The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:50 p.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4115 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Assembly District 6

Former Senator Thomas Hickey

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Buckley announced that the committee did not intend to hold any further meetings on Thursdays. The meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 11, 1999 would be cancelled and a new agenda would be posted for Friday, March 12, 1999 at 1:15 p.m. Scheduled committee meetings would change to Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.

Assemblywoman Evans stated for the record that committee members who were also members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee would be leaving on March 12, 1999 promptly upon adjournment of the Assembly to conduct site visits and take testimony in Las Vegas. Chairman Buckley responded the committee would conduct the hearing without the dual members present so that the work of the committee would not get behind.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 214.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Assembly District 6, testified A.B. 214 was a result of a previous bill of the 1989 Legislative Session. That bill dealt with the visitation and involvement of parents in the educational process of students. At that particular time a number of reports had been received of parents who were threatened or terminated from employment if they received a call from their child’s school requesting their presence.

In 1989 the legislature passed an amended form of the bill introduced in that session, making it illegal for employers to threaten or terminate parents based on a need for parents to visit their child’s school.

Assemblyman Williams stated he was an educator and Chairman of the Committee on Education for five legislative sessions. When discussing improvements in education, reform, school safety, school to work, and accountability standards, the one standard everyone espoused was that parents had to be involved.

A.B. 214 encouraged the people of Nevada to understand how important parental involvement in education was. The bill proposed an allowance for 1 hour of leave to visit school, for each employee of an employer employing
300 or more persons. Assemblyman Williams commented that hopefully the hour could be used for positive visits as well as those required for problems that occurred.

The bill allowed 2 hours total of paid leave per year, 1 hour each semester for parental school visits.

Assemblyman Williams stated when the proposal had been made previously; those who opposed the bill were representatives of retailers or chambers of commerce. He noted those were the same people who came forward on other pieces of legislation stating the need for qualified people in the work force and that schools needed to produce good graduates.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thanked Mr. Williams for bringing the issue back. She remembered the 1989 legislation. She asked why an employer with 300 or more employees was picked at the point where the bill took effect. Assemblyman Williams replied that after some research it was determined that a business of that size could afford to offer the benefit. Some smaller businesses could not afford to provide the 1-hour of paid leave for their employees.

Assemblyman Goldwater asked how it was to be verified that the worker was in fact taking off for meetings with school counselors and not another frivolous reason. Assemblyman Williams responded it made sense to have some type of verification from the school, even a note asking the parent to attend, or if the parent was voluntarily visiting the school they could request some type of documentation from the school. He added that was a very important aspect of the bill and should be very easy to amend in. He offered to add the stipulation to the bill.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated as he read the bill it stated, "each employee
2 hours of leave each year," and did not specify the leave was to be 1 hour in each semester. Since the bill specified teacher, counselor, principal or any other administrator, it would appear the bill would allow 2 hours for each child with each one of the administrators listed. He asked if the bill language could be limited by allowing up to 2 hours total to visit any one of those school staff listed. Assemblyman Williams stated the intent of the bill was for a total of
2 hours per year, but it did not specify 1 hour per semester because there might be instances when 2 hours on one particular day would best serve a particular situation. The parent would be allowed no further paid leave in that particular year. The intent of the bill was not to specify 2 hours with each particular administrator. The parent would have to select the proper administrator with whom to meet or try to squeeze more than one administrator within the allotted time.

Assemblyman Nolan asked if parent/teacher conferences were mandatory for students in grade kindergarten through twelve. Assemblyman Williams replied parent/teacher conferences were not required unless students who had an unfortunate incident on campus were placed on Required Parent Conference (RPC). In those cases the parent had to appear, but if the parent had extenuating circumstances sometimes they were allowed to explain without a conference and still get the child back in school.

Assemblyman Williams continued in many cases where there were a lot of employees, a parent was requested to appear at the school and the employer was not in favor of their doing so. That placed the parent in a situation of attending the parent conference or maintaining their employment. Many instances had occurred where a parent was terminated or threatened if they chose to attend a school conference. The bill would allow parents to choose to attend the structured parent/teacher conference or choose a time appropriate that would best enhance the educational relationship between their child and the school.

Assemblyman Nolan noted when he, as a parent, received a notice of a structured parent/teacher conference he was typically instructed to call and make an appointment on a specific day. Many times he and his wife had arrived only to sit in the hallway with a large group of parents waiting to spend time with the teacher. The teacher kept a check-off sheet for those parents who attended the conference. He asked if that was a school district requirement or state statute. Additionally, he wondered if there was any record of how many parents did not attend those structured conferences. Assemblyman Williams replied there was no state statute or anything similar. Teachers normally liked to get the names and signatures of parents who attended because they could relate to in a better framework when working with the student. The whole idea was to have parents go to a school and meet with a teacher or counselor, preferably before a negative incident occurred. He commented the relationship was far more positive when parents conferred with administrators of their child’s school under such circumstances.

Al Bellister, Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) testified in support of A.B. 214. The association believed the bill was an excellent vehicle to improve parental involvement in the schools and especially important during the time of implementation of the new educational standards.

Mr. Bellister referred to Assemblyman Nolan’s earlier question stating the state did compile an accountability report and one item reviewed was the percentage of attendance at parent/teacher conferences around the state. In some counties 55 percent of the parents attended conferences such as Churchill County or
52 percent in Lyon County. He had noticed some of the schools that had the dubious distinction of being inadequate performers had very low parent/teacher conference attendance. One school had as low as 45 percent attendance. If the bill would improve parent involvement and help the students he urged support.

Barbara Clark representing the Nevada Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and its 32,000 members testified from written testimony (Exhibit C).

Not only was the bill talking about the ability to attend teacher conferences, but there were times during a year when a child was in trouble or needed extra care and the parent needed the ability to go to the school site and address the needs and establish a method or a contract for student discipline.

The PTA strongly encouraged support of the bill. Evidence was overwhelming that parents needed to be involved.

Assemblywoman Berman stated testimony had indicated that in "good schools" 50 percent of parents went to parent/teacher conferences. She asked if there was any information on what caused the other 50 percent of parents to not participate. Ms. Clark responded she did not have that information. There were problems with the hours during the day in which teacher conferences were typically held. She added in the past some teachers had held teacher conferences on Saturdays and that had helped fill the need. Working between
8 a.m. and 4 p.m. was a hard time for everyone to attend and address the needs, or perhaps even the particular week conferences were scheduled could pose problems for some parents.

Mr. Bellister stated his information did not break down the reasons parents did not attend parent/teacher conferences. He commented it was hard to believe however, that 50 percent of the parents would be that apathetic. It had to be assumed there were other factors contributing to why they did not attend. One of those reasons might be that they were unable to leave work to attend.

Assemblyman Nolan stated he agreed with the concept of A.B. 214. He commented it would be nice to think that all parents were concerned enough about what their child was doing in school that they would take an opportunity to speak with the teachers. He noted some of the classrooms (K-3) had class-size reduction requirements of 16 students per class, but above that grade classes typically held 20 to 24 children in a classroom. He asked if it would be up to the teachers to coordinate the additional 2 hours parents would be coming to visit them as authorized in the bill. He asked who would be responsible for coordinating the parent’s time in the classroom and specifically the bill did not address what time the employer was to provide the employee time off. He asked what would happen if the employers stated, "Between 11 a.m. and noon will be a slow time at work today, why don’t you take that time off and go to school with your children at that time." Mr. Bellister responded ordinarily the teacher requested a parent conference to attend to the business of the students’ progress in the class through grading review and assessments. There were still those scheduled events such as an open house and days dedicated to parent/teacher conferences, but there were other times when teachers needed to call parents in to work as a team in assessing the child’s progress. Teachers were willing to work before and after school and even on weekends in some cases. If an employer set a specific time as in Mr. Nolan’s example, that might be scheduled instructional time. Teachers did have preparation periods so the bottom line was conferences were subject to the ability of the parent and the teacher to work out a time to meet.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated the bill was directed at employees in private employment and asked how state, county, or city employees were addressed. He asked if they were specifically given a time to meet with school officials. Assemblyman Williams replied the bill did not address that issue because the cases he had reviewed indicated the ability for parents to get time to confer with teachers was most difficult in the private sector. Usually in the public sector, benefits were more appropriate and permissible. He offered to include public employees as well if that was the desire of the committee.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated he appreciated that view, but the issue was "with pay." There were only a few private employers who did not allow their employees to take time off. He noted if public employees were included in
A.B. 214 it would cause a very large fiscal note on the bill and Assemblyman Hettrick did not think that was preferred. Assemblyman Hettrick stated his concern was that the private sector was being mandated to provide time off with pay while the public sector was allowed to provide time off, not necessarily with pay. Assemblyman Williams rebutted that in the public sector employees could normally take leave with or without pay. It was very easy for a person working in the public sector to take an hour of their vacation time for such a purpose.

The Chair asked if there was anyone else present to speak in favor of A.B. 214. Seeing none, she noted a number of people had signed the guest list in opposition to the bill and asked that testimony not be redundant.

Jim Chavis, representing Placer Dome mining companies explained he was responsible for human resources, government affairs and Chairman of Government Affairs for the Nevada Mining Association. Mr. Chavis testified the mining industry did not see a need for A.B. 214. The Nevada mining industry was one of the highest paying industries in the state and had comparable benefits including exactly what the bill addressed. Most of the mines were not represented by bargaining units and most mine employees were staff employees. Staff employees were allowed to attend school conferences or even school events without a reduction in salary.

Mr. Chavis stated the mining companies that were represented by a bargaining unit had provisions in their contracts that allowed employees to substitute paid time from other benefits packages to allow them to attend school activities.

Mr. Chavis listed some of the minimum benefits afforded to mine employees:

• At least 80 hours of holiday pay per year;
• At least 80 hours of vacation per year;
• Generous short term disability packages (sick leave) covering 6 months of illness; and
• Other benefits that could be mix and matched.

The mining industry employed people on rotating shifts and the majority of miners worked less than 170 days per year. Shifts rotated from day to night, but also days off were rotated throughout the week providing further opportunity to attend to school children’s needs.

Mr. Chavis noted most mining companies were located in remote locations and in excess of 1 hour from most towns where schools were located. The bill allowed 2 hours to attend such meetings. The industry was exceeding the stipulations of the bill in most cases by giving their employees an entire day to attend to school needs.

Bob Ostrovsky representing Nevada Resort Association testified in opposition of A.B. 214. He noted many employees were surprised to learn that holidays and vacations were not mandated. Only lunches and breaks were mandated under the Fair Labor Standards Act or under Nevada state law. Holidays and vacations were benefits offered in non-union settings to attract employees or were bargained for in collective bargaining agreements.

Mr. Ostrovsky pointed out A.B. 214 would provide the first ever mandated time away from work. Currently, resort employees had the option of using sick

leave, personal leave, vacation days, or could request flextime to accommodate employees who needed time off to visit with school officials.

Mr. Ostrovsky acknowledged that even in a big business there were times when an employee could not get a specifically requested time off and would be asked to take leave at a different time or day.

Mr. Ostrovsky noted the requirement in the bill for employers with 300 or more employees would primarily target the large mines, the big gaming companies, a few banks, and some large retailers. Everyone else was exempt. He commented if 400,000 employees were employed by large enterprises, and assuming one-half of those had children, there would be 200,000 people asking for time off at an average of $10 per hour. That would amount to $4 million per year for one child or $12 million a year for a family with three children in additional benefit costs.

Mr. Ostrovsky stated the industry had always tried to be fair to employees with families, but there was also a need to be fair to those employees without children. He stated he was concerned that the bill did not cover state employees although to do so would cause a fiscal note that would kill the bill.

Mr. Ostrovsky said the bill did not specify what the child/parent relationship had to be. He asked, for example, if the bill covered adopted children or only children living in the same house.

Additionally the bill required employers to keep records of when the hour was taken, whether it was a full hour and how many children the employee had according to Mr. Ostrovsky. He added he did not have that information as the employer. Seventy percent of gaming employees were represented by labor unions and received their benefits through a Taft-Hartley Trust. The employer did not know how many dependents employees had unless they were listed on group health insurance forms. Only 30 percent of gaming employees who were non-union participated in employer health plans. Mr. Ostrovsky stated for those reasons and others the Nevada Resort Association stood in opposition to
A.B. 214.

Amy Hill representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, and others voice opposition to A.B. 214.

Assemblyman Humke stated Mr. Ostrovsky had calculated the productivity levy and described some other administrative costs companies would be forced to bear through record keeping. He asked if those costs had been calculated.
Mr. Ostrovsky replied he had neither calculated administrative time nor number of employees affected. The figures he had given were just an example of what costs to private industry might be. He added the bill gave authority to the Labor Commissioner to oversee the paid release time benefit and any smart employer would want to be able to produce evidence that an employee had asked for the hour of leave, they were given the hour and they were paid. Because the bill specified time per each child, the time for each employee could range from
1 hour to several hours. Mr. Ostrovsky added the bill was directed at large employers while in reality the provisions would be easier for a small employer to meet.

Assemblyman Humke recalled Mr. Chavis had discussed the remote nature of mines and that many mines were 1 or 2 hour away from schools where such parent conferences would presumably occur. He asked if Mr. Chavis intended to allude that most mining companies were currently granting time off through flextime and that if A.B. 214 passed it would render employees into a worse situation with most employers. Mr. Chavis replied the bill had the potential to do that. Mr. Chavis added generally when a law was enacted people tended to adhere to the letter of the law and not go beyond what was required. Regarding the distance of mines from schools, in most cases an entire day was lost through travel and the mines he represented already encouraged their employees to make their appointments as early or as late in the day as possible so perhaps they could work part of the shift.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if those in opposition to the bill would have objections if the bill was changed to say, "no person will be denied or disciplined for a request for a leave up to so many hours in a year if a 3 or 4-day notice was given." Amy Hill stated the bill would still get into the issue of discrimination against those employees who did not have children and perhaps wanted to take personal time to visit an ailing parent. Those she represented did not like to see something mandated when they were already offering such benefits through sick leave or personal days and took away the flexibility to work with their employees.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated if the opposition was that an employer should receive some form of notice that could be added to the bill. She personally, would have no problem adding public employees to the bill as well. She was offering other ways to look at the issue. She noted flextime might be one way to address the issue. She requested the group representatives to poll their groups and determine if the bill would be acceptable if it stated there would be no disciplinary action if proper notice was given or something along those lines. Mr. Chavis responded he was not opposed to the suggestion, but in the mining industry employees were not currently being disciplined and he still did not see the need for the legislation, at least in the mining industry.

Mary Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada testified in opposition to A.B. 214. One of the concerns she had was that of the cumulative type of requirement. Ms. Lau explained the bill specified an effect on businesses with 300 or more employees but did not specify they all had to work at one site. Conceivably, an employer could have a large number of employees at one location while they had a second location with just a few employees that would be similarly affected.

Within the retail industry there were both employees who were paid hourly and those who were compensated through a salary with separate considerations. One concern those Ms. Lau represented had expressed was the difficulty in getting a time consideration to meet with teachers. Ms. Lau gave an example of one employee who worked in Carson City and lived in Reno and had expressed difficulty in making a reasonable accommodation with the schools.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated the sponsor of the bill had testified he had sponsored previous legislation that made it against the law to discriminate against an employee who went to a parent/teacher meeting. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the original 1989 legislation had done two things but none of it had passed.

The Chair requested staff to research the 1989 legislation and also to review any similar statutes such as paid release time for voting. She closed the hearing on A.B. 214 opened the hearing on A.B. 283.

Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner of Consumer Affairs testified A.B. 283 was offered as a housekeeping bill for the division. Late in the 1997 Legislature a bill was passed by the Senate that indicated all sports information businesses regulated and registered were required to request a work permit through the Metropolitan Police Department. The division felt that was an excellent move, but had not been included in discussions at the time. If they had, they would have requested that all businesses registered under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 599B such as telemarketing, charitable solicitation, magazine sales, sports betting services and others should require all sales staff to have a sheriff’s card.

Many times the division worked very closely with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and with the Secret Service because at times felons would go under cover but felt it was safe to do telemarketing and would actually register with the division. Thus, the bill was requesting that all persons registered with the Consumer Affairs Division under NRS 599B be required to have work permits.

The Chair asked whom the bill would affect. Ms. Jarman-Manning replied the bill primarily affected telemarketers whose numbers had been greatly reduced through the aggressive measures of the attorney general’s office. That included anyone selling anything by means of telephone. The intent was to cover all telephone solicitors instead of only one segment of the industry covered under the work card requirement.

The Chair closed the public hearing on A.B. 283 and asked if the committee was ready to process the bill.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 283.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on A.B. 203.

Libby Jones, representing Carol Jackson, Administrator, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) testified the bill was a housekeeping bill that specified the duties of the Rehabilitation Administrator.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if there were other instances where a job description was placed in statute. Ms. Jones replied the bill was a result of the 1993 reorganization that created DETR. The administrator’s duties were left out of statute and replaced with that of a director. The department felt the language describing the Rehabilitation Administrator and specifying duties as required by the Rehabilitation Act needed to be returned to the statute.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani probed further and asked if a job description was not more properly placed in regulation where changes and adjustments could be made in a more timely manner than placing something in statutes that could not be addressed for 2 years. Ms. Jones responded A.B. 203 specifically addressed the "state designated unit" to ensure that an administrator of the Rehabilitation Division had the authority to conduct the business of the division.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked for confirmation that the requested change was to comply with federal requirements and Ms. Jones agreed.

Assemblyman Humke asked whether federal guidelines specifically required that Nevada process a statute or whether a description placed in regulation would suffice. Ms. Jones replied Region 9 of the Rehabilitation Service Administration had asked that the clarification be placed back in statute to assure Nevada had a state designated unit with an administrator designated as such.

Assemblyman Humke reiterated that Region 9 had requested the statutory change, not required such a change. Ms. Jones replied the Federal Government did not require the change to her knowledge.

Assemblyman Humke noted the legislature was limited to 120 days and asked what requirement the bill served. Ms. Jones replied as a result of conversations with former Governor Miller and Region 9 authorities an agreement had been reached to reinstate the language in statute. Assemblyman Humke asked if the current administration had ratified the agreement. Ms. Jones assured him it had.

Chairman Buckley asked if Ms. Jones had a request letter from Region 9 or any other documentation of the need. She added because of the shortened legislative session and so many bills to be processed it became more important for legislators to see an urgency for requested legislation. Ms. Jones responded DETR would provide the requested information.

Cindy Newell, President, Nevada Chapter of the National Rehabilitation Association testified she was employed by San Diego State University to provide rehabilitation continuing education to rehabilitation professionals in the private and public sector in Nevada.

Ms. Newell referred to the corrective action requested by the regional rehabilitation office and provided the regional report from a site monitoring review completed in 1997 offered as Exhibit D on file with the Research Library, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB). At that time it was noted a problem existed with the authority and responsibility of the administrator of the designated state unit, which was the Rehabilitation Division. The report requested the state to take corrective action to restore and revest the authority and responsibility in that position.

Ms. Newell stated it was her belief that the bill went beyond a mere housekeeping technicality. The primary issue was that of removing de-politicizing of the division. She further testified the rehabilitation program had thrived in America for 78 years, longer than many other employment-like programs across all sectors (public, private and community). It had thrived at all levels because there was unanimous agreement that individuals with significant disabilities required professionally provided services by qualified personnel. Those personnel must have specialized knowledge, skills and technologies to serve their clients.

Ms. Newell stated it was precisely for that reason that A.B. 203 was necessary. It would provide a cushion from political pressure that interfered with the rehabilitation process.

