The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 9:00 a.m., on Thursday, April 29, 1999, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

Senator Ann O’Connell, Vice Chairman

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Michael A. (Mike) Schneider

Senator Maggie Carlton

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst

John L. Meder, Committee Policy Analyst

Ardyss Johns, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Chairman Townsend opened the meeting with the presentation of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 434.

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, told the committee one of the things A.B. 434 does is adds an additional area the board could consider for approving programs. Instead of only the board or the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research (FIDER) being able to approve a program of interior design, an accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education would have that ability, also. The other major change in the legislation, she stated, is it requires at least 2 years of education in a program of interior design to become a registered interior designer. She explained, 6 years of experience without any type of formal education was no longer adequate. She said it was felt there should be college or some kind of schooling in addition to experience. There is still the requirement of 6 years combined total, she continued, so 4 years of experience would be needed in addition to the 2 years of education.

Chairman Townsend asked why it was necessary to add additional accrediting authority. Assemblywoman Giunchigliani answered that because the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), is the only FIDER-licensed school in the state of Nevada; the board has not currently approved any other programs. She said this just gives one more avenue for another business to set up that has been licensed by the United States Department of Education, and allows them to be able to come in and practice. She told the committee that the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor had suggested the interior designers and architects get together and figure out if there should perhaps be a separate board for licensing of each of those professions. She stated this might stop the constant turf battle between the two and allow the architects to do what they do best and the interior designers do what they do best. She noted it was hoped by next session the industries could work something out and come back to the Legislature with a workable piece of information.

Senator O’Connell wanted to know why this piece of legislation was needed after the agreement 4 years ago.

Nancy K. Wolff, Founder and President, Interior Design Institute, presented the committee with a packet entitled Senator’s Information Guide (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) In answer to Senator O’Connell’s question, Ms. Wolff said the agreement that was reached at that time was basically for all interior designers to be able to practice at some level. She claimed its intent was to grandfather in the educational requirement. It protected people who, even though may not yet have the education, could still register by taking the necessary tests. She stated the legislation of 1995 attempted to address the fact that there were people working without any education. The National Council for Interior Design Qualifications (NCIDQ), she explained, by January 1, 1998, wanted to make anyone without at least 2 years of education, ineligible. She said the 1995 legislation had to do with all the people that were working in the field, at that time. She presented a breakdown of interior design registration laws required in various states (Exhibit D).

Chairman Townsend asked Ms. Wolff to refresh his memory regarding the specifics of FIDER. Ms. Wolff furnished an information flyer entitled FIDER (Exhibit E).

Chairman Townsend asked what would happen if A.B. 434 was not passed. Ms. Wolff stated the bill would allow, as an example, a person like Renee Stewart, to register and become a Nevada registered interior designer after taking the NCIDQ test and having 2 years of education and 4 years of experience. If A.B. 434 does not pass, she asserted, Ms. Stewart would not be able to do tenant improvements, space planning or even go to the building department with her plans, which is what is allowed by the Nevada board.

Ross Lipsker, Concerned Citizen, told the committee he had been an educator for 35 years, having been the president of schools in three different states and the dean of a law school. He said Ms. Wolff had asked that he address the committee in order to perhaps give them a broader perspective. He stated that a 6-year program, whether it is made up of 3 years of formal education and 3 years of hands-on education or 2 and 4 or 4 and 2, is actually quite a rigorous program as an introduction into any professional field. In reviewing the design programs, he declared, it was really much more than was expected in most fields. He claimed his concern was that by eliminating the ability to go to a 2-year program followed by 4 years of hands-on education, eliminates numerous people from participating in the process. Particularly, he continued, those reentering the career field, either coming out of the military after serving, or raising children and then reentering the workforce or being a single parent. He stressed it would be extremely difficult to sit in 4 years of formal education. He claimed the basic difference between a 2- and 4-year educational program was an additional 2 years of basic studies, which was not critical to becoming an interior designer. Mr. Lipsker said he had been working with legislators throughout the country to make sure opportunities are as available for these reentry people as is possible. He asserted it was an inclusive kind of program as opposed to the older fashion of being exclusive and limiting the profession so it would be as beneficial as possible for those already in it.

Mr. Lipsker stated a second problem was the accreditation levels. He claimed FIDER was no longer approved by the United States Department of Education. So, he explained, if the only people who are able to practice interior design here in Nevada, must have gone to a FIDER-approved program, people who go to colleges elsewhere would not be able to practice here. He said Nevada appears to be becoming even more restrictive in that it is truly the only state requiring 4 years of education in a FIDER-approved school for both the practice and the title. While there are a couple of other states requiring 4 years of education just to have a certain title designation, those states do not require 4 years of education to practice interior design.

Senator O’Connell asked Ms. Wolff what kind of a job market existed in Clark County. Ms. Wolff answered it was a broad market with people going in a very diverse range of positions. She stated that some of her students, when they graduate could possibly move from a position where they might have been making minimum wage, to a job paying $9 per hour. She pointed out one such case, referring the committee to a letter in Exhibit C from Jane Summers dated April 26, 1999. Ms. Wolff told the committee Ms. Summers was now making $13 per hour. Ms. Wolff claimed her institute had an 85- to 90-percent placement rate and added, that that placement rate was based on the fact that some people take the program only because they want to design their own home, with no interest in ever working in the field.

Mr. Lipsker stated in order for a school to become and remain accredited, they must be able to prove placement of at least 70 percent of their graduates and that those graduates are retaining those positions for more than a year.

Doreen Mack, Interior Designer, Lofty Expressions, told the committee she had 20 years in the interior design field and owned her own shop in Carson City. She said she taught seminars throughout the school district in Carson City and Douglas County high schools. She stated every student she had encountered in the past 3 years who planned to continue their education in interior design, were planning to attend 2-year colleges in other states. She claimed all students should have the same opportunities in Nevada, as in other states. She declared she had never known even one student who planned to go to a 4-year college. Therefore, she testified, she was in support of A.B. 434.

Renee Stewart, Interior Designer, Ambiance Interior Design, stated she was raised by a single mother who was not able to send her to college. After marrying and having three children, she noted, she followed her dream of returning to school, which, she said, changed her life. She claimed that if the national accrediting body takes a 6-year combination and if people like her were able to take those seven vigorous tests, that they should be able to register in Nevada with that 2-year education. She asked that the committee pass A.B. 434, so that same opportunity would be open for more people to be able to afford to go back to school and meet the requirements in order to better themselves.

John M. Moore, Lobbyist, Interior Design Institute, told the committee he wished to read a paragraph from an e-mail he had received from a registered architect who teaches at the UNLV architectural program. He read:

James L. Wadhams, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design said he wanted to refresh the memory of four members of this committee regarding Senate Bill (S.B.) 506 of the Sixty-eighth Session, which was introduced 4 years ago. He stated that, at that time, the parties involved in the bill were instructed by this committee to, "Get it together, work it out and bring it up." Over the course of the following several weeks, he claimed, that was in fact done, which resulted in S.B. 506 of the Sixty-eighth Session, approved in July 1995. He said he felt it important to remind the committee because it is set in concrete, the agreement that was struck then under the auspices of this committee.

The standard set, Mr. Wadhams continued, was that a 4-year standard for registered interior design was appropriate. The people in the pipeline at that time, who had not anticipated the 4-year standard, were accommodated by an agreement to phase in that requirement. Thus the 6 years of experience and then the 2-year education and 4-year experience compromise. But, he stressed, the standard requested by the interior designers was 4 years of education and that was reflected, in fact, in the law of S.B. 506 of the Sixty-eighth Session.

Mr. Wadhams told the committee it had been suggested that if a person did not have a registration, he or she could not be an interior designer. He stated the committee would recall very clearly that that phrase, that name, that occupation, that practice, was left in the public domain. What was struggled with at that time, he noted, was creating a new profession called "registered interior design," not eliminating all other interior designers. He said to this day in the Reno/Carson City telephone book, there are approximately three pages of interior design offered by individuals; some of them happen to be registered and some are not. Therefore, he insisted, not being registered does not preclude one from practicing interior design, which can be practiced by anyone with or without education.

Mr. Wadhams pointed out another issue he felt should be identified was the United States Department of Education versus the FIDER. He said FIDER withdrew its request for continued accreditation by the U.S. Department of Education, but stated he was not sure that was anything the committee should be alarmed about. He explained that the U.S. Department of Education also did not recognize the accrediting bodies for neither the state boards of medical and dental examiners nor the Nevada Supreme Court. The purpose of that accreditation, he continued, is to be a gatekeeper for federal programs such as the Veteran’s Administration, school credits, etc.. He asserted that in no way does it distinguish the quality, integrity or validity of the accreditation for professional schools. He said it was important to note that the credentials established in 1995 had been brought before this committee by the interior designers themselves and crafted into S.B. 506 of the Sixty-eighth Session. Therefore, he maintained, the board opposes A.B. 434 because it makes a change in the agreement brought before this committee as the resolution of this issue.

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, American Institute of Architects, reiterated Mr. Wadhams’ testimony in voicing his opposition to A.B. 434.

Max Hershenow, Lobbyist, American Institute of Architects-Nevada, said A.B. 434 compromises the high standards the committee put in place 4 years ago to create a special design professional in Nevada. He said the 4-year educational requirement is not only fair, but also essential. While college education may be difficult for some to obtain, he stated, it is critical in regulated areas of the design profession. He claimed there was a wide range of avenues a person can take in the field of interior design without being registered. He maintained the legislation passed in 1995 was sound and, therefore, was opposed to A.B. 434.

Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 434 and opened the hearing on A.B. 610.

Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Carson City, Storey and Lyon counties Assembly District No. 38, told the committee his concern was for the small business people providing these services who might be driven out of business by over-regulation and over-standards. He said A.B. 610 would allow the state fire marshal to train and certify those individuals to know the materials and standards necessary to provide interior materials. He stressed that these individuals do not move walls or other structural types of tasks. They just help people design, he added, from the products that they help those people obtain. He claimed there were numerous small business owners throughout the state who fear being abolished by over-regulation and educational standards. He declared this bill came about in order to protect them. He pointed out that page 2, lines 1 through 4 of the bill were not part of his original bill but had been added by Mirage Resorts Inc.

Tricia Lincoln, Designer/Owner, A Very Fine House, told the committee she was an independent interior designer in the Dayton and Carson City area. She said since the last legislative session she had been informed that without being a registered interior designer, she could not put a mini-blind in her husband’s real estate office. That had not been her understanding after the last session, she noted, and remarked that Mr. Wadhams had carefully explained at that time, that the exclusions in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 623.330 protected her in allowing for that type of activity. For this reason, she testified, A.B. 610 was created to meet interior designers’ goal of providing another tier of regulation within interior design. She maintained the bill protected the public life-safety and fire code concerns by certifying the interior designers under the regulation of the fire marshal.

Ms. Mack told the committee about a client who had called upon her after consulting with a registered interior designer and finding the cost prohibitive. She said the client had stated she did not want to pay the high price she had been quoted just for help in putting together paint colors, picking out fabrics for furniture and choosing floor coverings. Ms. Mack said there were over 500 interior designers, like herself, listed in the Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City phone books and only 38 were registered. She stressed there was a real concern among the small independent businesses about being able to continue to practice their profession. The public safety issue had been addressed, she declared, by getting certification for codes and regulations and by going to the authority that currently regulates interior designers.

Vicki Gonzales, Lobbyist, Mirage Resorts Inc., referring to the top of page 2 of the bill, said it essentially allows an exemption for any person who prepares plans, drawings or specifications for buildings owned by that person or his employer when a design professional is also engaged by that person or his employer for work on the same building. She said her employer had an internal design and architecture department that works solely on their own buildings. When the changes were made in the law last session, she claimed, it superceded that corporate hierarchy. That means, she explained, the Mirage Resort Inc. has some people who might not be licensed who are supervising licensed people, creating a subordinate relationship that is somewhat awkward under current law. The intent of this amendment, she stated, is to keep those people working at their current jobs allowing them to do the work they need to do.

Mr. Wadhams testified in support of A.B. 610. He commended Ms. Mack and Ms. Lincoln for their persistence and sense of professionalism. Incorporated into their request in this bill, he acknowledged, was a recognition of the importance of the life-safety issues.

Ron L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Clark County Building Department, and Nevada Organization of Building Officials, told the committee he had some problems with A.B. 610. The subsection proposed by the Mirage Resort Inc. at the top of page 2 was worded in a way that would allow someone who, for example, owns a 40-unit apartment to get an owner/builder permit and do this work under the owner/builder exemption. He claimed his concern was not with the Mirage or how they work internally in their organization but, he added, the building department holds those professionals accountable. He said if language could be added that would hold the design professional accountable, he would have no problem with the bill. He suggested adding, at the end of section 1, subsection 3, "and that all documents are prepared by a licensed professional who is accountable to the appropriate board."

Chairman Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 610 and opened the hearing on A.B. 632.

Mr. Wadhams said there was a direct conflict of A.B. 632 with A.B. 434. He referred the committee to section 17 starting on page 10 and carrying over to page 11. He said section 17 was amending section 36 of chapter 512, Statutes of Nevada 1995, more popularly known as S.B. 506 of the Sixty-eighth Session. He explained that it reflected the agreement that this committee had unanimously adopted at that time. He stated Assemblywoman Giunchigliani had identified the conflict with her request to change what was done in 1995 by shortening the educational requirement from 4 years to 2.

Mr. Wadhams stated A.B. 632 was a bill requested by the administrative agency and called a "housekeeping bill." He said it was important for the committee to know what housekeeping was being done since, in some cases, it does raise to a policy level. Section 1, he pointed out, deals with the phrase "responsible control" replacing what was the standard previously, called "direct supervision." "Responsible control" allows a little more remoteness but does not eliminate the accountability or responsibility. Section 3, he noted, was a correction to a typographical error when the definition of residential designer was changed.

Chairman Townsend, to make certain he understood the concepts of each of the three bills presented in this hearing, stated:

Mr. Wadhams said that was correct and stated that even though A.B. 632 was a housekeeping bill, it also moves forward everything that was adopted in S.B. 506 of the Sixty-eighth Session. He stated section 5 changes the requirement for certificate renewal from biennially to annually. Section 7, he claimed, deleted language that was no longer needed since the architecture program at UNLV is now accredited by the National Architectural Accrediting Board. He noted section 8 modified a change in which applicants must personally appear before the board for the granting of their certificates. Section 9, he asserted, also changes the certificate renewals from biennially to annually. He said section 10 imposes a civil penalty for violations of NRS and changes that definition from "direct supervision" to "responsible control."

Mr. Wadhams pointed out that section 11 clarified the exemption allowing residential designers to practice in the same area as registered interior designers, to the extent their scope of practice allows. The language that was there created some question, he noted, as to whether now the residential designer’s scope of practice was limited by the crafting of the registered interior design profession. He stated their scope is now intact and not modified by the adoption of the additional designation. Section 12, he explained, deletes the residency requirement and section 13 again, changes "direct supervision" to "responsible control." He said in section 14, the board is requesting the civil penalty be raised from $10,000 to $15,000, which seems to be appropriate for the economics of today’s activity. He pointed out that it brings it parallel to the board of professional engineering.

Mr. Wadhams explained that section 16 was a change to allow the formation of businesses with persons outside the field. He claimed this was a profession that has recognized that a corporate formation may include mixes of the licensed disciplines as well as lay people. He said the attempt here was at the request of architects and other design professionals; that they be allowed to form corporations because they work so closely together. Section 18, he mentioned, again changes the renewal requirement of a certificate of registration to an annual occurrence.

Senator O’Connell asked Mr. Wadhams to elaborate on the reason, in section 14, for raising the penalty from $10,000 to $15,000. Mr. Wadhams stated that the average fine is approximately $2500 with $10,000 the maximum current fine. The board of engineering, he explained, is at $15,000, and there are circumstances where people come in to do major commercial projects. He said the attempt by engineering and the design board is to try to have a penalty that is roughly a deterrent in the economic reality of the activity. There are times when it is cheaper to pay the fine, he declared, than it is to do it right, and so this increase is appropriate with the discretion that has to be exercised. As this committee knows, he added, all of these issues are appealable to the district court.

Senator O’Connell asked for an example of what would warrant a $15,000 fine. Mr. Wadhams called upon the chairman of the board of architecture to answer that question.

Derrell Parker, Chairman, State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, stated the larger fines were aimed at the larger projects such as a major hotel. He explained health and life-safety issues are always the reason for penalties of $10,000 or more.

Gloria M. Armendariz, Executive Director, State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, told the committee most of the violators who are fined those large amounts are non-registrants.

Mr. Hillerby stated that he was in support of A.B. 632 but wanted to note that even though the certificate renewal would now be required annually rather than biennially, the fee for that renewal would not be doubled. He acknowledged there may be an increase in the fee, but wanted it on the record that the fee for an annual renewal would not be the same as it was for the biennial renewal.

Mr. Moore said he had a problem with A.B. 632 due to the conflict it had with A.B. 434, as well as the increased fines. He said there should be a separate tier of fines for interior decorators, who are generally small businesses that could not possibly warrant a fine of $15,000.

Chairman Townsend told the involved parties to try to work towards an agreement and stated that the committee would meet on these bills again on the final day of committee passage. He concluded the committee would take action on all three bills at that time.

A letter to the Nevada State Legislature dated April 8, 1999 from Roberta L. Null, Ph.D., President, Common Place Design, was presented to the committee (Exhibit F). There was no testimony given in conjunction with the letter.

The committee received a letter dated April 8, 1999 from Ruby L. Trow, Professor, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences (FNCS), Designated Subjects Credential Coordinator (Exhibit G). No testimony was given.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ardyss Johns,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

DATE: