MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-Second Session
May 1, 2003
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:50 a.m., on Thursday, May 1, 2003. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mr. William Horne
Mr. Garn Mabey
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
Mr. Rod Sherer
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. David Brown (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District
Senator Michael A. Schneider, District No. 11, Clark County
Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Donald Winne, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General
Leland Sullivan, Chief, Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, Nevada Department of Human Resources
Noel Waters, Carson City District Attorney, and President, Nevada District Attorneys Association
Gary Stagliano, Deputy Administrator, Information Systems, Welfare Division, Nevada Department of Human Resources
Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
Mary Lou Fineman, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, Safe Nest
Trudy Bruke-Creazzo, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, Safe Nest
Mary Terzian, Crisis Counselor/ Victim Advocate, Safe Nest
Joni Kaiser, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women, Washoe County
Barbara Spring, Temporary Protection Order Office, Second Judicial District, Reno, and representing Committee to Aid Abused Women
Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association
Chairman Anderson:
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary will please come to order. [Roll called.] There is a quorum. Assemblyman Brown is absent and excused. We are going to take Senate Bill 186, then Senate Bill 269, and Senate Bill 224. I see there are quite a few people who are in the south wishing to testify on S.B. 224. The primary sponsors have asked for S.B. 224 to be moved to the end of the agenda since they are also in the Senate at this particular moment.
[The Chair reminded the Committee members and those present in the audience of the Standing Rules and appropriate meeting etiquette.]
Let’s turn to the first bill of the day, S.B. 186.
Senate Bill 186: Imposes fee upon obligor of child support who is subject to withholding of income by his employer. (BDR 3-446)
Donald Winne, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General:
The Welfare Division approached us to sponsor S.B. 186 and we were told that the Nevada District Attorneys Association wanted this piece of legislation as well, so that’s why I am here. I am here to introduce this as a bill that was sponsored by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of the Welfare Division.
Leland Sullivan, Chief, Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, Nevada Department of Human Resources:
[Introduced himself and submitted Exhibit C.] I am here to support S.B. 186, which will provide revenue to state and county partners through the imposition of a $2 increase in the income-withholding fee paid by the noncustodial parents. Under current law, employers may deduct $3 for each income withholding to cover their administrative costs. Passage of S.B. 186 would add an additional $2 to each withholding; employers would be required to forward the new fee to the Nevada State Treasurer. This fee would then be distributed between the counties participating in the child support program and the state to assist in paying the costs associated with administering the program.
The cost in issuing a check to a custodial parent as a result of income withholding is $1.74. The revenue from the new $2 fee will offset that cost. It should be noted that orders for income withholding are issued by courts for noncustodial parents who fail to voluntarily pay their child support. With the fees being paid to the Treasurer’s Office, the fee revenue does not have to be shared with the federal government. Under federal rules, program income must be shared with the federal government, dramatically reducing the state-retained share. With the fees being retained as General Fund dollars through the Treasurer’s Office, the child support program would receive 100 percent of the revenue.
[Mr. Sullivan continued] Child support is an integral part of financial stability for many families. For low-income families receiving child support payments, it is a crucial component in achieving and maintaining self-sufficiency. In state fiscal year 2002, the program distributed $16 million in support payments to former Nevada public assistance recipients and in excess of $6 million to families receiving cash assistance. The Nevada program is a strong partnership between the state and county district attorneys’ offices participating in the program. The program provides services to Nevada families at no cost upon receipt of an application of services. Services are also provided to families in other states when the noncustodial parent resides in Nevada. In fiscal year 2002, the program distributed in excess of $115 million to these families.
The Nevada Child Support Enforcement Program operates under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. By participating in the program, the federal government reimburses the program for 66 percent of eligible expenditures. The difference in federal reimbursement and state/county expenditures is covered by county General Fund and state-retained child support collections.
If you look at the handout (Exhibit C, Attachment A), I would be happy to walk you through how the program is funded. In the Governor’s recommended budget for state fiscal year 2004, total expenditures are $46.6 million. The county expenditures are $29.2 million. Of that, federal reimbursement would come in at $22 million, and the difference of $7.2 million is county General Fund. On the state side of the program, we are projecting $17.4 million in expenditures, $10.7 million would be federal matching funds, state share collections would be $4.2 million, and then the state General Fund is $2.5 million.
State share collections are when a family goes on public assistance, they assign child support payments to the state. When we collect that, we split that with the federal government and the state. I would like to mention when you start looking at state share collections, [that was] one of the reasons we are looking for this legislation. Three years ago, when the TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) caseload dropped, state-share collections were reduced. There were also some changes in distribution requirements from the federal government, and we had to do come downsizing at that point in time. In the year 2002, 42 positions were reduced on the state side because of fiscal issues.
In recent years, federal changes have increased state responsibilities without a corresponding increase in program funding. With the conversion of NOMADS (Nevada Operations Multi-Automated Data Systems), the state assumed full financial responsibility for a statewide automation system allowing counties to retire use of their existing systems. The NOMADS also resulted in the state experiencing a substantial increase in correspondence and mail costs due to centralized collections.
[Mr. Sullivan continued] In August 2000, federal regulations required the state introduction of the State Collections and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) for centralized collection and distribution of child support collections. The SCaDU eliminated a function previously accomplished by each county, thus, making it a state business activity supported by state funds. Lastly, in 2002, the federal government reduced the state share of retained funding from 50 percent to 48 percent. That funding will continue to be reduced in future years also.
Passage of S.B. 186 enhances the fiscal stability of the Nevada Child Support Program, both state and county, through equal distribution of revenue collected. Using historical income withholding information, we suggest this initiative could generate approximately $1 million in revenue each state fiscal year, which will be split 50/50 between the state and county child support programs. With increasing caseloads and the many changes facing the program, this additional revenue would greatly assist the program in providing services to Nevada’s families.
[Exhibit C], Attachment B, shows services provided by the program. Families receiving public assistance in January 2003 totaled 53,525, receiving TANF cash grants, Medicaid, or foster care. We have nonassistance cases of 42,155. Again, I mentioned earlier there is no application fee; this is where the custodial parent comes into the local family support division of the district attorney’s office and applies for services. We have 19,597 interstate cases, where the custodial parent resides in another state, and they refer the case to us because the noncustodial parent resides in Nevada. That gives us a total caseload of 115,277 cases as of January 2003. Currently the child support caseload is increasing by 1,000 cases each month, another significant burden on both the state and counties providing services.
