MINUTES OF MEETING

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 26, 1993

 

 

 

The Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order by Chairman Jan Evans at 1:08 p.m., Saturday, June 26, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Mrs. Jan Evans, Chairman

      Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Vice Chairman

      Ms. Kathy M. Augustine

      Ms. Marcia de Braga

      Mr. James A. Gibbons

      Mr. Dean A. Heller

      Mr. William A. Petrak

      Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom

      Mr. Louis A. Toomin

     

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

      Ms. Stephanie Smith

      Mr. Wendell Williams

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

      None 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

      Kerry Carroll Davis, Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

      Frank Daykin and Wayne Reynolds, Nevada Association of Cemeteries; Terry Rankin, Insurance Commissioner; Sue Coffee, Retired Police Officer; Larry Stout, POST; Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office; Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby; Bradford Bodeau, Legislative Aide for Senator Glomb; Alicia Smalley, National Association of Social Workers

 

Mrs. Evans opened the hearing on Senate Bill 398.

 

SB 398      Makes various changes to provisions relating to disposition of dead human bodies.

 

Frank Daykin, Counsel, Nevada Association of Cemeteries, explained previously there had not been much state law on the subject of crematories.  Much of this bill originated from a request by the Cemetery Association and those who were engaged in the operation of crematories.  This bill incorporated a model act proposed by the national association of crematory operators.  The other major part of the bill created a board for cemeteries which would issue certification of authority to operate cemeteries and oversee administration of their operation.  The Commissioner of Insurance would retain jurisdiction over pre-need services.  The cemetery board was combined with the board which regulated funeral directors.  Also, some proposals which had been in SB 345 were combined into this bill.  Mr. Daykin called attention to a potential problem with language on page 16, lines 25 and 26, pertaining to pre-need agreements. 

 

Mrs. Freeman clarified the bill was based upon model legislation which was being introduced in other states.  Mr. Daykin pointed out the first 25 sections were based upon a model proposed by the Association of Crematory Operators.  Mrs. Freeman asked if any other states currently had this law.  Mr. Reynolds stated it had been adopted in several states.  The language was being proposed so it could be uniform throughout the U.S.  Mrs. Freeman inquired about the incident in Las Vegas which resulted in creation of another measure.  Mr. Daykin indicated during testimony in the Senate there were some questions whether the existing board of funeral directors was effectively regulating the Southern Nevada area.

 

Ms. Augustine questioned some of the technical language in the bill and Mr. Daykin addressed her concerns.  In reference to Section 14, Mr. Daykin stated the operator of a crematory did not have the authority to sign a death certificate.  The administrator, Section 35, was defined as the Commissioner of Insurance.  With regard to Section 47, Ms. Augustine asked if an innocent person was entitled to reimbursement for attorney fees and court costs.  Mr. Daykin explained Section 47 came from language in SB 345, however, this would only be an injunction issued after the merits of the matter had been heard.  Ms. Augustine inquired as to the accountability for the fees being addressed in Section 51.  Mr. Daykin noted the accountability was found in other sections relating to the board.

 

There was brief discussion regarding the definition of cremation.  Mr. Daykin noted a definition was unnecessary because the word had a dictionary meaning.  Ms. Augustine noted the definition set forth in Section 39 of the bill was different from the Federal Trade Commission definition.  Mr. Daykin indicated the Federal Trade Commission definition would apply to those sections over which the FTC had jurisdiction.  Mr. Reynolds mentioned the embalmers were responsible for the FTC law but cemeteries were not included in that law.

 

Mrs. Evans asked for clarification of language in Section 12 (2) regarding the term "appropriate public officer."  Mr. Reynolds responded in most cases the term referred to the county coroner.  Mrs. Evans asked for an explanation of the language in Section 16 (1).  Mr. Reynolds said this section set forth the type of containers acceptable for cremation.  Mrs. Evans called attention to Section 23 (2).  Mr. Daykin pointed out that section stipulated the operator of the crematory could comply with the signed order.

 

Mrs. Evans inquired if there was a proposed amendment being offered with regard to the makeup of the board.  Mr. Daykin said he would like the board of funeral directors to be constituted and a separate board for cemeteries be created.  However, the reorganization bill was trying to reduce the number of boards.

 

Mrs. Evans wanted to know if the language used on page 13, lines 20-22, related to industry terminology.  Mr. Daykin explained these terms referred to people who solicited business from the bereaved. 

 

Mr. Toomin asked what happened to the unclaimed remains of an indigent person.  Mr. Reynolds noted Section 21 stated any unclaimed remains would be placed in a common compartment.  Mr. Toomin inquired if there was any provision for the funeral board to inspect funeral homes and crematories.  Mr. Daykin said yes, the board would have that responsibility; however, there was no provision for systematic inspection.  Section 46 of the bill allowed the board to investigate an alleged violation.  Mr. Toomin indicated he would like some provision whereby these facilities were inspected on a regular basis.

 

Mrs. Evans asked if Section 22 (2) was consistent with how cremated remains were to be scattered.  Mr. Daykin explained this language came from the model act.

 

Terry Rankin, Insurance Commissioner, explained the present structure and answered questions on consumer issues.  The office of the Insurance Commissioner licensed the cemeteries and reviewed the endowment funds as well as licensed the pre-need sellers.  This bill provided for the combination of the cemetery board and the funeral board and regulated crematories.  Licensing of cemeteries often involved issues which needed to be addressed by the Board of Health.  Ms. Rankin discussed some of the consumer abuses and past problems with the two separate boards.  In reference to Section 67, Ms. Rankin proposed an amendment to delete "and any other expenses of the sale."  Discussion ensued regarding the existing law on the 110 percent total trust liability and the refund program.

 

Mrs. Evans asked Ms. Rankin and Mr. Daykin to take the proposed amendment to bill draft and bring it back to the committee for final action.

 

Mrs. Evans opened the hearing on Senate Bill 429.

 

SB 429      Requires certain peace officers to complete program of training for detection and investigation of and response to cases of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of children.

 

Sue Coffee, retired police officer, testified in support of SB 429 (EXHIBIT C).

 

Mr. Gibbons inquired if the intent of the bill was to have every category I peace officer trained.  Ms. Coffee said it would require an additional 8 hours of training in POST for those peace officers going through the academy, not the existing officers.

 

Larry Stout, Peace Officer Standards and Training, confirmed not every category I peace officer required this training.  Discussion ensued regarding the language in Section 2 (1)(a).  In response to additional questions from the committee, Mr. Stout noted there was a mandatory continuing education requirement.  If that was not met, certification would lapse.  Mr. Gibbons suggested, as currently written, the bill would require every category I peace officer to receive this training.

 

Mr. Heller believed Section 3 of the bill clarified the concern regarding peace officers who were not certified to investigate these cases.  Mr. Gibbons indicated Section 3 was intended to give an exemption to those law enforcement agencies who did not have someone trained.

 

Lt. Jim Nadeau, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, addressed the committee.  He clarified when a law enforcement officer was hired he served a one-year probationary period, and during that year he was required to attend POST training in order to qualify for certification.  Then he was required to do 24 hours of POST training annually in order to maintain his certification.  Lt. Nadeau believed the bill, as currently written, would require all category I peace officers to receive this training.  This could easily be corrected by limiting the language to only those peace officers certified after a specific date.

 

Ms. Augustine inquired how the fiscal note was determined.  Lt. Nadeau did not know how that information was calculated.

 

Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women's Lobby, remarked when the amendments to this bill were drawn on the Senate side, a phrase was left out of Section 2 (1)(a).  It was to read "Require each category I peace officer in a certified academy to complete a program of training...".

 

Mr. Stout reiterated his understanding was that every certified academy in the state would expand the curriculum to provide a much higher awareness level for those people going through.  Individuals who were regularly assigned the duties of investigating child sexual abuse would receive specialized training in order to become certified in that area and would receive recertification on a periodic basis.  He did not believe every category I peace officer received that training.

 

Ms. Gang said there appeared to be agreement that not every category I peace officer would have to go back to POST to receive this training; however, as they go back for additional training they would then receive this training with other academy work.

 

Mr. Toomin asked if the fiscal note would apply to the way the bill was currently written or the way it was amended.  Sue Coffee indicated the fiscal impact was designed for only the new officers coming into the program.

 

Mr. Heller wanted to know if one 8 hour course would be sufficient.  Ms. Coffee said no, but it was a foot in the door and it was important to get at least 8 hours for the initial officers.  The most important part of the bill was the week-long training POST would provide on an annual basis for officers who specialized in the field.

 

Bradford Bodeau, Legislative Aide for Senator Glomb, read the Senator's testimony in support of the bill (EXHIBIT D).

 

Alicia Smalley, National Association of Social Workers, spoke in support of SB 429 (EXHIBIT E).  It was critical that social workers and law enforcement personnel work together on these issues.

 

Mr. Gibbons asked if all social workers were trained in  investigation and questioning of children in terms of sexual abuse.  Ms. Smalley said it was part of the BSW curriculum at the university.  Mr. Gibbons clarified before a social worker could do this type of work he would have to be certified in the same manner as a POST officer.  Ms. Smalley said the training was similar.

 

Bobbie Gang indicated the Nevada Women's Lobby addressed this issue and stated 1 out of every 3 girls and 1 out of every 6 boys were sexually molested before the age of 18 with the average age being 4 years old.  This emphasized why it was so important that people who dealt with these cases really learned how to work with young children.

 

Mr. Petrak asked for a brief explanation of what was included in the program.  Ms. Coffee responded the training should incorporate interviewing techniques, typologies of the offender, victimology, typical reactions of children, NRS, legal aspects, and defense issues.  The process would vary from county to county and agency to agency but the officers would be given the necessary tools.  Mr. Petrak inquired if the program was in place.  Ms. Coffee said POST had the training manuals and a program would have to be designed and implemented.

 

Mrs. Evans appointed Mr. Gibbons as a subcommittee of one to work on the amended language.

 

There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

 

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

                             

      CONNIE CAMPBELL

      Committee Secretary

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services

June 26, 1993

Page: 1