No further testimony forthcoming, the Chair closed the hearing on A.B. 203 and opened the hearing on A.B. 114. She noted she might need to interrupt the public hearing to convene the committee in a work session. With a number of people signed in to testify on the bill she requested witnesses not to be redundant.

********

Louis Ling, Senior Deputy Attorney General representing the Nevada State Board of Oriental medicine testified. He introduced Doctor Sae Lee and Doctor Hak Rhee, Vice-President of the Board of Oriental Medicine. Mr. Ling testified he would present the bill and Dr. Lee and Dr. Rhee were present to answer any technical questions.

Mr. Ling stated A.B. 114 was also a "housekeeping" bill to achieve three goals.

• Provide additional definitions in statute;
• Change licensure structure by lowering barriers; and
• Include practitioners of Oriental medicine as physicians to provide them the same standing for some legal purposes as other practitioners in the state.

Mr. Ling stated some amendments would be necessary to the definition provisions of the bill. Other proposed amendments addressed some of the issues causing opposition from Bill Bradley who represented the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association.

Mr. Ling stated in his discussions with Mr. Bradley, opposition to A.B. 114 came from the definitions of "gross malpractice," "malpractice," and "negligence." Mr. Ling and Mr. Bradley had agreed to remove the definition of "gross malpractice" and "negligence" and harmonize the definition of "malpractice" with previously existing definitions of malpractice that were in NRS 41A.009. The definition of malpractice would then be the same for practitioners of Oriental medicine as for all other physicians.

Mr. Ling provided committee members a written copy of other proposed amendments to sections 5 and 6 of A.B. 114 (Exhibit E). The sections were confused during the bill drafting process. The intent of the sections was to lower the barriers so that more practitioners of Oriental medicine could be licensed in the state. If a candidate for licensure had an undergraduate degree from anywhere in the United States in any discipline, four additional years of study in Oriental medicine would be required to be an Oriental medicine practitioner or, 3 years of study to be an acupuncturist.

Continuing, Mr. Ling said if a candidate had a degree from a foreign country, and most Oriental medicine practitioners in the state did come from other countries, those courses of study were very different. Students graduated with a Doctoral degree. Their undergraduate and doctorate programs all collapsed into a 7-year course of study. Thus, in the proposed amendments, two different educational standards were set.

The amendments also clarified that irregardless of which educational track a student had taken, the student must practice as a licensed assistant or must have practiced in another country for 4 years. The previous requirement had required practice in another country for 6 years. Again, the intent was to encourage more practitioners to enter practice in Nevada.

The intent of the amendment to section 6 of A.B. 114 was to simplify the description of the duties for an assistant in Oriental medicine. Assistants were those who were fulfilling their experience or requirement to become a fully licensed doctor. In many other medical practices there was a sub-group of licensees who were called assistants. Mr. Ling emphasized that was not the intent of A.B. 114. The only intent was for assistants to practice for 4 years and get their required experience.

Mr. Ling concluded the insertions on page 2 of Exhibit E were adding terms to the definitions. He reminded committee members that some of the terms would be removed through amendments.

Chairman Buckley commented the major portion of the bill was intended to lower the requirements for obtaining a license in Oriental medicine in terms of educational requirements. She asked what need prompted lowering the current standards. Dr. Sae Lee responded some of the requirements had been lowered, but others had been raised. He added it depended on what section of the bill the Chair was referring to.

Dr. Lee referred to page 3, section 4 of A.B. 114 and stated the intent was to correct NRS 684A.150 to include requirements for applicants as doctors of Oriental medicine or acupuncture. The bill would require applicants to have an undergraduate degree. Chairman Buckley interrupted the testimony of Dr. Lee to ask why the requirements in that section of the bill were needed. She asked if there were not sufficient graduates under the current standards and if there was a large group of applicants who would meet the lowered requirements.

Dr. Lee explained Nevada had a unique system of licensure for Oriental medicine. Fortunately, in 1973 Nevada established the licensure of doctors of Oriental medicine and doctor of acupuncture. In the intervening years some applicants and special interest groups challenged the Board of Oriental Medicine to clarify qualifications. The board had determined it would be better to require an undergraduate degree as a requirement for additional schooling to better fit into the structure of the American college system.

Mr. Ling added that the 6-year experience requirement was seen as a barrier to new practitioners coming into the state. He commented 6 years was an awfully long time to practice before achieving recognition as a doctor. The intent was to lower that requirement to 4 years. He added that was the only standard that had been lowered.

Mr. Ling stated remaining changes were to provide clarification. Previously, there was a way to read the statute in its pre-existing form that someone who had been educated in a foreign country would have to obtain four more years of education in the United States. He commented that for the most part, foreign countries provided a better education. It made no sense to require those practitioners coming from a foreign country to obtain four more years of training plus 4 years of practice before they could be fully licensed. It erected a barrier prohibiting practitioners from entering practice in Nevada. He reiterated the intent of the bill was to clarify educational requirements and lower the experience requirement to draw more practitioners to the state.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if the bill contained language concerning accreditation. She asked if national accreditation was accepted. Mr. Ling replied a reference in statute was made to accreditation. The statute talked about an accredited university and accredited programs. He added there was in fact a national accrediting organization for acupuncture. There was none for Oriental medicine. Those standards would have to be developed by the board through regulations.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani clarified those Oriental medicine regulations were to be anticipated in the future. Mr. Ling agreed and explained he had not wanted to place that language in statute because it was subject to change as new schools opened in the United States.

Assemblyman Hettrick referred to an e-mail letter received from a Leslie McDonald (Exhibit F) that indicated a Masters of Oriental Medicine existed. The letter indicated there was a national exam accepted by all but three states. He commented he did not know if the facts of the letter were accurate, but it indicated every state except Nevada, California, and New Mexico accepted the national program and that was much cleaner than what was being proposed for Nevada. Dr. Lee responded he had not researched the requirements in all the other states but some schools in other states required 2 or 3 years of school and did not require students to be full-time students. Those schools were calling their programs "Master’s" programs. He noted such programs were not set in law or regulations, but were acclaimed as such by the schools themselves. He added it was his understanding schools offering those programs had gotten together to establish their own credibility.

Assemblyman Hettrick asked if those schools’ programs were accepted in all but three states. Dr. Lee responded he understood the national program had been accepted in approximately 30 states under a variety of statutory languages. He assured the committee that the Board of Oriental Medicine wanted to maintain high standards and provide better service to the people. Through the bill practitioners would become doctors of Oriental medicine, not just acupuncturists.

Mr. Ling testified all the other states were only licensing acupuncturists. Nevada was the only state in the country that licensed Oriental medicine practitioners. Oriental medicine licensure was much broader, as was their schooling, than that of acupuncture. Acupuncture was only one small part of what the practitioners in Nevada did.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated he understood what the witnesses were saying, but he quoted from Exhibit F, "--- a rigorous Master’s degree program, i.e. Masters of Oriental Medicine," which was what the witnesses were describing. Mr. Ling responded he had not seen the letter.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated the concern of the committee was that many boards came before them making it more and more difficult for anyone to compete in their industry. He commented while A.B. 114 lowered the experience requirement to 4 years, the total program still required 8 years while the national program referred to in Exhibit F only required 4 years. If 30-some states accepted that lower standard, it appeared the Board of Oriental Medicine was not lowering the standard, but in fact maintaining a very tough standard. He also quoted from Exhibit F that stated, "I understand that no one has passed the test in Nevada in the past 20 years." He asked how many people had passed Nevada’s test and been licensed. Dr. Lee replied in his knowledge 1 to 3 practitioners were licensed each year and the board maintained about 30 to 40 practitioners throughout each year. Dr. Lee stated he did not know how many practitioners had been licensed over the past 20 years.

Chairman Buckley asked if applicants typically passed the test for licensure.
Dr. Lee replied some passed and some failed.

The Chair stated the committee would like to hear what other witnesses had to say concerning the bill. She also asked Mr. Ling to provide the committee with a summary of what requirements other states had and any pending legislation.

Chairman Buckley suspended the public hearing of A.B. 114 and convened the committee in work session. She referred the committee to the work session document (Exhibit G) and commented the committee needed to keep up the pace of passing bills in some form from the committee.

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, stated the bill required consumer reporting agencies to provide consumer reports at no charge under certain circumstances.

Some discussion on the bill had centered on various aspects, but no specific amendments had been proposed.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 8.

ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED WITH ONE NAY VOTE BY SPEAKER DINI.

********

Mr. Hughey explained A.B. 107 was requested by the Manufactured Housing Division and made various changes concerning manufactured housing. He noted Renee Diamond, Administrator was present and had requested some amendments to the bill. Mr. Hughey added one change had been made to Exhibit G at the bottom of page 1. In change 3 the word "sell" should be changed to "sale."

Additionally, staff noted one recommendation had been to change some wording at line 21 to include "or other documents as required by the division." He stated in discussion with staff of the Manufactured Housing Division, it was felt that language might have been too broad.

Mr. Hughey stated he had placed in Exhibit G substitute language that said,
"--- or a sale without transfer of ownership certificate as prescribed by the division." He noted Ms. Diamond might have some comments regarding the changes.

Ms. Diamond thanked Mr. Hughey for his efforts and communication regarding the bill.

Ms. Diamond testified the division left the language of subsection 3 to the bill drafters as to the form used for a wrap-around mortgage, otherwise known as a sale without transfer of ownership certificate.

Ms. Diamond explained she had used the language "or other documents as required by the division," because she wanted to be less specific so that legislation did not have to be changed in every session. She added she understood that bill drafters had their own procedures to follow. The specific form referred to that should be added to the certificate of title was called
"Sales without Transfer of Ownership Certificate." Either language was acceptable.

Chairman Buckley summarized that the committee’s choices were to:

• Leave the language, "sale without transfer of ownership; or
• Insert, "any documents required by the division."

The Chair stated those were the only suggested amendments to the bill. Page 2 of Exhibit G set forth the amendment for review.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 107.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

The Chair clarified that the motion was to amend with the language, "sale without transfer of ownership language." The makers of the motion agreed.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

********

Mr. Hughey stated A.B. 109 made various changes regarding deceptive trade practices. He reported at the work session on February 22, 1999, some concern had been expressed about providing information regarding alleged violations.

The Bureau of Consumer Protection had provided a suggested amendment that was included in Exhibit G, (Exhibit B). The agency had proposed to leave in the provisions of subsection 2 of NRS 598.098 concerning making public the name of a person alleged to have committed a deceptive trade practice.

The Bureau desired to leave in the bill the provision regarding public disclosure of an assurance of discontinuance.

Chairman Buckley clarified the previous work session discussion on the bill at pages 2 and 3 of the bill. At issue had been a situation when complaints were made against a certain individual and whether or not those names would be made public. Other information that might or might not be made available centered on whether a claim was substantiated.

The Chair noted the committee had become concerned about fairness and current practices of the bureau.

The Chair noted upon further clarification with the attorney general’s office. Page 2, line 40 of the current bill allowed the Commissioner to disclose the number of written complaints and whether any order of cease and desist was issued. It included the ability to disclose or make public any assurance of discontinuance. That was like the "rest of the picture."

The new section 2, in lines 33 to 39, had concerned the committee. The attorney general's office had stated if there was any concern that language could be deleted. The Chair had requested the attorney general’s office to contact Assemblymen Hettrick and Beers directly to provide a letter suggesting the changes. The letter had been provided to all committee members.

The amendments would delete the language regarding issuance of public statements and add language that the bureau could tell consumers whether the business had agreed to discontinue any practice that was in dispute.

The Chair asked if Assemblyman Beers was satisfied with the amendments and discussion concerning A.B. 109. Mr. Beers concurred.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND WITH THE AMENDMENTS IN EXHIBIT G AND DO PASS A.B. 109.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

********

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE
A.B.153.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

DISCUSSION:

The Chair noted the bill had essentially been withdrawn and the purpose of the motion was to clear the bill from the committee.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

********

Mr. Hughey stated the bill required a person who was incarcerated when making solicitation by telephone to disclose certain facts. During testimony on the bill Assemblyman Bob Price commented perhaps the seller should be required to identify himself within 15 seconds after beginning a conversation. The bill currently provided for a time frame of 30 seconds. No other suggestions had been made for specific amendments.

The Chair stated the bill would be included in NRS 598 and enforcement would be vested with the office of Consumer Affairs. She stated the bill had been requested after a proposal to have inmates solicit confidential information. She was not certain whether the intent had been misunderstood, but if that was the intent, it was a terrible plan.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated the ability for inmates to solicit confidential information had arisen during budget hearings in the previous legislative session and the budget subcommittee had said, "That will not be done in Prison Industries." Subsequently, another state had picked up the business and the press had begun reporting that Nevada had considered it. She opined a decision had been made internally that the practice would not be used in Nevada.

Assemblyman Perkins suggested the bill might still be needed because of the potential for inmates calling into Nevada from other states that allowed the practice.

Assemblyman Hettrick stated he understood Mr. Perkins’ concern but he added Nevada could not regulate interstate commerce. That was the purview of the Federal Government. He agreed with Assemblywoman Giunchigliani and noted Assemblyman Price was well-intentioned, but the bill was no longer necessary.

Assemblyman Humke stated his question went to the regulation of intrastate commerce. He had not been aware that the Bureau of Consumer Affairs was mandated to enforce the bill. If he was correct the bill would require the bureau to go to Nevada prisons to conduct an investigation through discussions with inmates about whether they were making phone calls and disclosing they were an inmate. He expressed the idea was ludicrous.

The Chair stated the Bureau of Consumer Affairs accepted complaints under NRS 598 and so did the attorney general’s office of Consumer Protection. She stated Mr. Humke’s scenario would probably be assigned to the attorney general’s office.

Speaker Dini noted there had been a very successful telemarketing program in the past between the Women’s Prison and Caesar’s Palace. He commented such a program had to be regulated by the state, but perhaps the committee would want to prohibit the prison system from entering into any contract that dealt with telemarketing. The Chair stated she recalled the biggest concern in the discussion was inmates obtaining credit card information rather than the program itself.

Assemblyman Nolan stated if A.B. 208 was passed as written it would likely kill the industry anyway because he could not imagine a private business contracting with Prison Industries knowing that the first thing out the solicitor’s mouth would be, "I am an incarcerated prisoner."

SPEAKER DINI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 208.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The Chair closed the work session and resumed the public hearing on A.B. 114.

********

Assembly Bill 114: Makes various changes to provisions governing practice of Oriental medicine. (BDR 54-643)

The Chair asked for those in favor of A.B. 114 to come forward.

Dr. Seung Park testified in favor of the bill. The Board of Oriental Medicine would like to see a diversity of people accepted into the United States. He noted the bill would encourage Oriental/Asian people to come to Nevada. It also allowed for second generation Asians to continue in the path of their parents.

