The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Friday, April 16, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4100 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. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

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:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., excused

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr., excused

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on S.B. 99.

Terry McGillivary, Education Director, Real Estate Division, spoke in favor of S.B. 99. She explained the main purpose of the bill was to require applicants for broker or broker-salesman’s license complete a Nevada specific 15-credit college course on brokerage management. The requirement fit within the current educational requirement for brokers of 64 hours and would not add additional hours to the requirement.

The division received a disproportionate number of complaints regarding transactions handled by licensed Nevada brokers who came to the state from another location and received a license based on experience rather than the normal educational method. The current law stated when an individual applied for a Nevada broker license, the individual was required to show successful completion of 64 semester hours of credit in an area related to real estate, but the requirement might be waived for someone with experience as a real estate salesperson. The applicant could receive credit for 16 semester hours for each 2 years of experience as a real estate licensee. The only segment of their education before becoming a broker, which currently could not be waived, was an 18 hour course in Nevada real estate law. Such meant a licensee could become a broker with very little actual knowledge of Nevada law, requirements, or practice.

The provision would require all broker and broker salesperson applicants complete nonwaivable 45 semester units of brokerage management. A suggested curriculum was developed, which would cover such necessary subjects to the practice as establishing a brokerage, financial planning, the brokerage environment, employment laws, the importance of a written policy manual for the office, sales management, personnel selection, educational requirements, insurance considerations, broker liability, supervision of agents, independent contractor statutes in Nevada and federal statutes, trust accounting and reconciliations, contracts, agency representation agreements, duties owed, consent to act agreements, and confirmations. The suggested curriculum would also include problems specific to commercial real estate practice and property management in Nevada, as well as the ethics of brokerage practice.

The division believed the bill would go a long way to ensure brokers practicing in Nevada were informed and able to practice without endangering Nevada consumers, other licensees, or their own business and financial health. The Nevada Real Estate Commission and the Nevada Association of Realtors supported the legislation.

Chairman Buckley referenced page 2, lines 24 through 29, and asked Ms. McGillivary to explain the elimination of the waiver for those individuals who lived in rural counties.

Ms. McGillivary explained the statute was important for people in outlying areas when it was originally written, but the waiver had not been required by anyone applying for a license in the past 10 years.

There being no further testimony or questions on S.B. 99, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing and opened the hearing on S.B. 6.

Scott Young, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Council Bureau, Senate Commerce and Labor, explained Senator Townsend was unavailable to present the bill and asked Mr. Young to explain S.B. 6 to the committee. Mr. Young noted that as a member of the Legislative Council Bureau staff, he was not allowed to advocate for or against a measure and explained the bill was requested by the law firm of Arter & Hadden in Washington, D.C., and specifically by David Wilson of the firm (Exhibit C). The firm represented the United States Olympic Committee in intellectual property matters and had contacted all state legislatures asking them to enact similar provisions.

Mr. Young noted the concern was that individuals would counterfeit the Olympic names and symbols, and since the United States Olympic program was funded on a voluntary basis and did not receive support from the government, they felt it was very important they protect their source of revenue so they could fund amateur athletics. The states of Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, South Carolina, and Utah already enacted the statutes.

Senator Townsend responded to the request indicating he would introduce the bill on their behalf. The law firm apologized and explained because they essentially worked for the Olympic Committee pro bono and because of the distance involved, the firm would not be able to send a representative.

Ms. Evans asked if the committee voted no on S.B. 6, would that send a message to the Olympic Committee as to how they felt about their reprehensible behavior.

Mr. Nolan asked if the Olympic Committee gave consideration to states who enacted such legislation when considering states who applied to them as a venue.

Mr. Young said there was no indication there was consideration given. The bill was a request on behalf of the Olympic Committee to protect the source of their revenue for amateur athletics.

There being no further questions or testimony on S.B. 6, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing and opened the hearing on S.B. 100.

Gary L. Ailes, representing the Board of Examiners of Veterinary Medicine, explained the board sought to clarify the examination process as the national exam was being changed. He noted the exam was going to be a computerized exam administered at the Sylvan Learning Centers, which would open the exam for individuals. The change in statute was necessary to clarify language, otherwise the board would have to administer a test that was no longer available.

Section 3 was simple clarification, which would separate incompetence, negligence, and malpractice into separate entities and help if there was a situation where discipline was necessary.

Mr. Beers asked if there was a distinction between negligence and gross negligence.

Louis Ling, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, noted there was a distinction, but was not the reason for the amendment. The amendment was requested as a means to resolve cases where there were problems with the language as it presently existed.

Chairman Buckley noted negligence was a failure to exercise ordinary care as others in the profession would, and gross negligence was almost a reckless standard. There was a distinction in the law.

There being no further questions or testimony, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.B. 100 and adjourned the at 4:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jane Baughman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: