MINUTES OF THE

      SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES

 

      Sixty-seventh Session

      June 9, 1993

 

 

 

The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 2:09 p.m., on Wednesday, June 9, 1993, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

Senator William R. O'Donnell, Vice Chairman

Senator Randolph J. Townsend

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.

Senator Diana M. Glomb

Senator Lori L. Brown

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Senator Bob Coffin (Excused)

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Ernest E. Adler, Capital District

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Pepper Sturm, Research Analyst

Susan Henson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Debbie Thurner, Licensing and Research Officer, State Department of Insurance

Jerry W. Ash, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Hospital Association

Sandy Coyle, Concerned Parent

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards

Lindsey Jydstrup, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association   (NSEA)

 

Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 482.

 

SENATE BILL 482:  Regulates establishment and operation of cemeteries for pets.  (BDR 40-132)

 

Chairman Rawson called attention to the lack of regulations regarding pet cemeteries, and consequently two concerns which have surfaced.  He stated he feels there should be some assurance that care can be provided over a period of time when dealing with an endowment fund and perpetual care agreement, and an issue which bears some scrutiny are individuals requesting their cremated remains be buried with a pet.

 

Debbie Thurner, Licensing and Research Officer, State Department of Insurance, stated she is before the committee to discuss the department's concerns.  A portion of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 689 entitles the Department of Insurance to regulate funeral and cemetery sellers, people selling pre-need contracts.  The department licenses the agents that sell the product, and has the authority to audit any trust funds.  She pointed out their biggest concern is S.B. 398 which conflicts with S.B. 482, although S.B. 398 only deals with human cemeteries. 

 

SENATE BILL 398:  Provides for regulation of cemeteries and crematories.  (BDR 40-1371)

 

This bill would change the authority from the commissioner of insurance to a board, and thus some of the commissioner's current duties would be going to the board.  The board is made up of the state board of funeral directors, embalmers, operators of cemeteries and crematories.  S.B. 398 would give the Department of Insurance the authority to take care of the endowment funds, and the licensing of the agents.  Ms. Thurner pointed out S.B. 398 is also changing NRS 452, and therefore the bills should be compared prior to moving forward, to avoid a conflict.

 

Senator Rawson directed the committee to section 22, line 5, page 5 of S.B. 482 which says, "The provisions of this chapter do not apply to persons who provide, or to any agreements for the provision of, services regarding funerals for or the burial of pets only."  

 

Ms. Thurner agreed that language should remain in the bill. However, she referred the committee to sections 18 and 19, lines 23-30, page 4 of S.B. 482 which says, ". . . administrator."  NRS 452 defines administrator as the commissioner of insurance.  If S.B. 398 passes in its form, that will change and the duties of the administrator will become the duties of the board.  It is her opinion there would be a conflict on different sections of S.B. 482 if both bills pass.

 

Senator Townsend stated Senator Shaffer of commerce and labor is chairing a subcommittee on S.B. 398 which deals with funeral directors, cemeteries and crematories.  He said the committee has been working diligently on this bill, which will be ready to pass it out of committee once the amendments are drafted.  He suggested

 

the committees compare notes and afterward decide how to deal with S.B. 482.

 

Chairman Rawson suggested reporting S.B. 482 out and then referring it to Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, and asked the committee for their thoughts on this matter.  Senator Townsend stated his committee only has jurisdiction over section 22 of the bill and offered to keep the discussions of conflict in mind when working on their bill.  However, he does not feel the bill needs to be referred to commerce and labor. Chairman Rawson asked that Senator Townsend keep the committee informed of commerce and labor's action on S.B. 398.

 

Ms. Thurner continued the discussion on the department's concerns, referring the committee to section 8, line 31, page 2 of the bill which says,  " . . . by any independent salesmen . . . ."  She questioned if the department was no longer involved, who would regulate the independent salesman.

 

Senator Rawson asked if Ms. Thurner has a proposed amendment regarding the department's concerns.  Ms. Thurner replied she has nothing to present to the committee, but noted the department does regulate the agents that sell the pre-need under NRS 689 and thought there could be some reference to regulating them that way. 

Ms. Thurner declared she had nothing further to add and stated if the department has responsibility and knows what that responsibility is, they would like to prepare a fiscal note.

 

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 482 and opened the hearing on S.B. 495.

 

SENATE BILL 495:  Limits liability of certified emergency medical dispatchers.  (BDR 3-1477)

 

Jerry W. Ash, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Hospital Association, testified on behalf of the Nevada Hospital Association, the Liability Cooperative of Nevada, and the Nevada Rural Hospital Project.  Mr. Ash stated that although these entities are not the sponsors of this bill, they have an interest and appreciate the opportunity to speak before the committee.  Mr. Ash expressed support of the bill with his proposed amendment, to be presented shortly.

 

Mr. Ash stated he received a copy of a letter from Dr. David M. Hogle, Elko Regional Medical Center, addressed to the Executive Director of the Nevada Rural Hospital project.  He read a short excerpt from that letter:

 

 

      Most small rural hospitals have volunteer medical directors to provide medical supervision for their ambulances.  In 1991, the health division modified its rules and regulations spelling out the duties and responsibilities of medical directors.  Unfortunately, they provided no legislative immunity from suits, thereby creating a condition that clearly defines a legal attack on volunteers for any possible acts of omissions or comission by Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) in the field.  This leaves the volunteer medical director with the dilemma of accepting the potential malpractice risk on their own, or resigning as medical directors and leaving the hospitals to flounder the best they can, or making these a paid position to the financial detriment to the ambulance service and the hospitals, which in rural Nevada they can ill afford.  The best possible remedy would be to provide legislative immunity from liability suits for volunteer medical directors servicing volunteer ambulance services in the rural counties.

 

Mr. Ash stated as a result of that letter, he prepared and has submitted a proposed amendment to the bill (Exhibit C).  He feels when immunity from liability is provided at one point in the chain, it may inadvertently shift that liability down the chain.  Section 1, line 3, page 1 of the bill says, "An emergency medical dispatcher is immune from civil liability . . . if: . . . (b) The protocols for the system have been approved by the medical director of the local emergency medical service. . . ."  It appears this passes the liability from the dispatcher down the chain to the medical director, and to the institutions that have solicited the volunteer service. 

 

Mr. Ash read his proposed amendment (Exhibit C) for the committee, which allows immunity from civil liability or damages, for a volunteer medical director and the sponsoring health care facility, which are the result of acts of omission or comission by emergency medical technicians in the field.  He urged the committee's consideration and adoption of the amendment, and expressed support of the bill if the amendment were to pass.

 

Senator Glomb questioned whether Mr. Ash's amendment carries the immunity too far, from the dispatcher to the hospital.  Chairman Rawson clarified the immunity is only for those acts committed by the dispatcher in the field, it does not create a blanket immunity against everything.  He stated it is a fundamental policy decision.

 

Senator Brown suggested Mr. Ash include in the amendment the same language found in the first few sections of S.B. 495, "The act or omission . . . does not amount to gross negligence or willful misconduct," and that it follow general protocol.  She stated she feels language in the amendment should meet those same requirements. 

 

Mr. Ash emphasized he is merely attempting to make certain that the rest of the bill does not pass the liability along to the medical director and the hospital, unless they act negligently in their own right. 

 

Chairman Rawson closed the hearing on S.B. 495. 

 

      SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 495,       INCORPORATING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (EXHIBIT C), AND SENATOR     BROWN'S QUALIFYING LANGUAGE.

 

      SENATOR BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

In response to Senator Neal's question, Senator Brown clarified the language she is proposing, which would put the same qualifiers in the amendment as found in the first part of the bill.  She suggested including some of the language found in lines 6 through 12 of section 1(a), page 1, of the bill, which in effect says, "He has, in good faith, followed the protocols that are right for that field, and his acts or omissions do not amount to gross negligence or willful misconduct."  Without that language, a willful commission or omission would be immune.

 

Senator O'Donnell commented that lines 9 and 10 of section 1(b), page 1 would have to be deleted.

 

Senator Townsend asked for further clarification, and questioned why the bill carves out certain individuals and allows them immunity from civil liability. 

 

Chairman Rawson declared those individuals receiving immunity are volunteers.  This in essence works as a good samaritan statute.

 

Senator Townsend pointed out the word volunteer does not appear in the bill which specifically says an emergency medical dispatcher, who has completed a training program approved by the board and has been certified as having satisfactorily completed such a training program.

 

Senator Brown maintained that if a matter such as this came before a court of law, determination would be left to the fact finder to decide whether the dispatcher acted reasonably or negligently. She suggested the maker of the motion consider adding the word volunteer before "emergency medical dispatchers" in the bill.

 

 

 

The committee continued a discussion among themselves regarding changing the language of the bill and incorporating the immunity language.

 

There being no further discussion, the chairman called for a vote on S.B. 495.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS O'DONNELL AND TOWNSEND VOTED NO.  SENATOR COFFIN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

Senator Brown stated she would attempt to add the word "volunteer" before "emergency medical dispatchers" to the bill on the senate floor. 

 

Senator Neal volunteered to defend this bill on the senate floor on behalf of the committee.

 

Chairman Rawson indicated he would hold S.B. 482 until the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor finished their bill.

 

Chairman Rawson opened the Work Session on S.B. 91.

 

SENATE BILL 91:   Allows school-based decision in public schools.  (BDR 34-259)

 

The chairman indicated Senator Adler requested the committee substitute the proposed Amendment No. 478 for S.B. 91.

 

      SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 91.

 

      SENATOR GLOMB SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Rawson provided the committee with a copy of the amendments to S.B. 91 (Exhibit D) for review.  He walked the committee through the various changes, commencing with section 2.2, page 2 (Exhibit D), which reads, "For the involvement of parents and other members of the community on and with the school council."

 

Sandy Coyle, Concerned Parent, stated she would like to see parents included on the school council.  She pointed out Washoe County School District has a site-based council without parents. 

 

Chairman Rawson noted the changes in section 2.2, page 2, (Exhibit D) address that, and would allow parents to be included on the school council.  Senator Adler agreed with the new language and emphasized the thrust of the bill is to get parents involved in the schools. 

 

Chairman Rawson then directed the committee to the bottom of section 2.9, page 3 (Exhibit D), noting the addition of 2.10, wherein the board must establish an actual procedure to allow parents to withdraw or enroll their children in a school-based decision making program.  Additionally, paragraph 2.11 states the board must set out the procedure a school council may use to withdraw from a program of school-based decision making.  Chairman Rawson commented that should a program turn bad, this language opens an avenue to get out of the program.

 

Senator Adler expressed his agreement with the inclusion of the above language into the bill.

 

Chairman Rawson set out the changes in section 4, page 3 (Exhibit D), which says, "The state board may waive a course of study otherwise required by statute upon application of a local school board on behalf of a school council created pursuant to a program of school-based decision making approved by the board of trustees of the school district."  Senator Adler voiced his agreement with the inserted language, noting it addresses what was originally intended. 

 

Chairman Rawson drew attention to the last item, section 6, page 3, which says, "The provisions of this act expire by limitation on June 30, 1997."  This language sunsets the bill, giving it 4 years, or two biennium, which allows a way out should the program fail.

 

A discussion ensued regarding whether or not the bill should have a sunset clause.  Senator Adler was not sure it was necessary to sunset the bill, rather suggested requiring the school council to report back, which creates an accountability to the legislature as to the progress of the program. 

 

Henry Etchemendy, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards (NASB), testified that he does not feel a sunset clause would cause a school district that was involved in a school based-based decision making program to get rid of their program, but rather merely removes it from the statutes. 

 

Senator Adler pointed out, should there be a sunset clause, all the waivers would go away.

 

Senator Neal commented he made the opening motion in an attempt to move the bill, as it has been around since January 21st.  He acknowledged there will be problems that the committee did not anticipate; however, it is his recommendation to let the bill go now and come back for reconsideration before the 1997 session.  At that time there should be enough evidence to make a judgment as to whether the program will become permanent.

 

Lindsey Jydstrup, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), stated they have no problem with the sunset provision.  She expressed concern with the new subsection 10, the procedures to allow parents to withdraw or enroll their children in a school-based decision making program.  Ms. Jydstrup felt this language is unnecessary as it gets too close to school choice language.  She pointed out the schools already have the zone variance procedure they can adopt.

 

Senator Rawson clarified this language states the board of trustees of a school district must develop rules around the subject on subsection 10, they can include or exclude it.  It would describe how to deal with the school district's protocol for where kids go to school.

 

Ms. Jydstrup reiterated her concern that this would become an avenue for opening it up to a school choice situation.  The zone variance is a very workable system and she would like to see that stay in place, and thus feels this language is unnecessary.

 

Chairman Rawson stated he feels the legislative intent here is not a roundabout way at school choice, but rather within the parameters of whatever percent of students the district allows to be moved. He stated he would not want to see a segregated school develop as a result of this program. 

 

As there were no further comments, Chairman Rawson called for a vote on S.B. 91.

 

      THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATORS TOWNSEND AND COFFIN WERE ABSENT     FOR THE VOTE.)

 

      * * * * *

 

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

 

     

                  RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

     

                                          

                  Susan Henson,

                  Committee Secretary

 

 

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

 

                                   

Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman

 

 

DATE:                               

??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities

June 9, 1993

Page 1