MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      May 17, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Commerce was called to order by Chairman Gene T. Porter at 3:40 p.m., Monday, May 17, 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

      Mr. Scott Scherer

      Ms. Myrna T. Williams

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      Assemblyman Sandra J. Tiffany, District 21; Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District 39

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mr. Paul Mouritsen, Senior Staff Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

     

      Mr. David Klem, President, Nevada International Trade Exchange; Mr. Max Montgomery; Ms. Margi Green, State Contractors Board; Mr. Steve Tackes, Nevada State Cable Television Association; Ms. Marsha Berkbigler, Nevada State Counseling Association; Dr. Thomas C. Harrison, Ph.D., President, Nevada Mental Health Counselors Association; Ms. Susie Rusk, Nevada School Counselors; Mr. Wayne Lanning, Chairman, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Mr. Tom Sexton, Nevada Counseling Association; Dr. Meri Shadley, American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, Nevada Division; Mr. James Balmut, American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, Nevada Division; Mr. Jerry Nims, Nevada State Psychological Association; Ms. Jacqueline Christensen (See also Exhibit B attached hereto).

     

 

AJR 20      Urges Congress to enact legislation to facilitate establishment of Western United States Trade District.

 

Mr. David Klem, President, Nevada International Trade Exchange, testified.  He advised the exchange asked the Nevada Congressional Delegation be encouraged to sponsor federal legislation to establish trade districts throughout the United States.  He contended trade districts would encourage international trade to and from those districts. 

 

Mr. Klem stated AJR 20 was identical to a Senate joint resolution introduced in 1983, SJR 17, and was intended to renew commitment to commence legislation to establish trade districts. 

Mr. Klem provided a booklet entitled The Nevada Industry and Trade District, a reprint of an article from The Reader's Digest and a two-page document setting forth an overview of the trade district concept by Mr. Jack Norris, Exhibits C, D and E, respectively. (Exhibit C available in Research Library)

 

Mr. Max Montgomery testified.  He advised he was a professional engineer, an active member of the engineering community and a strong supporter of a diversified economy for Nevada.  He contended northern Nevada would support the high-technology jobs needed to elevate members of Nevada's work force to more highly paid positions.  He asked the committee to adopt AJR 20.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AJR 20.

 

AB 597      Requires state contractors' board to maintain record and provide information concerning certain complaints, disciplinary action and lawsuits regarding contractors licensed by board.

 

Assemblyman Sandra J. Tiffany, District 21, testified.  She advised there were relatively new subdivisions in her district in which she had noticed construction problems which might be causes for complaints by her constituents, but no centralized base for reporting such complaints regarding a subdivision or for requesting information concerning known complaints existed.

 

Ms. Tiffany advised while she was working with the Contractors Board on AB 597, various concerns had arisen regarding the bill.  She stated both she and the board wished to eliminate those provisions of AB 597 pertaining to lawsuits and said there was a need to determine what constituted a valid complaint.  She indicated there was a question as to the manner in which information should be released, whether it should be released over the telephone, pursuant to written request or "whether it should be a front counter service."  She suggested AB 597 be referred to a subcommittee.

 

Ms. Margi Green, State Contractors Board, testified.  She advised the board supported parts of AB 597 but clarification was needed regarding portions which could conflict with existing federal and state regulations.

 

Ms. Green said the board wished to delete subsection 1(c) of Section 1 and Section 2, in its entirety, from AB 597. 

 

Ms. Green referred to Section 3 and said the board was concerned inaccurate information might be provided over the telephone and preferred information be provided in writing.

 

She said the board also requested AB 597 define what constituted (grounds for) a "complaint."

 

Chairman Porter asked all those present at the meeting who were interested in AB 597 to work with Ms. Tiffany to arrive at a compromise on AB 597 and advised them AB 597 would be placed on the committee's agenda for further hearing at a future date. 

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 597.

 

AB 601      Provides civil penalty and increased criminal penalty for violation of certain provisions concerning unauthorized interception of services of community antenna television company for commercial advantage.

 

Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, District 39, testified.  He explained the purpose of AB 601 was to enhance penalties for the (unauthorized) taking of a cable television signal for commercial advantage.

 

Mr. Hettrick explained the fiscal note on AB 601 was "the boiler plate, standard note."  He advised Section 3 of AB 601 established a gross misdemeanor, and he called attention to line 3 on page 1, pointing out penalties were to be payable to local government.  Mr. Hettrick stated in nearly every case, a franchisee paid fees to local government to have a monopoly on a cable television system.  He said it was to such a franchisee's advantage, as well as to the advantage of the cable television provider, to have provisions such as those in AB 601.

 

Mr. Steve Tackes, Nevada State Cable Television Association, testified.  Mr. Tackes said an attempt was being made, through AB 601, to make conduct which was currently a federal offense be also a state offense in order that the money (derived from penalties) might remain in Nevada.  He explained in the middle 1980s, a crime evolved which consisted of the manufacture and sale of devices used to steal cable television services.  He said the federal government adopted a statute which imposed certain penalties for such activity.  He stated such crimes had begun to occur in Nevada, and the association hoped AB 601 would provide the same penalties for those crimes as were provided by federal statute.

 

Mr. Tackes advised local government franchising authorities received franchise fees from cable television companies based on those companies' revenues.  He contended the sale of devices used to defraud cable television companies caused losses not only to those companies but also to local government.  He said the association believed it appropriate that penalties for such crimes benefit local government.  Mr. Tackes explained the federal government chose $50,000 and $100,000 as the amounts of penalties because the federal government believed lesser sums would not provide sufficient incentive to pursue those engaged in such crimes.

 

Mr. Bonaventura referred to Section 2, subsection 3 of AB 601, and asked the meaning of "commercial advantage."  Mr. Tackes explained "commercial advantage" meant an individual's acts were performed as a business enterprise rather than for that individual's personal benefit.  He advised it was presently a misdemeanor for an individual to connect his home (to a cable television service), but AB 601 was not directed at such individuals but at those individuals "...doing it as a business enterprise."

 

Mrs. Williams said she was told several magazines advertised devices such as those being discussed which could be purchased by mail and asked how such mail order businesses were dealt with.  Mr. Tackes answered if such a business was based in Nevada, AB 601 would provide a means to deal with that business.  He suggested there would be enforcement problems if such a business was based outside Nevada.  Mrs. Williams asked if there was an interstate cable television organization attempting to procure reciprocal (enforcement) agreements among states.  Mr. Tackes replied there was a national cable television organization involved in such an effort but he knew of no reciprocal legislation at present.  He advised if activity such as that covered by AB 601 crossed state lines, the Federal Bureau of Investigation became involved, but if such activity did not cross state line, federal authorities did not become involved.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 601. 

 

AB 599      Provides for licensure and regulation of professional counselors.

 

Assemblyman Rick Bennett, District 16, testified.  He stated AB 599 dealt with licensure and regulation of professional counselors.  He said AB 599 was similar to a Senate bill heard by the Assembly Committee on Commerce during the last legislative session, which bill was not passed by the legislature.  He stated many concerns regarding that bill had been resolved but a few had not been resolved.

 

Ms. Marsha Berkbigler, Nevada State Counseling Association, testified.  She advised there were individuals in Nevada providing various kinds of counseling, such as mental health counseling, school counseling and career development counseling, who were neither licensed nor regulated.  She indicated concern for protection of the interests of Nevada's citizens was the basis for AB 599.

 

Dr. Thomas C. Harrison, Ph.D., President, Nevada Mental Health Counselors Association, testified.  He provided a packet of documents pertaining to AB 599 (Exhibit F).  He advised written proposed amendments to AB 599 were contained in Exhibit F and in addition to those amendments, the association proposed AB 599 be amended to provide licensure for school counselors be optional "...so that it does not confound the relationship between the Commission on Education and AB 599."

 

He stated there were currently more than 750 professional counselors practicing in Nevada who were unregulated by any board or by any licensure requirement.  He said AB 599 proposed one board would regulate five counseling specialties, those being college counseling, career counseling, mental health counseling, school counseling and rehabilitation counseling.

 

He explained under AB 599, possession of a master's degree in counseling from a nationally accredited institution, including a minimum of 48 semester hours in a program of study defined by the National Accreditation Counsel for Counseling and a practicum and internship, would be required for licensure.  He advised AB 599 also required an applicant for licensure to document his completion of 2,200 hours of direct counseling service, with 2,000 hours of that service being completed after he obtained his master's degree. 

 

Dr. Harrison said AB 599 contained no provision for "grandfathering" but contained a "prior practitioners clause" which allowed an individual who had been in practice for the previous five years and who held a national certification recognized by the licensing board to sit for the (licensing) examination.  He advised everyone (seeking licensure) would be required to pass a written examination and there would be no waiver of that requirement.

    

Dr. Harrison advised AB 599 would create no cost to the state.

 

Ms. Susie Rusk, Nevada School Counselors, testified.  She said Nevada School Counselors supported AB 599 because it established parameters for counseling.  She explained school counselors encountered problems when they referred children and families for counseling because the school counselors had no knowledge of the educational background of an individual who called himself a "counselor."  She suggested AB 599 would protect children and other consumers.

 

Mr. Bonaventura asked if AB 599 would affect counselors who worked for federal government.  Ms. Rusk replied it would not. 

Mr. Wayne Lanning, Chairman, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), testified.  He said he had worked in both Wyoming and Indiana on efforts to license professional counselors.  He advised UNLV had programs, accredited by the American Counseling Association, in marriage and family counseling therapy, in school counseling and in community agency counseling.

 

Mr. Lanning stated AB 599 would allow qualified individuals an opportunity to practice and would ensure that individuals who did practice were qualified.

 

He referred to Dr. Harrison's contention AB 599 would impose no cost to the state, and said in his previous experience in other states, those who applied for licensing were "the ones who pay the bills."

 

Mr. Lanning advised licensing professional counselors should not be a matter of excluding qualified individuals but a matter of including as many qualified individuals as possible in the counseling/mental health profession, thereby providing the citizens of Nevada with more and better choices.

 

Mr. Tom Sexton, Nevada Counseling Association, testified.  Mr. Sexton gave his background in counseling and psychology.  He declared he strongly supported AB 599.

 

Mr. Sexton contended the fact professional counselors were not regulated in Nevada posed a danger to the public, whose members could not distinguish between qualified counselors and unqualified counselors.  He declared AB 599 would appropriately regulate the practice of professional counseling and ensure professional counselors had appropriate training and (educational) course work.  He advised AB 599 provided necessary and appropriate training standards for professional counselors and would ensure that citizens of Nevada who received counseling services would receive them from individuals appropriately trained to provide those services.

 

Mr. Scherer asked the difference between counseling and psychology or psychiatry.  Mr. Sexton replied there were both historical and philosophical differences between counseling and psychology.  He advised psychiatry was a medical discipline, while both psychology and counseling were social science disciplines.  He stated psychology and counseling operated from the same body of scientific knowledge and both attempted to assist individuals in changing their behavior; however, there were significant differences in the training and background (of those practicing psychology and those practicing counseling).  He advised individuals licensed in Nevada as psychologists possessed doctoral degrees.  He said AB 599 would license individuals "at the master's level in counseling."  Mr. Sexton explained the philosophical approach of professional counselors was one of prevention and of developing the individual rather than a remedial approach.   

 

Dr. Meri Shadley and Mr. James Balmut testified, jointly. Dr. Shadley said she was a past president of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, Nevada Division, held a Ph.D. in psychology and was a certified substance abuse counselor.

 

Mr. Balmut stated he also was a past president of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, Nevada Division, and  practiced marriage and family therapy in Nevada.

 

Dr. Shadley submitted the written testimony of Ms. D'Arcy Vanderpool, current president of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, Nevada Division (Exhibit G).

 

Dr. Shadley stated the association supported AB 599 but had some concerns regarding the bill, some of which had been addressed by Dr. Harrison.  She stated the association had been informed AB 599 was primarily "a professional identity bill," and the association supported the concept that individuals trained as professional counselors should be able to call themselves professional counselors. 

 

Mr. Balmut said, "I guess I'm curious about how the state would continue to deal with...of those 750 proposed licensees, what if they choose not to be licensed?  And what about those other people who are out there practicing?  I think the more specific this bill can be in terms of delineating those specific actions that people will need to take to be licensed and how they will monitor those who are licensed...those things seem of paramount importance to us."

 

Dr. Shadley recommended AB 599 define the scope of practice of licensed professional counselors by specifying such counselors were "licensed as a school counselor, as a college counselor, as a career counselor, as a rehab counselor..."

 

Mr. Balmut contended if various types of counselors were all identified by the single title "licensed professional counselor," members of the public could be confused regarding the training and background of those counselors.

 

Dr. Tom Harrison gave further testimony.  He explained under AB 599, every professional counselor, regardless of his specialty, would have to complete an accredited program which would provide identical training for all professional counselors.

 

Mr. Jerry Nims, Nevada State Psychological Association, testified.  He submitted a written statement in opposition to AB 599 on behalf of the association (Exhibit H).  Mr. Nims advised there were presently five mental health professions licensed in Nevada and there were approximately 2,600 practitioners of those professions.  He stated the association was concerned that creating a new health care profession, as provided by AB 599, would not simplify matters but would seriously compound them.

 

He advised a few weeks earlier, Senator Townsend had withdrawn a Senate bill, SB 345, stating in view of the uncertainty of the national health care system and the turmoil in Washington and throughout the country, this was not the time to make changes in Nevada's laws.  Mr. Nims said in light of Senator Townsend's comments, the Governor's reorganization plan and the Governor's statement he would not endorse any additional boards or commissions until reorganization was completed, the association believed "this is not the time and not the place to create another health care profession in the state of Nevada."

 

Mr. Nims contended AB 599 would create a title, "licensed professional counselor", but would not prevent individuals from using other titles such as "educational counselor," "rehabilitation counselor," "vocational counselor" or other such titles.  Mr. Nims stated, "So, while creating a new profession, the notion that this would bring all of the people into some new sweeping act whereby they might be disciplined, I think, is purely illusory."

 

Ms. Jacqueline Christensen testified.  She advised she was a vocational rehabilitation counselor in private practice.  She contended the scope of AB 599 was so broad as to be meaningless in many "senses."  Ms. Christensen stated the manner in which she conducted her work was already heavily regulated in all states by state statutes.  She said vocational rehabilitation counselors presently adhered to a very strict code of ethics and she did not believe including vocational rehabilitation counselors under the provisions of AB 599 would either serve the intents and purposes of AB 599 or improve the practice of vocational rehabilitation counseling.   

 

Ms. Christensen pointed out one proposed amendment to AB 599 would make licensure of career counselors optional.  She said if AB 599 was to be passed, she would ask "that vocational rehabilitation counselors also be included as an option."

 

Mr. Christensen said it was unclear whether AB 599 was intended as a title bill or as a practice bill and read certain portions of AB 599 to the committee.  She stated unless some questions were clarified, she would oppose AB 599 as written.

 

Chairman Porter closed the hearing on AB 599 and referred AB 599 to a subcommittee comprised of Mrs. Williams and Mr. Humke.

 

The committee took action on the following matters:

 

AB 601      Provides civil penalty and increased criminal penalty for violation of certain provisions concerning unauthorized interception of services of community antenna television company for commercial advantage.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA MOVED DO PASS AB 601.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Discussions among committee members.

 

Mr. Humke asked why a state statute was sought rather than local ordinances.  Chairman Porter replied he understood a state statute would provide local governments a state authority through which to prosecute those cases (of unauthorized interception of cable television services) which federal authorities chose not to prosecute.  Mr. Humke suggested local governments could replicate a state statute by imposing identical local ordinances and thus obtain the revenues which would have been obtained (by the state) from enforcing such a state statute.  Chairman Porter indicated he felt it preferable there be one state standard for the penalties to be imposed for unauthorized interception of cable television rather than numerous local standards.

 

Mr. Perkins referred to language in Section 3 of AB 601 which provided a civil action or proceeding could be commenced at any time within five years after the date of a conviction (in a criminal proceeding).  He said as there was also a five year statute of limitation with respect to any criminal prosecution, theoretically a civil action could be commenced ten years after the act resulting in the civil action occurred. 

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA'S MOTION TO "DO PASS AB 601" TO INCLUDE A MOTION TO AMEND AB 601 BY DELETING FROM SECTION 3 THE LANGUAGE "A CIVIL ACTION OR PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT MAY BE COMMENCED AT ANY TIME WITHIN 5 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CONVICTION." AND BY ADDING ON LINE 11 OF SECTION 3, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WORDS AND FIGURES "UNDER NRS 711.280," THE WORDS "OR SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT."

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Porter advised the motion now before the committee was amend and do pass AB 601.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

AJR 20      Urges Congress to enact legislation to facilitate establishment of Western United States Trade District.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS AJR 20.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.                      

 

AB 235 -    Establishes and revises various fines and penalties.

 

A motion to amend and do pass AB 235 having been carried during the meeting of the committee on April 21, 1993, Mr. Humke now presented a proposed amendment to AB 235, Amendment No. 342 (Exhibit I).  He advised one purpose of the proposed amendment was to eliminate wide disparities in fines imposed by AB 235.  Mr. Humke said one of the committee's concerns regarding AB 235 involved the constitutionality of an administrative hearing board's receiving fines imposed as a result of an administrative hearing conducted by that board.  He indicated the amendment included language which resolved that concern and which provided an administrative board could recover amounts equal to the costs of its investigation and its processing of an action only, and any amounts it recovered in excess of the amounts of those costs would revert to the state's general fund.

 

Further discussions among committee members concerned recovery of fines by administrative hearing boards and levels of fines.

 

Chairman Porter called for a motion on Amendment No. 342 to AB 235.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 342 TO AB       235.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

There being no further business before the committee, Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting.

 

                                  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 

 

 

 

                                   ______________________

                                   SARA J. KAUFMAN

                                   Committee Secretary

 

 

            

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Commerce

May 17, 1993

Page: 1