Dr. Park cautioned the issue was a public matter. In 1973, for the first time, Nevada accepted the practice of Oriental medicine like Eastern countries. He explained doctors of Oriental medicine had greater training than a technician level such as an acupuncturist. Most people misunderstood. Acupuncturists required little education or were licensed without education and only some tutoring.

With the change in law, good doctors could be encouraged to come to Nevada including a diversity of peoples and doctors. Nevada was the only state to license practitioners of Oriental medicine as doctors. Dr. Park asked what the standard should be.

Speaker Dini asked if there was a shortage of licensed Acupuncturists in Nevada. Dr. Park replied to date there was no complaint. Patients visiting
Dr. Park’s practice did not typically have to wait to be seen.

Speaker Dini asked if the bill was needed. Dr. Park replied the bill was needed to draw more good doctors to Nevada, to allow second-generation practitioners and to encourage diversity.

Speaker Dini asked if there were new techniques of acupuncture that had been developed and incorporated into present day schools. Dr. Park replied affirmatively. He provided an example for the committee.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani stated what was confusing for the committee was that the board was called the Board of Oriental Medicine. Two different licenses were offered from the board. One was a Doctor of Oriental Medicine and the other was an acupuncturist. Dr. Lee replied three license classifications were offered: 1) Doctor of Oriental Medicine, 2) Doctor of Acupuncture, and
3) Licensed Assistant.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani noted the wording of the bill was confusing and rather than the bill causing a barrier to keep people from practicing in the state, the intent was to recognize that the Doctor of Oriental Medicine had a higher standard. In regular medical practice the comparison could be made to specialists as a sub group versus the acupuncturist being a general practitioner. She added both classifications were in the same field. Dr. Lee agreed.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani referred to section 5 of the bill and asked if the intent was to accept an undergraduate degree plus experience to be licensed as a doctor of Oriental medicine. She stated that section appeared to allow acceptance of an accredited university, a foreign country, or degree in Oriental medicine plus the 4 years of experience.

Chairman Buckley requested Mr. Ling to work with staff in preparation of a work session document breaking down the different types of licenses and to clearly state:

• Existing law;
• The proposed changes;
• The purpose of changes; and
• Contrast the intent with what was being done in other states.

The Chair requested Mr. Ling to attend the work session on A.B. 114 when it was scheduled. She asked opponents of the bill to come forward. The Chair also recognized former Senator Thomas Hickey in the audience.

Mr. Tom C. Stewart, Owner, Truckee Meadow Herbs, testified he referred a number of his customers to acupuncturists. He added he also had a number of customers who were acupuncturists who had just completed school and were looking to establish their practice in Nevada.

Mr. Stewart stated those people were finding barriers. He noted there was a portion of the bill he liked, but the bill, as a whole did nothing to reduce the barriers effectively.

Nevada was the only state to require a 6-year internship. Addition of the undergraduate requirement would only make qualification tougher. He testified a number of graduates he had spoken to told him they would not come to Nevada to practice. He noted there was a demand for acupuncture in Nevada, however there were only 30 acupuncturists practicing in the state, of which
2 were in Reno currently.

Mr. Stewart suggested to make the bill effective, it should eliminate completely a requirement for internship. He acknowledge that was a radical approach but he had been waiting for such a bill for a long time. The undergraduate degree should also be removed. He noted the 25 schools in the country already had entrance requirements, most of which included an undergraduate degree.

Finally Mr. Stewart suggested the board should use the national exam rather than the current state exam. He commented two states were currently experiencing class action lawsuits because they used a state exam.

Assemblyman Hettrick commented based on Mr. Stewart’s remarks about adding college degrees. He stated his reading of section 5 looked like the bill currently stated, "--- has completed a course of study of 4 years in Oriental medicine," and then went on to require the practice of Oriental medicine for
6 years. The alternative requirement was for 3 years practice in acupuncture and a total of 6 years of practice.

The bill would change the statute to read an accredited undergraduate degree plus 4 years of additional study, plus an additional 4 years of practice.
Mr. Stewart replied the bill would make the requirements worse. Mr. Stewart stated in essence he agreed with the bill if the intent was to bring in new acupuncturists. The Chair stated that was why she had requested Mr. Ling to work with committee staff in providing concise details of the bill and its intent.

Mr. Stewart noted there was a demand for acupuncturists and the slack was currently being taken up because a number of physicians had taken a 6-week course to allow them to practice acupuncture. He commented he would prefer to send his customers to graduates of a 4-year school.

Bill Bradley on behalf of the Nevada Trial Lawyers’ Association testified the association had had some concerns about the definitions specified in the bill that Mr. Ling had spoken to.

Other concerns centered on the ambiguity of the language in defining Oriental medicine doctors as physicians and that they may be subjected to a screening panel.

The Chair told Mr. Ling it would be helpful if any further amendments were proposed that the package of information be complete including assurance that Mr. Bradley had reviewed any proposals.

No further testimony forthcoming, the Chair closed the public hearing on
A.B. 114.

With no further business to come before the committee Chairman Buckley adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Cindy Clampitt

Transcribing Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: