Senate Judiciary Committee hears bill to require name-based parole record requests; amendment removes judge solicitation

At a Monday meeting of the Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee, members heard SB 30, a Department of Public Safety bill that would require anyone requesting parole decision records to supply the name or names of the individuals whose records they want. The committee also considered a proposed, reportedly friendly amendment that would remove language in existing law that solicits input from judges, a change supporters say is needed to avoid creating ethical conflicts for judges.

The purpose of SB 30, Katie Fraker, the executive secretary of the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, told the committee, is to require a name-based inquiry for public-record requests regarding parole decisions. “As the Board conducts over 6,000 hearings per year, this is an extraordinary request,” Fraker said, describing recent blanket requests for multiple years of grant or denial orders.

Chris Dericco, identified in testimony as chairman of the Board of Parole Commissioners, said the bill is intended to reduce the burden on staff who currently must pull and assemble many individual orders in response to broad requests. “All we—re saying is if you want these records, please just tell us who you want the records on and we will get those to you,” Dericco said, adding that large, non‑specific requests can take staff months to fulfill.

The amendment under discussion is aimed at a separate but related procedural issue. Linda Bell, of the Nevada Supreme Court, spoke to the committee about the amendment and the court—s concerns that current statute invites judges to submit character testimony or other input in ways that conflict with judicial ethics. “Rule 3.3 of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from testifying as a character witness or providing information as a character witness, in a legal proceeding except when they are summoned,” Bell said. She told the committee the Supreme Court provided a February 2011 opinion from the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics explaining the issue and that the amendment would remove the statutory solicitation of judges— comments while preserving the board—s ability to compel factual testimony from a judge if necessary.

Committee members asked procedural questions about how record requests are handled now and what changes would follow if the bill passes. Fraker said the board already publishes monthly lists of parole actions and quarterly and annual reports with statistics, but that published lists do not include the fuller two- to three-page grant or denial orders and related risk-assessment details that a requester can obtain through a records request. Fraker also said the board had received “over five” large blanket requests in the past year from incarcerated individuals seeking multi-year orders.

Vice Chair Flores and other senators asked whether the bill would block researchers or academics from obtaining bulk data. Dericco and Fraker said the underlying material remains public, but that SB 30 would require requesters to identify the people whose full orders they want so the board can produce specific files without diverting substantial staff time to broad, untargeted pulls. Fraker offered to provide the committee with the number of requests per year if needed.

No callers or in-person members of the public signed up to testify in support, opposition or neutral testimony during the public hearing. The presenters described the amendment as friendly; the committee closed the hearing on SB 30 without taking a vote at that time.