MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
Sixty-seventh Session
March 22, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Commerce was called to order by Chairman Gene T. Porter at 3:38 p.m., Monday, March 22, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Vice Chairman
Ms. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Rick C. Bennett
Mr. John Bonaventura
Mr. Val Z. Garner
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Dean A. Heller
Mr. David E. Humke
Ms. Erin Kenny
Mr. Richard Perkins
Ms. Myrna T. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Scott Scherer (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Paul Mouritsen, Senior Staff Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. John Sandy, Nevada Bankers Association; Mr. Tom Rainford, Secretary-Treasurer of the Nevada State Board of Hearing Aid Specialists; James Van Hoose, Chairman of the Nevada State Board of Hearing Aid Specialists; Mr. Tom Morris; Mr. George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County Manager's Office; Ms. Marsha Slotten, Executive Director, Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers; Mr. Robert Whitemore, Nevada State Psychological Association; Dr. Jerry P. Nims, Nevada State Psychological Association; See also Exhibit B attached hereto.
ASSEMBLY BILL 299Revises provisions governing annual meetings of stockholders of banks.
Mr. John Sandy, Nevada Bankers Association, testified. He stated the purpose of AB 299 was to remove the statutory requirement the annual meeting of a bank's stockholders be held no later than March 31st of each year. He said no one knew why the law contained the requirement, and there was no compliance with the requirement.
Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 299.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS AB 299.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 300Makes various changes to provisions governing hearing aid specialists.
Mr. Tom Rainford, Secretary-Treasurer of the Nevada State Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, testified. Mr. Rainford presented copies of three letters Exhibits C, D, and E, respectively. He said AB 300 resulted from concerns expressed to the board by both consumers and hearing aid specialists. He stated the board supported AB 300. He pointed out the existing statutory provision requiring consumer complaints be filed within 60 days of the last act complained of was vague and created problems. He advised it was difficult to determine when the last act occurred. He explained the board could do nothing about a consumer's complaint regarding a hearing aid or hearing aid specialist if the consumer had the hearing aid more than 60 days prior to bringing his complaint. He stated the board encouraged the hearing aid specialist to refund money or correct the product, but was not always successful in causing those actions to be taken.
Mr. Rainford advised another purpose of AB 300 was to allow approval of applications for licensure as a hearing aid specialist by the board's secretary. He explained the board consisted of only three members and might meet as seldom as twice a year; therefore, applicants could be caused to sit idle for long periods of time because of the present requirement that applications be approved by the board.
Mr. Rainford said a problem existed with the statutory definition of "hearing aid specialist" which stated a person must test, fit and dispense hearing instruments. He advised some individuals might only test and prescribe, while others might only dispense. He stated such individuals could not be licensed, and the board requested the definition be changed to permit the board to license those individuals.
Mr. Rainford indicated the board desired the statute governing hearing aid specialists amended to include provisons for issuance of a temporary license as a hearing aid specialist and for issuance of an owner's license. Mr. Rainford explained the provision for temporary licensure would enable the board to provide a hearing aid specialist from another state, who had practiced for more than three years and had a good record, a temporary license to practice until he was able to take the licensing examination. He advised the provision would eliminate the necessity of such an individual acquiring an "apprentice" license pending taking the licensing examination. Mr. Rainford suggested it demeaned an individual, qualified as a hearing aid specialist, to be required to label himself an apprentice.
Mr. Rainford explained an owner's license would permit an individual to be licensed as an owner of a hearing aid store or office without being licensed as a hearing aid specialist. He advised some individuals, who barely qualified, currently acquired licenses as hearing aid specialists solely to enable them to own a hearing aid store or office. He stated, in addition, the provision would preclude a hearing aid specialist (who owned an office) who had received disciplinary action from hiring another specialist while he, himself, ran the office. He said the provision would enable the board to regulate who conducted business.
Mr. Rainford spoke regarding the current regulations governing apprentices, which he suggested were too lenient. He advised the board wished to require apprentices to undergo continuing education and to require all work done by an apprentice be reviewed by the apprentice' sponsor. He said the current law only required an apprentice be directly supervised, which was defined as requiring an apprentice to spend 10 hours per week with his sponsor. He stated the board wished to ensure an apprentice discussed his fittings and his findings with his sponsor and informed the public he was a hearing aid specialist at practice.
James Van Hoose, Chairman of the Nevada State Board of Hearing Aid Specialists, testified. He advised complaints to the board had increased over the years, and many were received after the time period during which the board could act on them. He stated the revisions contained in AB 300 were minor but would have a strong impact on the board's ability to assist consumers.
Chairman Porter referred to Exhibit C and asked if the list on page 3 represented recommended amendments to AB 300. Mr. Rainford replied affirmatively. He said the list (Exhibit C) represented matters which had come to mind since the meeting at which the board determined the provisions of AB 300 and had not been discussed at subsequent board meetings. Mr. Rainford referred to the first suggested amendment on the list and advised it would preclude a temporary licensee from opening an office of which he was the sole proprietor.
Chairman Porter referred to page 5 of AB 300, lines 14 through 16, and asked why an FBI background check of an individual who wished to be a hearing aid specialist was needed. Mr. Van Hoose replied many states required such a check because individuals with criminal backgrounds tended to move from one state to another. Mr. Rainford stated the board had encountered difficulty acquiring information regarding whether an applicant for hearing aid specialist had been convicted of fraud or similar crimes in other states because some states had laws prohibiting dissemination of such information. He indicated the board had discussed with representatives of police departments and the District Attorney's office how to obtain such information and those representatives suggested the FBI background check. Chairman Porter suggested the requirement for an FBI background check should be deleted from AB 300.
Chairman Porter referred to the proposed amendments regarding grounds for disapproving an application for licensure (Exhibit C) and asked the board's definition of "a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude." Mr. Rainford cited theft and burglary. Chairman Porter asked if petty larceny was included in the definition and offered as an example theft of a candy bar.
Mr. Rainford indicated carrying the definition to such extent would be inappropriate. Chairman Porter concurred.
Chairman Porter directed attention to section c of number 3 of the suggested amendments to NRS 637A.150 (Exhibit C) and pointed out the language required no adjudication of incompetency or wrongdoing. Mr. Rainford said he hoped the suggested amendment would cause an individual to resolve any charges pending against him in another state. Mr. Porter stated filing a complaint against an individual did not establish he had done something wrong. Mr. Rainford indicated he was concerned about charges filed by an attorney general not about consumer complaints. Chairman Porter stated even charges brought by an attorney general had no meaning absent a conviction. A colloquy ensued between Chairman Porter, Mr. Van Hoose and Mr. Rainford concerning unadjudicated charges.
Chairman Porter asked why an individual convicted of a felony should not be allowed a license as a hearing aid specialist. Mr. Rainford stated the board wished to ensure licensees who dealt with senior citizens were of good moral character. Mr. Rainford said he used (in Exhibit C) the same reasons for denying a license as were provided by statute for revoking a license or bringing a disciplinary action.
Ms. Giunchigliani directed attention to page 6 of AB 300, lines 43 through 48. She asked if the language "or an owner's license" meant the owner of a business would lose his license if his employee was disciplined by the board. Mr. Rainford said if charges were brought only against the licensee and not against the owner, the owner would not lose his license. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested an employer would be held liable if his employee made misrepresentations, committed fraud or performed any of the acts in subsections 1 through 8 of NRS 637A.250. Mr. Rainford responded the owner would be held liable only if he was involved and charges were brought against him. Ms. Giunchigliani said the language of AB 300 did not say what Mr. Rainford suggested concerning an owners loss of license and expressed concern about one individual being held liable for the actions of another.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if all other states licensed hearing aid specialists. Mr. Rainford replied there were two states in the United States which did not license hearing aid specialists.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the board had reciprocity of licensure. Mr. Rainford answered the board did not.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the board had explored reciprocity. Mr. Rainford replied the board had done so. He stated there was a drastic difference among the states with respect to requirements for licensing an individual as a hearing aid specialist, and the board would be unable to offer reciprocity without a case by case review.
Ms. Giunchigliani advised of a recommendation, under the state reorganization plan, to combine the state boards for hearing specialists and for audiologists and speech pathologists, and asked if combining the boards would impact AB 300 should the legislature pass the bill with the recommended amendments. Mr. Rainford replied he did not believe it would. He said, under the state reorganization plan, the boards would be combined but not eliminated.
Mrs. Williams referred to the first suggested amendment in Exhibit C, providing a temporary licensee could not be the sole proprietor of, manage or independently operate a business and discussions were held at length between Mrs. Williams, Mr. Rainford and Mr. Van Hoose regarding the amendment.
Mrs. Williams referred to the proposed amendment to NRS 637A.150 on page 5 of AB 300 and asked if she correctly understood the amendment provided for one person to approve or disapprove each application. Mr. Rainford replied Mrs. Williams was correct. He said the proposed amendment stated the secretary of the board would approve or disapprove applications to take the licensing examination. He advised the amendment further provided all decisions of the secretary be reviewed by the board. He stated the secretary would be required to follow the same guidelines presently employed by the board in determining whether to accept or reject an application. He explained, if an application contained no derogatory information, a license could be issued without requiring the applicant to wait until the next board meeting. He further stated, if an application contained information which would indicate the application should be disapproved, the secretary would have the ability to do that. Mrs. Williams asked what kind of information would indicate an application should be disapproved. Mr. Rainford replied, at present, the board could disapprove an application only if the application contained either false information or information which demonstrated the applicant was not of good moral character. Mrs. Williams stated she was uncertain what was meant by the latter. Mr. Rainford responded the basic criterion was whether or not an applicant had a criminal record. He said, in all cases in which the board determined an application contained derogatory information concerning the applicant, the board solicited and abided by the opinion of the Attorney General's office.
Mr. Perkins asked if consideration was given to the financial impact of the provision for fingerprinting contained in AB 300. Mr. Rainford responded affirmatively. He said he believed the cost of fingerprinting was $65.00. He advised, at present, the board charged only one application fee, which covered both processing the application and administering the licensing examination, but contemplated charging separate fees. Mr. Perkins said "So that fee would be paid by the applicant." Mr. Rainford said it would.
Mr. Perkins indicated he was concerned definitions of "good moral character" might differ. He asked how AB 300 would eliminate subjectivity and create a more objective approach to licensure. Mr. Rainford responded his suggested amendments to AB 300 (Exhibit C) would establish specific reasons for disapproving an application for licensure rather than relying on the provision concerning moral character.
Ms. Augustine referred to the provision of AB 300 which would allow the secretary of the board to approve or disapprove applications and asked, if the board consisted of only three members, would it not be equally appropriate for the board to approve or disapprove the application. Mr. Van Hoose explained two members of the board resided in Las Vegas and he, the third member, resided in northern Nevada. Ms. Augustine asked how often the board met. Mr. Van Hoose answered about twice a year. He advised the provision under discussion would facilitate an applicant, about whom there was no derogatory information, going forward in the industry. He indicated if there was something questionable concerning an applicant, the matter could be considered by the board when it convened.
Mrs. Williams asked what education was required to become a hearing aid specialist. Mr. Rainford responded a hearing aid specialist must be over the age of 21, be a high school graduate, and have completed the International Hearing Society's home study course or have either a bachelor's degree in audiology or 10 years experience in the hearing aid field. He said the board would be submitting a regulation change which would allow an individual with an associate's or bachelor's degree in the hearing instrument sciences, which were new courses, to meet the requirements. Mrs. Williams asked if courses in the hearing instrument sciences would be offered at the community college level. Mr. Rainford replied some California community colleges offered such courses.
Mr. Tom Morris, licensed audiologist, testified. He expressed concern about the provisions of AB 300 regarding an "owner's license" and questioned the effect of those provisions if a corporation was the owner. He stated when a business was required to have a license, there was a need to define the business as a corporation, private party or other entity.
Chairman Porter asked if Mr. Morris had discussed AB 300 with the board. Mr. Morris replied, "Very little."
Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Morris if he believed an owner should be held liable if a licensee employed by the owner was found guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. Mr. Morris said whether the owner should be held liable would depend on the circumstances.
Chairman Porter assigned AB 300 to Ms. Augustine as a subcommittee of one and closed the hearing on AB 300.
ASSEMBLY BILL 335Establishes provisional licenses for social workers.
Mr. George L. Cotton, Affirmative Action Manager, Clark County Manager's Office, testified. He advised the Clark County Manager's Office submitted the bill draft request which resulted in AB 335 because of concern regarding an appearance of a barrier to employment which would violate certain civil rights enforced by the office. He said the personnel department was required to reject candidates who lacked bachelor's or master's degrees in social work for positions in social work because of the manner in which the present statute was framed. He stated meetings were held with the National Association of Social Workers to generate a bill draft which would eliminate the Title 7 (of the Civil Rights Act) concern and provide the ability to hire individuals with provisional licenses and provide those individuals time to become qualified. Mr. Cotton advised a fast-track program was being developed by the social work department of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, (UNLV) to enable such individuals to become qualified social workers or, at a minimum, associates in social work. He said, under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, there could be no barrier to employing individuals for jobs when those individuals were actually performing the functions of the jobs.
Chairman Porter said he understood an individual must have a bachelor's degree in social work, specifically, to be licensed as a social worker. He said he understood the provision contained in lines 9 through 11, on page 1, of AB 335 would allow an individual with a degree in a field of study related to social work to practice as a social worker. He asked if three years was the period such an individual would be permitted to practice. Mr. Cotton replied such an individual would be allowed a limited period of time to take the necessary courses to become qualified as a social worker, and the board would both set the limit on the time period and determine which fields would be considered related fields of study. Chairman Porter asked if the individual would be required to take 33 semester credits to obtain a major in the field of study. Mr. Cotton replied he understood a fast-track program was being developed which would enable an individual to obtain the requisite amount of credits to qualify them to be licensed as a social worker within one year. He advised Clark County would reimburse an employee, hired as a social worker, for courses he took to qualify himself for the job.
Ms. Giunchigliani directed Mr. Cotton's attention to section 1 of AB 335. She asked if she correctly understood a provisional license would be granted to an individual who either applied to take the next available examination or possessed a baccalaureate or master's degree in a field related to social work and presented evidence of enrollment in a program of appropriate study. Mr. Cotton responded Ms. Giunchigliani's understanding was correct. Ms. Giunchigliani opined much was required of the individual in the second instance and little of the individual in the first. Mr. Cotton said an individual in the first instance would have to meet the existing statutory requirements for a social worker. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if, in addition to the requirement an individual apply to take the next available examination, there also should be a requirement the individual pass or complete the examination or some similar requirement. Discussions were held between Ms. Giunchigliani and Mr. Cotton regarding Section 1, subsection 1(a), of AB 335, providing a provisional license be granted to an individual who applied to take the next available examination. Ms. Giunchigliani suggested the section should perhaps say "applies and completes." She further suggested similar language, requiring a completion period, should be added at lines 12 and 17 of section 1.
Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if AB 335 would impact hiring of social workers by school districts or affected only "the county governmental structure." Mr. Cotton replied only county government would be affected.
Ms. Marsha Slotten, Executive Director, Nevada Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), testified. She explained the fast-track program was an evening and/or weekend program designed for individuals already working as social workers under a provisional license. She said the program was structured to allow completion in one year, but providing an individual a three year period to complete the program allowed for possible delays.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the three year completion period to which Ms. Slotten referred was the completion period provided in AB 335, section 1, subsection 4(b). Ms. Slotten replied it was.
Ms. Kenny asked if AB 335 would require an individual who had worked as a social worker for a period of several years to return to school and participate in the fast-track program previously discussed. Ms. Slotten replied such an individual would not be required to do so. She advised the provision pertained to individuals coming into Nevada from other states. She indicated the original licensing bill made no provision for such individuals, who were, therefore, unable to work until they passed the licensing examination. She stated the provisions of AB 335 would allow individuals licensed in another state to practice in Nevada until they took the licensing examination, upon condition they obtained a provisional license.
Ms. Slotten advised the association had held many meetings concerning AB 335. She said meetings were held with the staff of the University of Nevada, Reno, including the dean of social work, with the dean and staff of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and with social workers in the state. She provided a copy of a letter from the Board of Examiners for Social Work endorsing AB 335 (Exhibit F).
Mr. Robert Whitemore, Nevada State Psychological Association, addressed the committee. He stated the association supported AB 335. He advised Dr. Jerry Nims would present a proposed amendment. He indicated the association had discussed the proposed amendment with representatives of the social workers, who had no objection to the amendment if it did not affect the committee's willingness to consider AB 335.
Dr. Jerry P. Nims, Nevada State Psychological Association, testified concerning an amendment proposed by the association (Exhibit G). Discussions were held between Chairman Porter and Dr. Nims, and it was determined the amendment proposed by Dr. Nims would affect chapter 641.029 of the NRS rather than chapter 641B of the NRS, the subject of AB 335. Chairman Porter advised Dr. Nims the committee could not consider an amendment to chapter 641.029 of the NRS as the required 5 day notice had not been given, and those affected by the chapter would be denied an opportunity to be heard.
Ms. Slotten again addressed the committee. She directed attention to section 1, subsection 1(a) of AB 335 which she advised applied only to an application for provisional license. She pointed out the provisional license was valid for 9 months only.
Mr. Bonaventura asked if an applicant for licensure, granted a license contingent on his attending the fast-track program, would have adequate time to learn enough to pass the licensing examination if the examination were held one month later. Ms. Slotten replied the applicant would not take the examination until he had completed the course. A colloquy ensued between Mr. Bonaventura and Ms. Slotten. Ms. Slotten stated section 1, subsection 1(a) pertained to individuals already eligible to be licensed in Nevada subject to taking the licensing examination, i.e. individuals licensed in other states, who had proven their level of competency. Mr. Bonaventura referred to section 1, subsection 2, and asked if the situation covered by that provision was similar to the one just discussed. Ms. Slotten replied it was and pertained to an independent level social worker. She explained there were four levels of licensing. She advised "licensed clinical" and "licensed independent" were both levels which required master's degrees. Mr. Bonaventura asked if the individual specified on page 1, line 17, of AB 335, an independent social worker who applied to take the next examination, would be competent to take the examination without the necessity of taking the l year educational course previously discussed. Ms. Slotten responded that was correct, as such individual would already possess a master's degree in social work. Mr. Bonaventura asked the benefit of the fast-track course, if an individual could pass the licensing examination without taking the course. Ms. Slotten clarified the fast-track course pertained to individuals with degrees in disciplines related to social work, and those individuals would not take the licensing examination until they had finished the course. She further explained the fast-track program involved individuals with a three year provisional license as opposed to individuals who possessed a degree in social work and who had only nine months in which to pass the licensing examination.
Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 335.
ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS AB 335.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 237Makes various changes to provisions governing practice of chiropractic.
Chairman Porter advised the committee held a hearing on AB 237 on March 8, 1993, and the Nevada State Board of Chiropractic Examiners had since submitted a proposed amendment (Exhibit H) which addressed the committee's concern about the possibility a state agency might be required to pay for a special meeting of the board. He further stated the Executive Director of the board would draft a policy to clarify the intent of the solicitation statute, section 6, subsection 14.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
There being no further business, Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_______________________
SARA J. KAUFMAN
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Commerce
March 22, 1993
Page: 1