reasons I’d like to also give you another slant on it. Doctors who have been through the feeding frenzy of people who advertise on TV that say if you’ve got a problem and it has to do with this and that, then we get the piranha lawyers that want to go for the pocket book and the deep pockets and a lot of these guys are doing pro bono medicine in the E.R. wards, which you know under “Burton Hill” you collect the bill for and pay because somebody didn’t have insurance. So, to lower the active feeding frenzy of a new lawyer out that wants to do this, if pro bono work were extended not only to the City attorneys and these people, but to the medical association then the 57 percent of the money that was given to somebody in redress that went to the lawyers on both sides that have the case, they get paid, so as long as that’s not designated like for the medical people who are the good Samaritans, their idea is to keep everybody alive, they don’t care if you’re a prisoner, they don’t care if you’re a Senator or a Representative of the Assembly, they try to keep you alive whether you’ve got a ducat or you don’t, money or you do not. And by making it pro bono, even for the malpractice suit deal, because the doctors are so public that our gynecologists are running off and I know that interests all of us who have children and grandchildren. Absolutely we don’t want the fees to go up in those areas because the doctor has to pay his insurance too. If this were pro bono, that 57 percent that the victim, whether it’s the doctor or the other one, gets on a case settlement that 57 percent would be whacked off the top of all doctors and if the pro bono was extended also, as Barbara’s solution, as they are not only public servants. I mean I’ve been on the highway and the doctor stops, I’ve been in the football game as a coach and the doctor comes out of the general audience for immediate attendance. Just like the Good Samaritan Act, which he is as a profession, he feels that part of his swearing duty to that of life is to risk. And back to the pro bono idea, again that would cut it all out against the malpractice if you made all of that idea pro bono work, too. I would think that this is a start to allow the city attorney to practice. The other thing, the American Bar Association, I believe by policy, not by law, has declared that a certain amount of pro bono is needed by everybody. Sure, I appreciate an intern doing the teaching of what the lawyer does going out there, he does some pro bono work and educating the community as to law. I think that’s a great thing that’s happening, but I also think that if you capped the payoff like you have, dropped it another 57 percent of the cap right now that you felt was workable and suitable in doing the thing then that at 45 percent or 50 percent you can cut that in half to help the doctors more, if you made it all pro bono you take the lawyers out of the game required every lawyer in the state of Nevada that $3,000 bank. It’s nice that we have people that are altruistic, like myself. The idea being that if you take the money out of the deal and require, if you’re going to practice medicine, or you’re going to practice law, that you do your pro bono work. I’m sure AMA already does the pro bono, I’m positive. They’re the best people about. Promote the general welfare of the public is also a statement you are probably familiar with as students of the Constitution and as guardians of that for we the people, that’s all of us, that protect your doctor and to take the protect the poor guy, the indigent, as much as you’ve done it under the least of these my brethren is what your moral men teach from the good book, the Bible. And you practice it as believers, I believe that the requirement, if you want to get re-licensed as a lawyer, that you have so many pro bono hours, or doctor hours, might be a consideration of this Committee. I support the bill, and I’m open to questions on my ideas.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Blinn, and asked him to sign in for the record.
Chairman Manendo asked if anyone else was present to testify on A.B. 150. Hearing no response the Chairman closed the hearing and said he would entertain a motion.
ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 150.
ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Manendo asked Assemblywoman Buckley if she would like to defend the bill on the floor. Ms. Buckley replied that she would.
Chairman Manendo stated that the next item on the agenda was A.B. 153.
Assembly Bill 153: Revises provisions regarding petty cash accounts of state agencies and Emergency Account in State General Fund. (BDR 31-509)
John Perry Comeaux, Director, State of Nevada Department of Administration, stated that A. B. 153, if approved, would make two changes to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 353, relating to state financial administration. He indicated that the first change was on lines 4 and 5 of Section 1. A limit of $250 currently existed on the size of a petty cash account that an agency could maintain. He stated that if at one time it was a good idea to place a limit on the petty cash account, it was no longer a good idea. The bill would remove the limit and give the authority to the Board of Examiners or the Clerk of the Board to determine the appropriate size of a fund for a particular state agency. Mr. Comeaux explained that the second change could be found on page 2, lines 20 through 23. He said the change would allow the Board of Examiners to delegate to its clerk the authority to determine if an emergency existed as defined in NRS 353.263, for purposes of approving expenditure from the emergency account. He stated that the emergency account was established and was funded by direct appropriation of the Legislature for the purpose of providing the Board of Examiners with funding to allocate to state agencies in the event of an emergency situation that they were not funded to handle. He stated that he would be pleased to answer any questions from the Committee.
Assemblyman Grady asked Mr. Comeaux to provide examples where the provisions of the bill would be used, and if $250 were not a good amount of money for a petty cash account, what amount he would recommend.
Mr. Comeaux stated that the $250 limit was not sufficient in change funds of various agencies that handle cash transactions. Those situations required frequent replenishment when the accounts were used for casual purchases of supplies.
Assemblyman Collins said that in the last legislative session the cash-on-hand fund for the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicle was increased because of the many transactions required at their counters. He asked Mr. Comeaux to provide the name of an agency whose cash box in Carson City would not be adequately funded on a daily basis with the $250 current limit.
Mr. Comeaux stated he could not think of one. He explained that a lot of petty cash funds were approved for the Nevada Department of Human Resources, and the money used was for purchases at rural clinics. He explained that there were records of every petty cash account, and he would provide the information to the Committee.
Chairman Manendo stated that he understood the request to eliminate the $250 figure but needed guidance about what figure the $250 should be replaced with.
Mr. Comeaux responded that doubling the $250 would probably be adequate, but the concern about replacing it with a certain amount was that some years from now a successor would be approaching the Legislature making the same request. He suggested to the Committee that the Board of Examiners or their Clerk would be capable of making the decision about expenditure amounts.
Assemblywoman Pierce asked if the petty cash account and the emergency account were the same.
Mr. Comeaux replied that they were not.
Assemblywoman Weber stated if the account had no limit, money would be spent. She stated she was uncomfortable with not establishing a limit for all petty cash funds. She asked how many petty cash accounts existed as described in the statute.
Mr. Comeaux replied that he could not provide an exact number, but would provide the Committee with the information. From a procedural standpoint, for an agency to have a petty cash fund, it must be approved for a specific amount and for a specific purpose by either the Board of Examiners or, if they delegate it to their clerk, by the Clerk of the Board. He said that the petty cash accounts were established from funds that were appropriated or authorized to that agency, and not from money that was given to them by the Board of Examiners.
Chairman Manendo thanked Mr. Comeaux for his testimony, and he asked if anyone else wanted to speak on A.B. 153. Hearing no response Chairman Manendo closed the hearing.
Assemblyman Collins asked if research could be conducted to determine if the cost of postage would come out of petty cash funds. He said that the Committee needed to be provided with specific examples.
Chairman Manendo stated that someone would look into the questions and provide the Committee with answers.
Chairman Manendo asked Assemblyman Williams if he was working on a bill for Mrs. Gibbons, and if the information would be available on Friday. Mr. Williams stated that they were close, and would have something for the Committee on Friday.
Chairman Manendo asked Mr. Hardy if the new language would be ready for the Committee on A.B. 57. Assemblyman Hardy replied that suggested language was e-mailed to the interested parties and their responses were expected soon.
Chairman Manendo said that the Committee secretaries had worked hard on the minutes, and the minutes needed to be reviewed. He explained that he would delegate the review of the minutes to the various Committee members.
Chairman Manendo adjourned the hearing.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rosemary Zienter
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Mark Manendo, Chairman
DATE: