The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, May 6, 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:

Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, Clark County Assembly District No. 22

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst

John L. Meder, Committee Policy Analyst

Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel

Beverly Willis, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Townsend opened the meeting by introducing Assemblywoman Gene Wines Segerblom, Clark County Assembly District No. 22, who presented testimony on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 193.

Assemblywoman Segerblom testified on the purpose of A.B. 193. She asserted this legislation was intended to provide greater protection for the general public from unscrupulous and annoying practice of telephone solicitors. Assemblywoman Segerblom noted this legislation would revise provisions governing the use a device for automatic dialing on the telephone. She claimed A.B. 193 was aimed at certain restrictions on those who use these devices to try to sell goods, or services to the public. Referring to a "Section by Section Summary of the Bill" (A.B. 193) (Exhibit C), Assemblywoman Segerblom claimed the main element of this legislation was in section 6. She continued with her review and explanation, as shown in Exhibit C.

Senator Carlton, Senator O’Connell and Assemblywoman Segerblom perused to which areas these restrictions might apply. Frederick Schmidt, Consumer’s Advocate, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Attorney General, offered insight to this situation. Mr. Schmidt gave history on this legislation, with the note that it would not be necessary to hire another employee in order to implement A.B. 193, should it become law. He presented various concerns, in particular over licensing. Mr. Schmidt suggested registration in lieu of licensing. He noted his support, with emphasis on section 6.

Assemblywoman Segerbloom noted a similar type of legislation had been successful in California, so it was her contention, like legislation might work in Nevada. She introduced Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, Peter Eliades2, who had an amendment for A.B. 193 (Exhibit D). Assemblywoman Segerblom stated she had agreed to let Mr. Campbell add this proposed amendment to A.B. 193.

Mr. Campbell noted the subject matter of Exhibit D was slightly different than A.B. 193, stating it was a consumer protection issue that is appropriate to the proposed legislation. Mr. Campbell then read his remarks (Exhibit E) into the record and presented a letter from the Taxicab Authority (Exhibit F). Referring to Exhibit E, Mr. Campbell stressed the intent of his amendment (Exhibit D). He clarified for Senator O’Connell reasoning for presenting this amendment, noting similar legislation had already been presented. Referring to Exhibit D, Senator Amodei noted his concern pertaining to language that had not been approved in earlier proposed legislation.

Senator Carlton declared her opposition to Exhibit D.

Chairman Townsend determined A.B. 193 should be referred to a subcommittee, and testimony on A.B. 193 would be heard separately from the proposed amendment (Exhibit D).

Kara Kelley, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, stated her support of this proposed legislation. She requested the committee consider the tourism community when considering the proposed amendment. Senator Schneider and Ms. Kelly examined the possibility of a spot check of employees within companies to determine if diversionary tactics were taking place. Ms. Kelley asserted legislation was probably necessary, as companies did not seem to be complying with any kind of program to discourage diversionary tactics.

Senator Amodei, noting that language entered into previous legislation, " . . . Was a very clear unequivocal statement, making "diversion" illegal. The issue is not diversion. The issue gets into solicitation or recommendation." Senator Amodei asserted there were already ordinances available to remedy this situation.

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, American Federation of Labor/Congress of Industrial Organizations, noted he represented the taxicab drivers in Las Vegas. He stated diversion is illegal in Clark County and noted his organization did not support diversion. Mr. Thompson stated he would reserve further testimony until the subcommittee meeting.

Kevin Ross, Owner, Rolling Thunder Communications, expressed concerns pertaining to this legislation, in particular, section 6. However, he did note his support of licensing, or registration.

Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum, claimed it was her feeling this legislation was a violation of the Nevada State Constitution, Article 1, section 9. Ms. Hansen claimed this legislation is restrictive and emphasized that care should be taken not to restrict political free speech. Ms. Hansen encouraged the committee to look closely at this issue.

Senator Amodei, who will act as chairman of the subcommittee, outlined what would be addressed; i.e., amendments.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 193 and opened the hearing on A.B. 214.

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6, maintained one purpose of this legislation would be to involve parents and guardians into the process of the educational setting. Assemblyman Williams stated this legislation is an attempt to make it easier for parents and their employers to create situations that would allow parents to have time to visit teachers, counselors, or the administrator of the school. He continued his explanation, noting some employers already provide this type of benefit. Assemblyman Williams stated, "The intent of this is not to hinder those particular provisions of those particular employers who allow people to take this kind of leave, without any type of repercussion to visit their school." He continued, "This particular bill is not intended to tack on any additional provision if folks are already providing their employees with this." Assemblyman Williams

and Senator Townsend concurred the essence of A.B. 214 was people would not be penalized for requesting leave to deal with school matters pertaining to their children.

Debbie Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association, noted her support of this legislation. Ms. Cahill maintained it was an appropriate policy statement for employers to make time available for employees to be able to deal with problems their children may be having. She claimed A.B. 214 would accommodate needs of teachers, students and parents.

Ms. Kelley stated she did not testify against this legislation when it was heard in the Assembly, nor had she made any objections to the chairman of the Assembly education committee and offered her apologies for this oversight. She noted her opposition to this legislation; however, not because of the intent. Ms. Kelly claimed employers needed discretion to create benefit and leave plans that fit their particular work force. She then described several methods of allowing employees paid time for these types of leave. Ms. Kelley maintained her opposition to legislation mandating the type of benefits and leave plans employers need to provide.

Tim Crowley, Lobbyist, Nevada Mining Association, noted his support for the intent of this legislation. Mr. Crowley stated he felt his organization provided opportunities for these parent/teacher conferences. He claimed the mining industry had unique demands and situations, one being the remoteness of their industry.

Daniel Hansen, State Chairman, Independent American Party, declared his organization would not be in favor of legislation that offered a mandate directing the manner a company maintains contracts with their employees. Mr. Hansen declared his opposition to this legislation.

Senator Townsend closed the hearing on A.B. 214. After determining no one was present to speak on A.B. 283, Senator Townsend opened the hearing on A.B. 311.

After a short review of A.B. 283, Senator Townsend asked that those interested parties be notified this legislation had been posted appropriately and if further processing was needed, notification to the committee was necessary.

Senator Townsend presented direction on the manner in which the hearing on A.B. 311 would be conducted. As there were time constraints, Senator Townsend stated, ". . . Each side is to be given 20 minutes, and then 5 minutes each to either to have questions answered, or rebut. I will stick to that, and I will ask that everyone address these issues in a respectful and professional manner." Senator Townsend indicated if this admonition were not adhered to the perpetrator would be asked to leave the room.

Assemblyman David R. Parks, Clark County Assembly District No. 41, stated his support of A.B. 311, noting he referred to this legislation as ENDA; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Assemblyman Parks presented his written testimony (Exhibit G) which he read into the record.

Senator O’Connell and Assemblyman Parks perused whether or not the subject matter in this legislation may have already been addressed. Senator O’Connell pointed out that employers could not ask an employee questions concerning sexual preference and requested information on how this might be determined. Assemblyman Parks claimed when working on a day-to-day basis, after a period of time, ". . . sooner or later, people either see things, or observe conversations; something that leads them to either think or presume, or know their coworker may be homosexual." Answering questions posed by Senator O’Connell concerning the passage of a sexual orientation employment discrimination law in California, Assemblyman Parks presented information (Exhibit H) pertaining to the effective date and various numbers/percentages.

Assemblyman Parks introduced Pamela G. Roberts, Deputy Attorney General, Medicaid Fraud Unit, Office of the Attorney General, speaking on her own behalf. Ms. Roberts presented her written remarks (Exhibit I) which she read into the record. She cited several instances where she felt her sexual preference had caused her to be fired from a job. She claimed A.B. 311 would not grant special rights, but equal rights. Ms. Roberts urged the committee to support this legislation and offered a letter to Senator Amodei (Exhibit J) and additional written testimony in support of A.B. 311 (Exhibit K).

Billy Vassiliadis, Lobbyist, noted he was speaking only for himself and not in behalf of any of his clients. Mr. Vassiliadis stated he had a diverse group of employees and his company offered protection to everyone in the workplace. Mr. Vassiliadis urged the committee to support A.B. 311.

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Political Director, Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, noted his organization did not allow any discrimination of any sort among their members. He urged the committee to support this bill.

David Rowberry, Concerned Citizen, stated it was his belief this legislation would accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish. He noted A.B. 311 was patterned somewhat after federal legislation, which has failed. Mr. Rowberry claimed "sexual orientation" tended to be confusing and inaccurate. He stated, "Orientation has to do with feelings, thoughts and beliefs and these should never be regulated by law." Mr. Rowberry felt orientation should be replaced with "homosexual behavior or bisexual behavior," feeling this would be more accurate. He offered several other objections and inconsistencies he felt would arise with passage of A.B. 311. He stated he would not support this legislation, as he did not think there was any need. Mr. Rowberry claimed A.B. 311 was flawed and the cost in possible litigation would be prohibitive.

David W. Turner, Lobbyist, Boy Scouts of America, stated he was not opposed to A.B. 311 as a whole, however, he was concerned about a possible misinterpretation of one provision of existing law. He noted his concerns over language dealing with "private membership club" and a possible tax exemption that could apply. Mr. Turner presented an amendment to A.B. 311 (Exhibit L) pertaining to these concerns.

Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, offered an explanation of the type of "private membership club" that might be covered in A.B. 311. She claimed the private membership clubs referred to could be a membership club that has not been defined by the Internal Revenue Code, but has been defined by case law. Ms. Needham stated these would be determined on a case-by-case basis as to whether an exemption would be available, as an employer, under this provision. Senator Townsend and Ms. Needham held further discussion as to what constitutes an exempt organization. In order to help clarify exemption, as it would relate to A.B. 311, a copy of the "U.S. Code: Title 26, Section 501," (Exhibit M), was presented.

Patricia A. Glenn, Lobbyist, Concerned Citizen, presented her written remarks (Exhibit N) and read them into the record. Ms. Glenn noted her opposition to A.B. 311 and emphasized her thought that passage of this legislation could establish an unprecedented regulation in the workplace. Among other items, she maintained, the adoption of A.B. 311 might cause costly litigation against the small employer. Ms. Glenn claimed this legislation could afford special protection to homosexual activity.

Robert Meek, Concerned Citizen, noted his opposition to A.B. 311. Mr. Meek offered written testimony (Exhibit O), to support his views. He maintained there were too many unanswered questions, connected with A.B. 311 for it to become law at this time. Mr. Meek also voiced concerns over possible financial implications that could occur if this legislation becomes law.

Becky Maddox, Concerned Citizen, testified in opposition to A.B. 311. Ms. Maddox presented a number of facts and figures (Exhibit P), noting that much of the language was awkward and difficult to understand. She declared that employers should be able to employee people based on whether or not they are qualified for the job. Ms. Maddox stressed her views on the possibility of lawsuits if this legislation were passed.

Mr. Hansen testified once again, at this time noting his opposition to A.B. 311. He noted several objections, claiming this legislation was reverse discrimination.

Richard R. Ziser, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, presented a packet of information (Exhibit Q). He pointed out this packet contained research articles and publications for review by the committee. Mr. Ziser drew attention to fiscal responsibility and the effect on small business, claiming passage of this legislation could cause an unwarranted cost of time and money for an additional government mandate. He continued his review of Exhibit Q. Mr. Ziser noted his opposition to A.B. 311.

Senator Townsend and Ms. Needham reviewed points raised concerning the exemption status of the Boy Scouts of America and the usefulness of the amendment offered by Mr. Turner (Exhibit L). Assemblyman Parks stated when he requested this bill to be drafted he had specifically asked that boys and girls clubs, also Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, be exempted. He claimed he was informed that, ". . . Organizations such as that would be exempted."

Ms. Needham, Senator Townsend and Senator O’Connell evaluated other items and Senator O’Connell requested a legal definition of "orientation." Ms. Needham noted the courts might try to determine whether there was some type of behavior that supports whether a person is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Ms. Needham stated it was her belief the law did not have a specific definition for this purpose.

Upon agreement from Ms. Needham that the amendment provided by Mr. Turner would offer an exemption for the Boy Scouts, Senator Townsend inquired, "That information is consistent with Mr. Turner’s issue and Mr. Parks [Assemblyman Parks] understands that?" Assemblyman Parks replied, "Yes."

Offering further clarification, Senator Townsend stated, "I want to make it clear, then, we need an amendment to make that reference clarified to meet the exemption that Mr. Parks expects to be in here. Is that correct?" Ms. Needham replied, "Yes sir." Once again Assemblyman Parks concurred.

Noting this was a very important piece of legislation; Senator Amodei declared he would need more time to reflect on A.B. 311 and would abstain from the vote at this time.

* * * * *

As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Beverly Willis,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

DATE:

Carried – Senator Amodei – Abstain

Senator O’Connell - Oppose