Out of the 115,277 cases, we have 61,353 noncustodial parents with orders, however, approximately 5,200 are paying their current child support obligations and there is no past due support on that. I would venture to guess, we have no way of tracking, I would say that the majority of those noncustodial parents probably at one point in time had past due support.
The services we provide to the families when they apply are as follows:
[Mr. Sullivan continued] All those receiving program services must have child support payments go through the SCaDU. As I mentioned earlier, it costs us $1.74 to process those payments out to the custodial parents. We process $115 million in state fiscal year 2002 and this year we will probably be close to $125 million in child support payments. Out of the $115 million we distributed in 2002, income-withholding collections accounted for 61 percent, $69.6 million. The other $45 million were payments either directly to the local offices or payments from interstate collections from other child support agencies.
In the last two years, the district attorneys’ offices in Lander and Esmeralda Counties have dropped out of the program due to fiscal issues. Services for these families are now being provided by the state and the district attorney’s office in Elko County.
Our costs in the program continue to grow and this bill will help us to meet those ever-increasing expenses. I encourage your support of S.B. 186, thereby, providing a stable revenue source for state and county Child Support Enforcement programs.
Chairman Anderson:
I have many new members of the Legislature who were not here to hear this bill last time. This bill has been through this Committee before, as I recall—in and out. [Mr. Winne concurred.]
Noel Waters, Carson City District Attorney, and President, Nevada District Attorneys Association (NDAA):
[Introduced himself.] I am here to offer the NDAA’s and my personal support of this particular legislation, S.B. 186. I think Mr. Sullivan has covered the pros of what we are seeking to do. I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a reasonable expense related to the cost of a wage garnishment proceeding and the administrative cost of recovering the funds from noncustodial parents. I think also it is important to stress that this is for the custodial parent and the children who are entitled to statutory child support. This is a free program, and we want to be able to continue to provide those services. Even when looking at it from the perspective of the noncustodial parent who may be “dunned” respectively for the $2 wage withholding expense, it is considerably less expensive than it would be for a parent to hire private outside counsel and to absorb the cost of attorney fees and collecting these obligations. I think it’s quite clear that the amount of money we are talking about here is not intended to do more than help offset some of the costs that both the counties and the state have to pay and absorb to carry on this very important program. Indeed, we would request your favorable support on this legislation, S.B. 186.
Chairman Anderson:
One of the things that has also troubled me about this particular question—we managed to get through it last time—is the fact that most of these people who are assigned to make these payments are generally economically disadvantaged to a point—a 50/50 split—either they have an awful lot of money who are ducking the bullet or those who are barely holding it all together. The guy in the middle seems to be okay, but the two ends of the spectrum . . . What would you say is the split of those being assigned? Is it that they just don’t have enough money to make ends meet and therefore they have to be deducted or they’ll never make payments? Or is it professional individuals who just don’t think they need to meet the obligation?
Noel Waters:
In my experience, I think, indeed, the majority of those subjected to withholding are those who are living closer to the edge economically. That’s not to say that we don’t have our full share of “scofflaws” out there who basically won’t pay until they are required to do so and are forced to do so through the operation of the law. The point I would make is that the $2 expense that is being sought here is related to what it costs the government and other taxpayers to recover this amount, and it is an obligation that the parent has. The law imposes it above and beyond other day-to-day expenses. It’s your duty to supply support to your children; it’s first and foremost. It comes before your rent and your beer allowance. I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for noncustodial parents who, as we pointed out here, most of those we have wage withholding on, we also have arrearages orders on, which means they have not been paying in the past, resulting in a necessity to do this type of collection. I think $2 is reasonable to impose under those circumstances.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
This $2 fee that you deduct, is this done per pay period? How often is this done?
Leland Sullivan:
Currently, the $3 fee is for each withholding that the employer withholds toward the child support payment from the employee’s income. If the noncustodial parent gets paid every two weeks, the employer has the ability to withhold $3 to cover their costs. What we would be looking for is to add the additional $2 every time the employer makes a withholding. The employer would withhold the $2 to submit to the state.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
So, it would be for every pay period. [Mr. Sullivan concurred.] I would like to see if you have any information showing your caseload fluctuations within the last five years. You say you have 115,000 cases now; I would like to see what that has been for the last few years, if possible.
Leland Sullivan:
I will submit that to the Committee. [Exhibit D was submitted to the Committee at a later point in the hearing.]
Assemblyman Carpenter:
How will you implement this so that an employer knows to send the check to the Treasurer?
Leland Sullivan:
We will do several outreach activities. We will do a mass mailer to all employers that are currently withholding income, advising them of the change and where to mail the payments. We also have a Web site, which is available to the employers, and we will advise them that if they have questions, they can go to the Web site or contact our customer service area. Also the Department of Employment Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) has an employer newsletter that is distributed, and we will use that also to advise the employers. Basically it is the same type of outreach activities when we had to move to the SCaDU; we had to notify all the employers of the new location to send payments. We will look to do the outreach in he same manner as we did several years ago.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I did not hear from the Elko District Attorney specifically, but I heard from his Chief Deputy, she said she did not like it because those people who are having a tough time paying the child support could not afford another $50 away from them over a year’s time. Don’t you feel that ought to go to the children rather than to the program? Personally, I don’t have a problem with it, but she was adamant that she didn’t like it.
Leland Sullivan:
We do have several counties that actually made some money on the program in state fiscal year 2002; Elko County was one and Humboldt County was the other. When you talk about making money on the program, you have the 66 percent federal reimbursement and then, based on performance indicators for the county, you get incentive payments. Also the federal government allows 10 percent indirect costs. In 2002, I believe, Elko County, after their costs were covered, had approximately $99,000. I think you are looking at an environment in Elko County that’s a little bit different than Washoe and Clark Counties, where the programs are significantly higher, with different enforcement tools and obstacles than the larger areas have to deal with.
As Mr. Waters mentioned, when talking about some kind of revenue source for the program, all the district attorneys were not interested in having to charge the custodial parent who is having a difficult time in most instances anyway. When looking at what would be the most appropriate mechanism to do that, they felt the noncustodial parent level was appropriate. The employers are allowed to recover for their cost to do this business. We are doing more business activities and we are just asking for $2 to help offset our costs. Again, there is no cost to the custodial parent and I think we want to continue it that way.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think it might be the mindset of our district attorney and those people who work in that office. They really go after these people. I hope that just because they made money on the program, you won’t penalize them.
Leland Sullivan:
Definitely not, it’s a very good program being run in Elko County. We are pleased with the activity. As I mentioned, Lander County dropped out of the program due to fiscal issues. We looked to see if some of our partners could assist in servicing that caseload. Elko County stepped up, and we are more than willing to assist in that effort. Elko County has been a good partner in the program.
Assemblyman Horne:
Earlier in the session, we had an Assembly bill that dealt with wage withholding from noncustodial parents who had this garnishment done by their employer for simply changing jobs. I believe that is in the Senate now. I hate to see us move on this before we know what happened with that bill because it would affect them as well.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
The $3 that the employer may deduct for administrative costs, that’s for cutting the check for the money that was withheld, right?
Leland Sullivan:
Correct, that’s to help offset the employer’s costs. If they were taking $100 in current child support from the noncustodial parent’s earnings, they would actually take $103. The $3 they would retain and send the $100 to the SCaDU, and then we would forward it on to the family.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
If it cost him a $1.74 to cut one check, now he is going to cut two checks in order to send $2 to the Treasurer. Is that correct?
Leland Sullivan:
This bill allows the employers to send the payments to the Treasurer quarterly. They could cut one check every quarter for the amount of withholdings. If the employer preferred to do every withholding, they have that option. What we have tried to do is allow a lot of flexibility for the employer to forward the payments to the Treasurer.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
If you feel that cutting the check is negligible because it is printed out on the computer and the administration cost is $1.74, the employer who collects $3 is paying $3.48 in costs versus the $3 he collects for two checks instead of one. And then $2 more taken out of the paycheck of the noncustodial parent, that’s $5 that adds up to $125 a year that could go to the child instead of all of these extra fees. We talk all the time about local government making money as a good thing, but every time local government makes a little bit of money it comes out of the pocket of our constituents. I don’t like that, although I know some of it is necessary.
Gary Stagliano, Deputy Administrator, Information Systems, Welfare Division, Nevada Department of Human Resources:
[Introduced himself and submitted Exhibit E.] The $1.74 that we are speaking of is the state’s charge to administer that account and distribute payments. When we receive a payment for support, we pass that through the SCaDU and the state administers that account. The state currently gets no reimbursement from the noncustodial parent (NCP) for the services we provide.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
If it costs the state $1.74, shouldn’t it cost the employer $1.74 roughly equivalent?
Gary Stagliano:
I would agree with you on using your scenario, but the employer has the opportunity to offset some of his charges with that $3 withholding; the state has no opportunity, so that cost is borne by the taxpayers, both state and county.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
I am saying that if the employer has to cut two checks, then it goes up to $3.48, which is more than he collects.
Gary Stagliano:
The remedy in S.B. 186 provides the employer the opportunity to “bundle” those payments, so if they withheld from 100 employees, they could “bundle” those payments into one check with an itemized list of those individuals. The other thing to note also, the remedy that we are using with the Treasurer’s office is to avoid splitting these dollars with the federal government. That’s why we are using an unusual technique to send the payments through the Treasurer’s office rather than bringing them directly into the program. If they come into the program, we are obligated to split whatever collections we have with the federal government.
Assemblywoman Angle:
For my own clarification, you are collecting this every time an NCP is paid? If a NCP is paid on a weekly basis, there is a $2 charge every week, and there is no limit. If a NCP were a day laborer, he would be charged $2 because you garnished his wages. The second piece of my clarification would be, you have been saying “allow,” but none of this is permissive, right? It is all a mandate; the employer must collect this $2 and his $3. Is that correct? There is no permissiveness in this; every time an NCP is paid, the employer must collect these fees. Is that correct?
Leland Sullivan:
Currently in statute, the $3 fee, the employer “may” collect; it is not a requirement to withhold the $3. We are requesting the $2 fee to be a requirement to withhold and submit that on a quarterly basis or a pay-period basis. Could you repeat your other question?
Assemblywoman Angle:
Every time that NCP gets paid, the $2 fee must be collected. Is that correct? There is no flexibility in here. If I get paid once a month, I am only going to pay $2. But if I get paid once a week, it’s $8. To me, it almost penalizes the NCP who gets a more regular paycheck. I am wondering how often those checks are sent out. If an NCP pays every week, does the custodial parent get a check every week? How does that work?
Leland Sullivan:
The bill is “with each pay period” the payment would be deducted. I believe the majority of payments we do receive, most people get paid every two weeks. Then twice a year you have that third pay day. There wasn’t any way to track that mechanism through our system. As far as the payments going to the family, federal law requires that payments go through the SCaDU and be distributed to the family within two days. Currently we are doing that. Again, as soon as the money comes in and we receipt it, we issue a check to the family within two days after receipt.
Assemblyman Claborn:
You stated that a couple of the counties made almost $100,000.
Leland Sullivan:
Elko County, after they covered all their expenditures, realized about $99,000 in state fiscal year 2002. I believe, Humboldt County realized a little over $12,000 in state fiscal year 2002 after their expenditures.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Does anybody know where the profits went? What happened to the money?
Leland Sullivan:
That money is sent to the county and would be put into the county General Fund. Again, the intent is to offset the expenditures the counties are fronting to operate the program.
Assemblyman Claborn:
They are making profit off the individuals who send the money in, I understand. If we give another $2 to this program, then all we are doing is making more money and taking it away from those who pay the money, and it goes into the General Fund. Is that correct?
Leland Sullivan:
Again, as I testified earlier, if you go to Attachment A, it is not the case. The counties, by and large, will end fiscal year 2002 by contributing $7.2 million in county General Fund money. On the state side, we will be contributing $2.5 million in General Fund money. Also on the state side, we have state share collections, which is not a stable revenue source. Our concern is that we would like to establish a revenue source that would be stable to reduce General Fund costs. With the caseload increasing 1,000 cases a month, hopefully we can use this revenue to offset having to go to the state and counties to get more General Fund dollars in the difficult times we are facing.
Assemblyman Claborn:
I really don’t see funding any programs with a situation like this because they are making money. I can’t see that. I am going to have to see a lot more records or be convinced that this program must be put together. I haven’t seen that as yet.
Assemblyman Mabey:
Where the employer may deduct an additional $3 for each income withholding does that happen every time? Does the employer do that out of habit?
Leland Sullivan:
We have no way of tracking that because the employer may or may not. When they submit the payment, we do not know whether they have deducted that payment or not. We do not have a mechanism to track that.
Gary Stagliano:
I would like to summarize why the Welfare Division is pursuing this legislation and asked the Office of the Attorney General to sponsor this legislation. There are five principal reasons why we believe we need this:
We are asking for a fair chance to be able to be halfway cost-neutral. You have heard the state say it costs $1.74 to process these checks. The state under this bill would only retain $1 and pass $1 to the county out of the $2 withholdings. The state is not making itself whole in this endeavor either. There are additional costs. Those are my issues. I wanted to make sure the Committee was aware of why we pursued this; that’s the motivation for the bill.
Chairman Anderson:
I need to “take us back” to remember what this is all about. I think that part of the confusion for the Committee is that this is part of the “deadbeat dad” program. The reason that we are here is because of “deadbeat dads” or at least what was called “deadbeat dads.” The federal government and the United States Attorney General decided that we were going to actively pursue those people who were avoiding their child welfare payments because they were falling as a greater burden on the state, and the noncustodial parent was not paying their child welfare obligation; that is why this program began. Isn’t that where we are coming from?
Because we were reaching into our pockets as taxpayers and the noncustodial parents were not meeting their financial obligations, which had been established by court, the children were falling on the welfare role. We decided to move more and more of that population off the welfare role as we attempted to make deadbeat dads recognize their child support obligations. I want to remind us all, that is an important part of this discussion. It falls to the district attorneys to carry out the collection of those child support obligations. In some states, like California, it has become a separate office entirely from the district attorneys’ offices with a lifeblood of its own. Am I on track?
What we have discovered over the last 6 or 8 years that this has been in place, the deadbeat dad program has been 10 years . . .
Leland Sullivan:
The Child Support Program has been in place almost 24 years. PRWORA was about 6 years ago.
Chairman Anderson:
We really got “hot on the trail” within the last couple of years. In 1999, we saw an increased burden on the counties and we tried to move with a piece of legislation that would set up a program where we would cover some of the costs of picking up the obligation. I think we clearly understand that the person who is not able to make their child support payments . . . What we are trying to do is make sure that the dollars reach the mothers.
While all of us want more dollars to go to the mother, we also recognize that we have to operate the program. We are afraid that in making the program whole, if we pull so many dollars away from the guy who can barely get by currently, he will say, “Forget it, I won’t work at all. I will go on welfare. Why should I work for nothing?” We are going to put the Division of Welfare economically up, running a nice bureaucratic agency at the expense of the guy who can least afford it, in so doing, harming the child support mother who needs the buck.
We need reassurance from you that you are not getting rich on it. However, from the sound of Elko County and Humboldt County, they are making enough to put money into the General Fund of the county, which doesn’t seem to us what we were all supposed to be about. Have I misstated something here? We are not looking for you to increase the size of your division, but we are trying to make sure that the program operates. How narrow can we “cut the nut” to make sure that we are not putting people down or getting them to quit their jobs?
Noel Waters:
First and foremost, I want to emphasize that most of our counties and the state are not making money off the Nevada Child Support Program and we have not made money off of it. Frankly, Elko and Humboldt Counties wouldn’t make money but for the fact that the reimbursement through the federal government is there. Otherwise, it definitely costs us to carry out these programs. In Carson City, we figure it costs our taxpayers $91,000 to carry on this program; that’s 2,400 cases, up about 300 cases compared to last year. We need this additional assistance to offset these costs. Carson City is no different than other counties in terms of being strapped financially.
I think the other concern is that it doesn’t necessarily follow that an extra $2 in the noncustodial parent’s pocket is going to help any kid or any custodial parent. The problem has arisen because these payments have not been made voluntarily and there is an unwillingness to pay the statutorily required obligation to support one’s children. We feel that this $2, which is a fair and reasonable offset for our actual costs of administration, if it remains in the hands of the noncustodial parent, based upon past history, it is more likely to end up as additional living expense for that person. Frankly, we don’t think that is fair that the taxpayers absorb the cost of supporting this child as opposed to the parent continuing to avoid that responsibility.
Chairman Anderson:
In addition to those things already mentioned, we also recognize that when we set up the program, the businesses have financial costs to do the bookkeeping side of identifying their employees, cutting special checks, and therefore we allow them to put a charge on their employee for doing an obligatory service for us. We are covering the employer’s cost. We are covering your cost, we think.
However, we see certain employees are hit harder than others and those are the people who tend to be day workers and weekly payees, as compared to somebody who is a monthly salaried employee. Therefore, since day workers and weekly payees tend to be employed in more at-risk type jobs that are in and out of the workforce, they are the least able, and yet they pay the highest economic cost out-of-pocket. The employer could conceivably make the biggest amount of money. The employer doesn’t have to charge and we recognize that, but we have no way of knowing whether he is or not. Nor do we know if the employer is charging $3 or $5.
Leland Sullivan:
I know that one of the bills you are going to hear later on this morning talks about modification of child support orders—changes of 20 percent upward or downward where there is a change in circumstance. I hear the concern regarding the noncustodial parent. Again, what I am showing is that between the state and the county, we are contributing almost $10 million. The caseload continues to increase and the cost continues to increase. If we have problems, we may have to cut back on services.
Right now we are providing modification services. Federal requirements are that when the order is three years, we have to do, at the request of either party, a review to see if an order modification should take place. Currently in policy we have certain criteria that we will review orders and changes in circumstances of the noncustodial parent’s income, and we are able to address those needs. If a noncustodial parent has a decrease in earnings or loses his job, he has the ability to come into the family support division and ask for a downward modification so the child support order reflects his current earnings. We are able to do that currently.
We have some mechanisms in place, and I would be more than willing to provide the number of modification orders that we did within the last fiscal year to assist. We have been talking about supporting the families, but we have mechanisms there for the noncustodial parents. We also have some other programs to assist. We are receiving federal grant money to provide access and visitation dollars in the two larger counties. If there are issues regarding access and visitation, the courts can make referrals and they will have a counselor work with both the custodial and noncustodial parents.
Chairman Anderson:
The cost of those programs doesn’t come out of these dollars?
Leland Sullivan:
No, they don’t; it’s a federal grant. Then also in southern Nevada we have an employment and training program that is funded through the Welfare Division to assist those noncustodial parents. Maybe they have obstacles in seeking employment. We do have some areas through some partners with the Nevada Child Support Program to assist some of those noncustodial parents who are unable to obtain jobs.
Chairman Anderson:
Those are dollars that are provided at taxpayer expense, but paid for in this program. [Mr. Sullivan agreed.] We are reaching into our pockets again and again to carry out the program, to make sure that they are employed, if we can find them a job or we can upgrade their job, so that they make their obligatory payments.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I think it needs to be explained to the Committee that the reason Elko and Humboldt Counties made money, I don’t know exactly all of the reasons, but I think it is the efficiency that they have and the way that they go after these collections. It would seem to me that’s the reason they were able to get these incentives. I think it is an incentive to the counties based upon the kind of reimbursements they get. Am I right or wrong?
Gary Stagliano:
You are absolutely correct. It is the federal government recognizing the outstanding achievements of Elko and Humboldt Counties. That’s why you received the additional monies.
Chairman Anderson:
You don’t think that it’s because of the percentage of employees in Elko County who may be working in the mining industry, a single employer. The real secret to this is the willingness of the employer to participate vigorously in the program. If you have a community that really wants to make sure when they get the request that they follow through on it, you are going to get a high compliance rate. If you have a single employer, as much as Elko County does with the mining industry, that may be a contributing factor, maybe not the only factor, but people are concerned about deadbeat dads in Elko. What do you think?
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I just think it is a combination of the relatively low number of mines that employ a large number of people, but on the other hand there is also a large number of employers that don’t have a lot of employees. I think that if they get an order to garnish wages, they will take that money out of the check. They feel it is their obligation too; they don’t want to see the children not taken care of. I think everybody kind of contributes to it. I just don’t want the Committee to think that it is a windfall to Elko; I think it is an incentive program. They work hard at it. There have been two or three ladies in that office who have been up there for a long time and they really do follow up on these things.
Leland Sullivan:
We do have incentive payments (Exhibit E). In state fiscal year 2002, based on the performance of our program, we received approximately $2.2 million in incentive dollars from the federal government. In our interlocal agreement with the counties’ district attorneys’ offices, we pass on those dollars to the counties based on their performance. Again, when we talk about Elko and Humboldt Counties, those incentive dollars passed on from the federal government is what is making the difference in those two counties. In the other counties, those bonus incentive payments are still not covering all their costs in the program.
Assemblyman Geddes:
You said you weren’t sure if the employer was taking his $3 or not. Would you know if the employer was taking $5 or $20?
Leland Sullivan:
We could probably do some cross matching, but right now we don’t have a vehicle and there is nothing in this bill for employer penalties if there is non-compliance on the employer’s part.
Noel Waters:
I have dealt with noncustodial parents coming into the office to inquire about the withholding process; sometimes they are not happy about it, obviously. In my view, because it is the law, it would be the employer extracting a cost that is not justified in the law; I think we would hear about it. I am quite confident that we would. People pay attention to that, every dime that comes out of their check; there would be questions if that occurred.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned for Clark County from Elko County and the other counties that are making money. If they are so efficient, why is Clark County not efficient? So there is a lesson to be learned; if they were doing the job like Elko and the other counties, you would not be here today. This thing should be looked at more carefully.
Gary Stagliano:
The state would still be here because the state still processes checks at $1.74 every time we withhold an income payment from a noncustodial parent and pass it on to a custodian. We still absorb that cost. Again, the state is not asking for compensation in whole; we are only getting partial compensation for the cost of doing business.
Assemblyman Claborn:
Doesn’t the federal government reimburse you?
Gary Stagliano:
Not in whole. We are entitled to a 66 percent share of that.
Assemblyman Claborn:
The $3 you get doesn’t seem to be enough money for you, but it does for Elko and the other counties.
Gary Stagliano:
We don’t get the $3; we currently get nothing on the income withholding. Only the employer gets that money for the cost of them doing business to withhold those dollars.
Assemblyman Claborn:
How is Elko County doing such a good job?
Gary Stagliano:
The federal government measures performance in certain areas and Elko has achieved outstanding performance. In the smaller jurisdictions, you have a lot more understanding of the clientele that you deal with and so there is not a lot of evasion when you are trying to hide employment and other things. You go down to the Safeway and say, “So, you are working here,” and you immediately put an income withholding on that individual. The population is known.
Assemblyman Claborn:
It is hard for me to understand that Elko County is doing such a good job and Clark County is not doing a very good job at all. If the money is coming from the federal government or if it’s coming from the employer or if it’s coming from the people involved, the deadbeat dads, it’s still money and it’s still divided the way it should be. It looks like there is still a lesson to be learned here.
Chairman Anderson:
[Referring to Exhibit E.] Actually it looks like Churchill County needs the lesson most. Any other questions? It’s really a pretty simple little bill. It’s not a complicated concept. Three dollars goes to the business and what we are looking for is to try to get back to being whole.
Assemblyman Mabey:
I enjoyed listening to the testimony today and I want to say that I support S.B. 186. If this gentleman or lady who won’t pay did not want this $3 and $2 more deducted, they would voluntarily pay their child support. I think that is the bottom line. I know we need the wisdom of Solomon and I don’t want to cut the baby in half, but personally I like the bill and I strongly support it.
Chairman Anderson:
Mr. Gustavson, we are waiting for some statistical information for you, is that right? Any other questions for these gentlemen? Anybody else wishing to testify on S.B. 186? Anybody wishing to testify against S.B. 186? Close the hearing on S.B. 186. Let’s open the hearing on S.B. 269.
Senate Bill 269 (1st Reprint): Provides that change of 20 percent or more in gross monthly income of person who is ordered to pay alimony or who is subject to order for support of child shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring review for modification of payments of alimony or order for support of child. (BDR 11-1068)
Senator Michael A. Schneider, District No. 11, Clark County:
This bill reflects an increase or decrease of 20 percent in the monthly income of a person who pays child support and alimony to the other spouse. What I found out through campaign work in my district, especially in Las Vegas where we have a very boom-and-bust economy down there in the construction industry, is that we have had people who worked on large construction, the union projects in Las Vegas, and they earn very nice wages. They will be working even overtime to finish and complete those big hotels and shopping centers. Their income is at a very high level while they are doing that, but when the project is finished, their income level drops substantially, in many cases more than half. If they have gone through a divorce when their income is very high, that’s how it is calculated for their alimony, and then their income drops.
They may not get another job in the construction industry back at that level for several years. They will be building houses earning in the $10 to $12 range per hour; they are not earning that $30 to $40 an hour income. I have had many people stand at the door and cry because they don’t have enough money to even get a beer after work. I have actually had constituents who had to go out and find girlfriends or boyfriends to move in with because they could not afford their rent because all their money went for alimony and child support.
I have been thinking of bringing this bill for a few sessions, but we finally decided to bring this bill so that if someone’s income is reduced by 20 percent or more, then they could go back and petition the court for an adjustment in their alimony. Also, with the wisdom of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, he said, “If their income goes up 20 percent, the other side could petition to get more alimony.” So we have that in there also.
Chairman Anderson:
I have had a constituent who has been asking this question every time I walk the district. He is in his fifth or sixth marriage and he has enough children to fill one of my classrooms. One of the reasons that his marriages have not been successful may be because his obligations are so great that he moves into a new relationship, has other child, and has to make his numerous alimony payments. He is making so many alimony payments I don’t think he could live if he didn’t remarry. How would this guy be helped or would he? I know there is a simple solution, but most men don’t want to face up to it.
Senator Schneider:
This bill will not help that gentleman. Most households almost require two incomes now to make it. So when they split and one spouse is paying and their income drops substantially, that’s what we are trying to take care of. We don’t want to throw them back on welfare or make a criminal out of them.
Chairman Anderson:
How do we prevent the mischief of somebody who gets a divorce decree, doesn’t like where his payments are at, decides to change jobs so that his income would drop at least 20 percent, goes to court, gets the modification, and then goes back to his original job. Now the wife has to track that down and go back to court to point that out.
Senator Schneider:
It’s the same thing: 20 percent up or down. That won’t allow a person to dodge out and defraud the court or the spouse.
Assemblyman Horne:
You addressed the issue of administrative costs for the Welfare Division for those individuals who make these child support payments who may very well have seasonal jobs or construction work two or three times a year. They would be adjusting the amount that needs to be changed each of those times. I don’t know if that has been addressed.
Senator Schneider:
I don’t see that this will be a seasonal thing where a person works for three months, is off for a month or two, and then works for another three months. Those people don’t have big incomes anyway. You are going to be crazy if you go into the court every three months to get this adjusted; I think a judge would throw you out on your ear. The construction jobs I was talking about are the guys working on the big hotel or shopping center projects in Las Vegas that run for several years. Their incomes are quite high. When they are laid off at the end of the job, they go back to work as a framer for a housing company until they can get another nice union job, but now they are only making $10 or $12 an hour in residential housing. They may have that job for a year or two until another big project starts. That’s what this will adjust.
Chairman Anderson:
Any further questions for Senator Schneider? Any observations from the Welfare Division? [No response.]
Anybody else wishing to speak on S.B. 269?
Close the hearing on S.B. 269.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 269.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I support the bill, but I am a little concerned about the person who gets this lowered and then increases the income but the former spouse has no knowledge or ability to raise the support back up again. That spouse may be under hardship as well and the reduction may create a further hardship. I don’t know if somebody has a brilliant idea about how to observe that so that when it does go back up that spouse gets the money that was originally ordered to him or her by the court in the first place. I do support the bill in its current form.
Chairman Anderson:
It seems to me that is the reason they go back to court; the judge has that obligation. In a way, it is like this is where it should have been placed in the first place and everybody should adjust their lifestyle. But that person’s income may have changed also, they may have gotten a secondary job and found themselves in a better position. Everybody’s position could change. The obligation here is on the person paying the alimony and child support, while the person receiving the payment could have his or her salary increase substantially and the disparity is not going to be there. It’s the first obligor and not the second. It seems like it is a good piece of legislation. Any further questions?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Brown was absent for the vote.)
[Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 224 and welcomed Senator Titus to testify.]
Senate Bill 224 (1st Reprint): Allows designation of attendant in all civil and certain criminal proceedings involving victim of act of domestic violence. (BDR 3-136)
Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, Clark County:
[Introduced herself.] The bill, which is supported by various victims and women’s groups, will simply allow the designation of an attendant in civil and certain criminal proceedings involving a victim of an act of domestic violence. Having such an attendant present will encourage victims who are vulnerable and intimidated to come forward and seek legal remedies. A little bit of extra moral support can go a long way.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions for the Senator?
Susan Meuschke, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence (NNADV):
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit F.] The NNADV is a statewide coalition of domestic violence programs in Nevada. I am here today to speak in favor of S.B. 224.
Imagine facing a courtroom empty except for your abuser, his attorney, and several strangers—the judge, clerk, and bailiff. Imagine having to plead your case in an environment designed to intimidate, with no one there to provide any kind of support. This is a reality for many victims of domestic violence who haven’t the resources to hire an attorney to represent them and who have been deprived of any support by a motion of the opposing attorney to close the courtroom. This is the kind of scenario that S.B. 224 is designed to address.
In 1999, the NNADV embarked on a two-year project to monitor the impact of domestic violence laws on courts around the state. This was a collaboration between the NNADV, the Nevada Supreme Court, and the Office of the Attorney General. One of the many things that we discovered during the course of that project was this issue of victims being deprived of the presence of supportive advocates or family members during court proceedings; this was particularly prevalent in civil cases.
We did some initial research and discovered that a bill had been passed in the 2001 Legislative Session that provided victims of sexual assault the right to have an attendant—support person—accompany them throughout the criminal justice process. There was nothing in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) that addressed the same need on the civil side. A review of other states found that both California [California Family Code Section 6303 included in Exhibit F] and Illinois [Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 Section 205 included in Exhibit F] provide such a support person in all civil protective order hearings, and in Illinois, also in all criminal proceedings. In a U.S. Justice Department publication, [“The Crime Victim’s Right To Be Present,” Office for Victims of Crimes, January 2002, included in Exhibit F] we learned of other states that provide such support in criminal matters.
Senate Bill 224 asked that you do that and more, by providing that in any civil or criminal proceeding, a victim of domestic violence will have access to moral and emotional support through the presence of an attendant.
Section 1 of the bill amends Chapter 50 of the NRS to provide for such an attendant in any civil action involving a victim of domestic violence. The attendant will not be required to have any special training or knowledge but rather will be there to provide support. It also provides that this kind of support will not constitute the unauthorized practice of law and that if the attendant will be a witness in the proceeding that they are to be called first so as not to exclude them from the entire proceeding.
Section 2 of the bill adds domestic violence to the list of crimes for which a victim can designate an attendant to be present throughout the criminal proceedings. Again, the attendant is there only to provide emotional and moral support.
Through this bill we have tried to guarantee that anyone who contends that he or she is a victim of domestic violence has the right to have a support person accompany him or her through any justice system process. We believe that this guarantee will benefit both the victim and the process.
Chairman Anderson:
This is not a criminal statute, but we are really looking at civil actions. [Ms. Meuschke nodded in agreement.] Other states are allowing it in criminal matters, and we are also going to push it into the criminal area for domestic violence.
Susan Meuschke:
That is correct. Illinois and California allow for a support person to attend in civil protective order matters, too.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
I have a question about the section related to if the attendant is a witness. The way I perceive this as working . . . I understand where you tried to put the attendant as the first witness, but I think generally how this works is that all the witnesses are outside and they go one at a time. Although it is going to be a public record at some point, it could have an effect on the case if that attendant is sitting there the whole time . . . If there are six witnesses, three go today and three will go tomorrow; that attendant would hear the testimony of the first three witnesses and go home and talk to the other witnesses and could change the outcome of the case. That is my only concern with the attendant being a witness as well.
Susan Meuschke:
The intent of this legislation is to require that if the attendant is going to be called as a witness that they were called first to prevent what you have just described because, and I am sure that it is a very rare occurrence, there have been some attorneys who would call or put on a witness list a support person and never call them at all so that they would be excluded from the courtroom altogether. If the particular support person was key to the whole case, then maybe there would be a requirement that the victim choose a different support person. The intent of this legislation is not to make the process not work, it is to make sure that the victim has a support person who is there to hold their hand or whatever is needed. We have tried to construct it in a way that will allow the process to move as it should, at the same time guaranteeing that someone has the right to have somebody there to supply moral support.
Vice Chairman Oceguera:
I appreciate that and I support the intent completely. But as you stated, sometimes they did it in the opposite way where they would put someone on the witness list to exclude, I would hope that would not be case here as well.
Chairman Anderson:
One of the things that we are contemplating in this session is protection for counselors and for those who are offering services to people caught up in domestic violence cases. I know Ms. Buckley is pursuing that in the Senate. Hopefully these people are going to be given a certain modicum of protection from even being called as a witness. Won’t there be a correlation here so that people who are currently being called may be cut down?
Susan Meuschke:
Yes, for those folks who work in private nonprofits as victim advocates. If the bill that is in the Senate Committee on Judiciary gets out and passes, it would provide for confidentiality of communications between the victim and the advocate. This piece of legislation, S.B. 224, I want to be really clear, is much broader than just advocates. We don’t pretend that we have enough folks in our ranks to go to court with everyone who would need someone to go to court. So we wanted to make sure that if you wanted to bring your sister with you or your best friend or your neighbor, if you wanted someone to go into court with you so that you would not be there alone, you would have the ability to do that. That’s what this piece of legislation is about.
I would like to say that we should do this for everybody who is going to have to go to court. You don’t have to go in there by yourself; that’s a scary place. But particularly for folks who are in crisis and are having to face someone who has put them at risk both emotional and physically, to have to go into a courtroom and face that person alone, the kinds of intimidation tactics that go on, the kinds of things that would not be obvious to anyone other than the victim, really requires that they have someone who can sit in between, if nothing else. That’s what this is about. In terms of an advocate, yes, we hope that the privilege bill will help prevent us from having to show up in court as witnesses, but we want to make sure that victims always have access to someone who can sit there with them.
Assemblyman Claborn:
How many people are you talking about—one, ten, or two?
Senator Titus:
Just one.
Assemblyman Claborn:
You are going to limit it to just one.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
My question relates to page 2, Section 6, that says, “regardless of whether or not the alleged perpetrator of the act of domestic violence has been charged with or convicted of any criminal offense related to that act.” Wouldn’t they have to be charged or something to be in court?
Susan Meuschke:
What we were trying to do is that there was a concern that unless there had been a conviction, then you could not be a victim. It makes no sense to me either, but we wanted to make sure that it could be anyone who said, “I have been a victim of domestic violence and I want someone to come with me to this court.” If you are in the civil side, there may not have been any conviction, that may be something that has not yet occurred, or they may choose to never go through the criminal process, and yet they are a victim of domestic violence and would like a support person to accompany them. We did not want to preclude anyone who has not gone through the criminal procedure from having a support person attend a court case with them. That’s why that language is inserted.
Senator Titus:
It would be like somebody who is trying to get a divorce and they feel like their husband is abusive but they have never been charged with domestic violence. They would like to take somebody with them as a support person.
Chairman Anderson:
It seems to me, since we are talking about a civil action, the use of the term “charged” is generally considered within the criminal process.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
When they said charged, I thought it meant it was a criminal action. I can see where you are going and I do support it. Maybe Ms. Lang could explain it.
Chairman Anderson:
Risa . . . line 19, page 2.
Risa Lang, Committee Legal Counsel:
. . . whether they have been charged or convicted? Because this is applying to any type of action, Section 2 deals with criminal actions and Section 1 deals with civil actions, they would be able to bring them into court in those cases. Is that your interpretation? This is just clarifying that.
Senator Titus:
We have our own attorney who might be able to shed some light.
Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit G.] The Office of the Attorney General does strongly support S.B. 224. Just to answer Mr. Carpenter’s question, we want the category of victims to be broad because someone who is going into court, whether it is civil or criminal, may be a victim of domestic violence whether or not there is a criminal action pending or finalized. It may be an eviction action or a family law action; there could be any number of civil actions. So the definition in Section 6, when we first began, simply said it was a victim and the question arose as to whether a victim meant that you have been determined to be a victim of crime. We wanted to remove any question that you had to have been adjudicated a victim or there had to be some type of adjudicated criminal case, which meant that you were a victim. We wanted it to mean that a victim is anyone who alleges he or she is a victim of domestic violence.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I loved the explanation. What I was wondering, I did not want to give them an “out” with this kind of language in there. I guess the explanation is that they would be allowed to take an attendant with them.
Chairman Anderson:
Are we going to be changing the definition of a victim of an act of domestic violence, if we change this law, to a broader definition that includes somebody who… We are not making the presumption that every person is a victim of domestic violence, are we? Because they have not been charged, we are not broadening it to the universe? . . . for the purpose of this section, “a victim of an act of domestic violence includes any person that alleges they are a victim of an act of domestic violence regardless of whether the perpetrator has been charged.”
Nancy Hart:
Nevada Revised Statutes 33.018 sets forth the acts and parties that can qualify for a temporary protection order (TPO) against domestic violence and defines the acts and the parties. Senate Bill 224 in no way would change who a victim of domestic violence is. We wanted to clarify that you do not have to have a criminal action pending or finalized; in fact, you can apply for a protection order against domestic violence and never seek any criminal sanctions. To the contrary, the definition of domestic violence victim . . . NRS 33.018 focuses on the acts that constitute domestic violence and the parties who are eligible for protection other than defining a victim of domestic violence. We want to make sure that we are not requiring some criminal action to have happened in order for a person to take advantage of this provision.
Assemblywoman Buckley:
With the clause “for purposes of this section” it is just limited to allow them to bring in the attendant where there hasn’t been a charge. When someone goes for a TPO, even if there are going to be criminal charges, if the act happens on Thursday, the victim will go in for the order on Friday. Police don’t move that quickly; you won’t see a charge for weeks. It is to make sure that if they have to go into court right away for their TPO, they can bring someone with them.
Senator Titus:
There are several people in Clark County who can speak to this, if you want to hear more testimony.
Chairman Anderson:
We see that they have all signed in and wish to speak. I am not sure that we need to have them speak, but they have waited around and I want to make sure they have an opportunity to be heard.
Senator Titus:
Maybe they could just say, “Me, too.” I don’t want to talk the bill to death if it is moving forward.
Chairman Anderson:
Anybody in the south that feels compelled to come forward and speak?
Mary Lou Fineman, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, Safe Nest:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit H.] I am going to say, “Me, too,” and add a comment. I have accompanied hundreds of victims to their court proceedings, and 100 percent of these victims were grateful to have the support. Even victims who are able to retain an attorney seem to need the additional support of a person who is there only to be on their side.
Trudy Bruke-Creazzo, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, Safe Nest:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit I.] I am saying, “Me, too.”
Mary Terzian, Crisis Counselor/ Victim Advocate, Safe Nest:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit J.] Me, too.
Chairman Anderson:
We appreciate you sitting through the long hearings this morning. We have written testimony that has been faxed up and we will make it part of today’s record.
Joni Kaiser, Executive Director, Committee to Aid Abused Women, Washoe County:
[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit N.] With me is Barbara Spring who operates the Temporary Protection Order office in the Second Judicial District Court. Attached to Exhibit N is a five-year history of the protection order advocate’s office in Washoe County. The middle line where it says “Total Motions and Orders,” shows you how many people are actually in court who need attendants. Also Ms. Spring is here to testify if there are questions about cases where people have been excluded from courtrooms in the past and why this bill is needed.
Chairman Anderson:
Is it a common problem in the Second Judicial District Court?
Barbara Spring, Temporary Protection Order Office, Second Judicial District Court, and representing Committee to Aid Abused Women:
We have courtroom advocates who are allowed to go into most of the courtrooms to assist the victim through the process. However there are certain judges who don’t like that to happen. It does make a huge difference. We have had a courtroom advocate since 1998. We ask our applicants to fill out an evaluation about the value of those services and they are uniformly laudatory.
Such statements as, “I would not have finished this process without the assistance of the advocate,” that sort of thing. It’s true, when I am working with an applicant who is filling out an application, when we come to the point where I say, “You have to go to a hearing to extend the order,” the victim will either freeze in terror or start to cry because of the intimidation she expects from the adverse party in court. She is so accustomed to being controlled, she is just sure that in court the other party will get his own way because he always has before. That’s why I think it is really important to have some help for these people.
Chairman Anderson:
Questions for Ms. Kaiser or Ms. Spring?
Paula Berkley, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence:
Me, too.
Bob Roshak, Sergeant, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association:
Me, too.
Chairman Anderson:
The Chair will accept a motion.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 224.
ASSEMBLYMAN CONKLIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Brown was absent for the vote.)
I need to assign S.B. 224 to Assemblyman Conklin. I will assign S.B. 269 to Assemblyman Geddes.
Any further business to come before the Committee? Mr. Gustavson, you will inform me when you get the information you need? [Assemblyman Gustavson replied in the affirmative.] If anyone has bills that we have already heard that you feel that we need to get going, we have a pretty tight schedule for tomorrow’s work session. The meeting is adjourned [at 9:41 a.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: