MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 25, 1993

 

The Assembly Committee on Commerce was called to order by Chairman Gene T. Porter at 2:20 p.m., Friday, June 25, 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

      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:

 

      Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Vice Chairman

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

     

      Dina Titus, Senate District 7

     

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

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

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Court Reporters Association; Judy Matteucci, Department of Administration; Terri Potts; Teresa Rankin, Insurance Commissioner; Dave Nicholas, Board of Nursing Home Administrators; Ed Fend, American Association of Retired Persons; Frank Guisti, State Life and Health Writers Associations; Ken Scruggs, Household Bank; David Olsen, City Bank; and Stephanie Tyler, Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners (See also Exhibit B attached hereto).

 

Chairman Porter opened the hearing on Senate Bill 198.

 

SB 198      Requires continuing education as condition of renewal of certification of certified shorthand reporter.

 

Harvey Whittemore, representing the Court Reporters Association, discussed the intent of the measure which was a companion bill to SB 213.  This bill amended NRS 656.200 with regard to completion of requirements as established by the board pursuant to regulation.

 

There was no further testimony in support or opposition to this bill.  Mr. Porter closed the hearing on SB 198 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 213.

 

SB 213      Makes various changes to provisions governing certified shorthand reporters.

 

Harvey Whittemore on behalf of the Certified Shorthand Reporters Board indicated this bill changes the reference from "shorthand reporters" to "court reporters."  There was a concern regarding the existing definition.  The bill increases certain fees required for certification as well as revises the qualifications for certification. For the most part, these were technical corrections, however, there was some modification to allow for electronic reporting.

 

Ms. Augustine inquired about the fee increase.  Mr. Whittemore responded the board was trying to establish the appropriate range.  No member of the association opposed the increase.

 

Judy Matteucci, Department of Administration, noted a number of state agencies used electronic equipment for recording hearings and they should be included in the definition.

 

Mr. Scherer asked how this bill would impact the ability to use electronic recording in lieu of court reporting.  Ms. Matteucci explained electronic recordings were used in the hearings and appeals division which were then transcribed.  This bill, as written, would exclude electronic recording as a method by which true certified documents could be submitted.  Mr. Scherer believed the bill just defined a certified shorthand reporter and if a department was not obligated by law to use a certified shorthand reporter, this bill would have no impact.  Ms. Matteucci reiterated that was part of the concern and referred to the definition in Section 26.

 

Mr. Whittemore said if electronic reporting was allowed under the existing chapters with respect to various departments then it was certainly allowable.  All that was being changed was the name "shorthand" to "court."  There was no other substantive change other than the fee.  This was not designed to preclude anybody allowed under the existing act.

 

Mr. Scherer asked if the board wanted to regulate people doing electronic reporting.  Mr. Whittemore responded no, the certification process was designed for court reporting and those skills associated with the specific equipment used.

 

Terri Potts clarified the role and function of the people which provided electronic monitoring for the Department of Administration.  They monitored the equipment and typed transcripts which were certified and notarized.  However, they were not licensed shorthand reporters.  This service was provided to judges in the rural counties at a much lower cost and there was concern they would no longer be able to continue with the passage of this bill.

 

Mr. Porter closed the hearing on SB 213 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 237.

 

SB 237      Makes various changes relating to insurance guaranty association.

 

Teresa Rankin, Insurance Commissioner, noted this bill was proposed by the Nevada Insurance Guarantee Association for property and casualty insurance.  Amendments were made in the Senate with regard to the scope of the guarantee fund payments, the types of damages paid, and whether or not the deductible included an unearned premium.  Also the amendment on page three regarding repayment of assessments as credits against the premium tax had a fiscal note and this language was agreeable.

 

Mr. Porter asked for an explanation of the language on page 1, lines 14-17.  Ms. Rankin believed that was for financial guarantee insurance because of the reference to credit risk.  However, she would have that verified.

 

Mr. Porter closed the hearing on SB 237 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 434.

 

SB 434      Provides for licensing of administrators of residential facilities for groups.

 

Dave Nicholas, representing the Board of Nursing Home Administrators, indicated the purpose of the bill was to put administrators of personal or residential care homes under the existing board of examiners for nursing home administrators and to change the name of the board.  There were 200 people who were not currently licensed.  The reason for the licensure was because part of the budget was being devoted to the downgrading of many clients who were in licensed care to the personal care area.  The bill was supported by Medicaid and Welfare as well as Aging Services. 

 

Ms Guinchigliani called attention to Section 22, subsection 4, with regard to NRS 449.017 and asked if there was another bill dealing with this issue.  Mr. Nicholas said yes, that bill was pending in Ways and Means, however, SB 434 could stand alone.

 

Mr. Scherer asked if this measure would apply to an individual who took a friend or neighbor into his home.  Mr. Nicholas indicated there were other bills and existing laws which dealt with situations of over 2 persons in a home.

 

Mr. Bennett inquired if the exam being conducted by the board for the purposes of licensure was appropriate with regard to the regulations concerning group care.  Mr. Nicholas noted until national criteria was developed the two new members of this board would be making sure the current criteria applied.

 

Mr. Porter wanted to know the purpose of the FBI background check.  Mr. Nicholas commented it was requested by Aging Services because of the possibility of criminal background on some people in the industry.  The cost would be borne by the applicant.  All current licensees would also be required to submit to a test.

 

Candy Rutledge, Division for Aging Services, indicated it was the intent to have a standard test which would include a background check for all the administrators.  Ms. Rutledge referred to her written testimony (EXHIBIT C) and explained anyone currently running a facility would fill out the forms, take a test, and go through the FBI check.

 

Mrs. Williams commented on the need to have these people thoroughly checked out.

 

Mr. Humke asked if this was a companion bill to AB 193.  Mr. Nicholas said no, it was not dependent on AB 193.  This bill would stand alone.  Mr. Humke noted one bill regulated the person running the facility and the other bill regulated the physical property.  Mr. Nicholas responded this situation involving licensure was also subject to waiver.

 

Ed Fend indicated strong support for this measure on behalf of the American Association of Retired Persons.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN M. WILLIAMS MOVED DO PASS ON SB 434.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mr. Porter opened the hearing on Senate Bill 467.

 

SB 467      Makes various changes relating to group insurance.

 

Frank Guisti, State Life and Health Writers' Associations, indicated the purpose of the bill was to clean up three particular areas in the existing insurance law.  Section 1 would add group term life insurance, Section 2 would take care of a problem regarding group long-term care disability contracts, and Section 3 clarified language regarding the intent of an employer to make modification changes in benefits or change insurers.

 

Mr. Porter wanted to know if this would affect the 1987 law on canceling/failing to renew on property casualty policies.  Ms. Rankin said no, that stayed in place.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED DO PASS ON SB 467.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN M. WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Mr. Porter opened the hearing on Senate Bill 477.

 

SB 477      Changes terminology and computation of interest on retail installment sales.

 

Ken Scruggs, Household Bank, explained this bill was introduced by the banking institutions which issued credit cards.  Section 3 of the bill defined "interest" as including other fees for the use of money over time.  Adoption of this language would not increase costs to the consumer.  However, it would help protect the bank against future lawsuits.

 

David Olsen, City Bank, discussed technical corrections to other sections of the bill.  Section 4 clarified checks used to make payments to credit card banks were regulated by UCC.  NRS 104.1103 allowed the UCC to prevail over common law.  This served to resolve future litigation issues.  Section 5 established by statute a conflict of law principle.  This only applied to credit card disputes and conformed to federal requirements. 

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked for an explanation of the term "overrides common law."  Mr. Olsen noted UCC was put in place so that commercial law would not change from state to state.  That law had to rise above common law.  Common law was court made rules which could vary from state to state.

 

Mr. Porter inquired why Section 3 was necessary.  What was the benefit of defining "interest."  Mr. Scruggs said it expanded the definition under the National Banking Act.  Mr. Olsen added some states had taken their usury laws off the books; therefore, there were no limits on fees or interest.  Other states had an interest rate cap or a cap on fees.  Banks would have to either vary their programs from state to state or rely on the supreme court case which said interest could be exported from the home state of a national bank to any other state in the country.  There had never been a clear statement that "fees" were under the umbrella of the term "interest."  The federal government had not addressed this issue and it was up to the individual states to make that determination.

 

Mr. Scherer asked for a definition of "card issuer."  Mr. Olsen stated there could be more than one corporate entity involved in the credit card operation.  Mr. Scherer wanted to know why the law of another state should apply to a transaction in Nevada.  Mr. Olsen indicated there was a clause in the credit card contract which stated the law of the state of issuance governed.  If an individual did not want to transact with a company in another state he could disregard the transaction and avoid being governed by that state.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED DO PASS ON SB 477.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN BONAVENTURA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED (ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER, M. WILLIAMS, KENNY, AND GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO).

 

Mr. Porter opened the hearing on Senate Bill 531.

 

SB 531      Requires board of dental examiners of Nevada to charge fee to review certain courses of continuing education for accreditation and provides that certain records of the board are confidential.

 

Stephanie Tyler, Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners, testified in support of SB 531 and discussed the provisions of the bill.  Section 1 addressed the issue of public records.  This would protect licensees when totally frivolous charges were alleged until a point when the allegations were proven to be true.  This language was adopted from the pharmacy law.  Section 3 allowed the board of dental examiners to review courses for continuing education so they could be certified by the board.

 

Mrs. Williams asked if any other profession required continuing education where the board charged for the development and review of the courses.  Ms. Tyler believed the same held true for the Medical Board.  Mrs. Williams asked if Mr. Mouritsen would have that information checked out.

 

Jim Waddams indicated support for SB 531 on behalf of the Nevada Dental Association.

 

Mr. Porter closed the hearing on SB 531 and opened the hearing on Senate Bill 484.

 

SB 484      Provides additional civil penalty for violations of certain unlawful trade practices which are directed toward elderly or disabled persons.

 

Dina Titus, Senate District 7, addressed the committee and explained this bill authorized the court to impose an additional $10,000 civil penalty for each violation of a deceptive trade practice or unlawful solicitation directed toward an elderly or disabled person.  Senior citizens were often targeted by unscrupulous businesses and made up 30 percent of the consumer fraud victims.  This bill was consistent with similar legislation in other states.  Nevada had the fastest growing senior population in the country.

 

Ms. Augustine asked how a caller would know if someone was disabled when soliciting by phone.  Senator Titus said there was very little question that people knew who they were talking to on the phone because of the lists which were generated.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired if this bill was modeled after the national attorney general language.  Senator Titus responded yes, this measure was supported by the Attorney General.

 

Mr. Humke noted there was reference to telemarketing laws which were held unconstitutional and wanted to know if that would be cured by a follow-up measure.  Senator Titus said she would check into that issue.  This bill was heard in connection with other telemarketing statutes in the Senate Commerce Committee.

 

Ray Trease, Department of Commerce, Consumer Affairs Division, indicated the Senate had passed an amended version which would take care of the concerns regarding the unconstitutionality of telemarketing.  In addition, this bill would provide additional revenue and the funding for educating seniors.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED DO PASS ON SB 484.

 

      ASSEMBLYMAN HELLER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

      MOTION CARRIED BY THOSE PRESENT (ASSEMBLYMEN PORTER, BONAVENTURA, SCHERER, AND ARBERRY WERE ABSENT AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE).

 

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.

 

                                   Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

                                   ________________________

                                   Connie Campbell

                                   Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Commerce

June 25, 1993

Page: 1