MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
April 16, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 4:05 p.m., on Monday, April 16, 2001. Chairman Joseph Dini, Jr. 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:
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr., Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. David Humke
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst
Kevin Powers, Legislative Counsel Bureau
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Willette Fox, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
Rachel Fox-Green, Private Citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
Carlos D. Romo, Acting Administrator, Equal Rights Commission, State of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Jon Sasser, Legislative Representative, Washoe Legal Services, Inc., Reno, Nevada
Keith M. Lyons, Jr., Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Gary Lane, Owner, Gary Lane Construction, Ely, Nevada
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Contractors Board and Nevada Optometric Association, Reno, Nevada
George Lyford, Director of Special Investigations, Nevada State Contractors Board, Las Vegas, Nevada
Daren Winkelman, Director, Carson City Environmental Health Department, and Chairman, Carson City Massage Board, Carson City, Nevada
Ron Reese, Past Chairman, City of Reno Massage Board, Licensed Massage Therapist, Native Touch Massage Services, Reno, Nevada
Kim Paige, Licensed Massage Therapist, Member, Carson City Massage Board, Carson City, Nevada
Sally Hacking, Nevada Legislative Consultant, American Massage Therapy, Nevada Chapter, Las Vegas, Nevada
Rachel Marcus, Nevada Chapter President, American Massage Therapy Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Penelope Lohr, Nationally Certified Massage Therapist, Massage Instructor, Community College of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada
JoAnn Welland, Licensed and Nationally Certified Reflexologist, President, Nevada Reflexology Organization, Las Vegas, Nevada
Lynn Maguire, Representative, Nevada Physical Therapy Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Vinnie Baum, Owner/Director, Baum Healing Arts Center School of Massage, Carson City, Nevada
Juanita Gibbs Brock, Member, Douglas County Massage Board, Douglas County, Nevada
Carol Ann Pitner, Licensed Massage Therapist, Chairperson, Reno Massage Board, Reno, Nevada
Paula Berkley, Legislative Representative, Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
George Flint, Legislative Representative, Nevada Brothel Owners Association, Reno, Nevada
Robert Ostrovsky, Legislative Representative, City of Las Vegas, Nevada Resort Association, Las Vegas, Nevada
Carol Pruner, Chairperson, Sparks Massage Board, Sparks, Nevada
Debra Rilea, Administrative Director/Co-Owner, Ralston School of Massage, Reno, Nevada
Patricia Patton, Licensed Massage Therapist
Monique Heying, Student, Ralston School of Massage, Reno, Nevada
Vaughn Smith, Reflexologist, Carson City, Nevada
Debra Soderbeck, Student, Ralston School of Massage, Reno, Nevada
Dana Bennett, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Medical Association, Reno, Nevada
Jeanette Belz, Legislative Representative, Nevada Ophthalmological Society, Reno, Nevada
Diane Crowne, Acupuncturist, Pleasant Valley, Nevada
Seung B. Park, Doctor of Oriental Medicine, Park’s Oriental Medical Clinic, Reno, Nevada
Keith MacDonald, Executive Secretary, State Board of Pharmacy, State of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Susan Haase, Legislative Representative, Nevada Association of Health Plans, Las Vegas, Nevada
Lou Roggensack, Representative, Nevada Division of Insurance, Life and Health Section, Carson City, Nevada
Roll was called and a quorum was present. Chairman Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 194.
Assembly Bill 194: Broadens applicability of laws relating to unlawful employment practices. (BDR 53-707)
Willette Fox, private citizen, indicated her support for A.B. 194 and read from prepared testimony (Exhibit C). Ms. Fox noted the bill reduced the minimum number of employees required to meet the definition of an employer from 15 to 5, and extended the number of days an employee had to file a complaint from 180 to 365. She believed an employee should not be forced to lower their moral standards and have their self-worth challenged for fear of termination and, under current law, employers with less than 15 employees were not subject to sexual harassment laws because they did not meet the statutory definition of an employer.
Rachel Fox-Green indicated she suffered abuse by a small employer and supported A.B. 194. Ms. Fox-Green told the committee she consulted an attorney about the harassment occurring at her workplace and was told there was nothing that could be done because the employer employed less than 15 employees.
Carlos D. Romo, Acting Administrator, Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC), State of Nevada, provided neutral testimony on A.B. 194 and read from prepared testimony (Exhibit D). Mr. Romo believed the legislation would have a fiscal impact on NERC, due to the anticipated increase in the number of state-funded employment discrimination cases. He noted cases filed pursuant to the legislation, if enacted, would not be eligible for federal funding through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because that office only covered employers who employed 15 or more people. Additionally, Mr. Romo believed it would be necessary to hire another compliance investigator to address the increased workload, at an annual cost of approximately $68,600, which included printing and public education costs to inform small employers who would become subject to the law. Mr. Romo reminded the committee that when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, it was argued that the consequences for including employers with less than 15 employees would have an adverse impact on the small business environment.
Chairman Dini asked when the current law was enacted and noted his recollection of the considerable discussion on limiting the legislation to employers with 15 or more employees. Mr. Romo replied the original law was enacted in 1971.
Ms. Giunchigliani clarified that the limit of 15 employees was included because cases involving employers with 15 or more employees were eligible for funding from the federal government, and not because discriminatory behavior was excused in small businesses. She was concerned about the message sent to small employers if they were exempt from discrimination laws, and asked whether NERC educated all employers as to the fact that harassment was not tolerated regardless of the size of the business. Mr. Romo indicated NERC did educate all employers, free of charge, but noted education was based on current law, which only applied to employers with 15 or more employees.
Mr. Giunchigliani asked whether there was any way to track complaints made against small employers, in order to determine the fiscal impact of removing the 15-employee limit. Mr. Romo indicated it was possible to track complaints made against small employers but noted because of the 15-employee limit NERC did not have jurisdiction. Ms. Giunchigliani asked where NERC referred employees who contacted NERC with a complaint against a small employer. Mr. Romo stated NERC referred complaints against small employers to private attorneys and confirmed there were no state resources at this time to assist individuals who did not have the financial ability to hire a private attorney.
Jon Sasser, Legislative Representative, Washoe Legal Services, Inc., testified in favor of A.B. 194 and provided written testimony for the record (Exhibit E). Mr. Sasser stated current law, in essence, provided a license to discriminate to small employers with less than 15 employees because small employers could not be sued under equal opportunity laws.
Keith M. Lyons, Jr., Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, informed the committee the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association supported A.B. 194. He stated he practiced primarily in the area of employment law and dealt with numerous employees of small employers. He indicated he often had no choice but to tell the employee that while the conduct that occurred was potentially illegal if the employer had 15 or more employees, the conduct was not illegal under Nevada statutes and, as a result, the employee had little or no recourse under the law. Mr. Lyons noted he was licensed to practice law in Oregon and told the committee Oregon state law covered employers with one or more employees. He did not believe the legislation would have a significant impact on businesses because businesses were only potentially liable for two years of back pay and attorneys’ fees. Mr. Lyons felt the bill’s biggest impact would be the ability of the court to send the message to employers that discrimination in any form was not allowed in the state of Nevada.
Mr. Goldwater asked who was responsible for employees of temporary agencies. Mr. Lyons believed a temporary employee working for a business with over 15 employees would be covered, but he indicated he was not sure. Mr. Romo indicated under Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 613.310 employment agencies and labor organizations were covered regardless of where the discrimination took place. Mr. Romo noted he was not opposed to A.B. 194 and simply provided testimony to point out the fiscal impact of the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked whether the bill could be amended to apply to employers with zero employees, even though the current law was modeled after federal legislation. Mr. Romo advised that the federal law required state law to be equal to federal law or more restrictive than federal law.
As to Mr. Goldwater’s previous question, Mr. Lyons indicated the law was unclear when an employee was hired by an employer through a temporary agency and the employer discriminated against the employee. Mr. Romo indicated that under the circumstances described by Mr. Lyons, a determination would have to be made by NERC. However, Mr. Romo advised that if the employer discriminated against an employee because they worked for a temporary agency, a complaint would be filed against both the temporary agency and the employer.
Mr. Arberry confirmed the estimated fiscal impact of A.B. 194 was $68,600 per year.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 194 and opened the hearing on A.B. 392.
Assembly Bill 392: Revises certain fees for licensing contractor. (BDR 54-373)
Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, representing Assembly District 35, was the primary sponsor of the bill and introduced the committee to Gary Lane, who brought the issue to Ms. de Braga’s attention. Ms. de Braga noted the impetus of the bill was an increase of approximately 67 percent in the State Contractors Board’s renewal fees, and the bill proposed to reduce the original application fee by $200 and reduce the license fee by $100. Further, application fees for a second license and renewals would be decreased by 50 percent. Ms. de Braga noted that although the fee for the Residential Recovery Fund was not currently a part of A.B. 392, the problem was similar in that the fee was the same for all contractors, regardless of the amount of business conducted, and Mr. Lane would propose an amendment as to the Residential Recovery Fund.
Gary Lane, Owner, Gary Lane Construction, testified in favor of A.B. 392. He indicated there had been a continuing increase in the fees imposed by the State Contractors’ Board and noted that by his calculations the fees increased 67 percent in one year. Mr. Lane felt the increase in fees discriminated against the smaller contractors in rural areas, and explained that smaller contractors who were limited to a certain amount of revenue each year paid the same amount in fees as larger contractors who were not limited to any amount of revenue. Mr. Lane questioned whether the Contractors’ Board’s expenses had increased 67 percent to justify the increase and indicated he had been unable to obtain information regarding the board’s expenses.
Mr. Lane continued by addressing the Residential Recovery Act and provided a handout for the committee’s review (Exhibit F). Mr. Lane felt all contractors should be notified by mail of any rate changes or major laws proposed.
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Contractors Board, appeared in opposition to A.B. 392 and turned the testimony over to George Lyford.
George Lyford, Director of Special Investigations, Nevada State Contractors’ Board, indicated the Contractors’ Board opposed A.B. 392 primarily because the board received funding solely from the fees A.B. 392 proposed to decrease. He noted the board’s duties had been increased during the last two legislative sessions without any provision for outside funding. Mr. Lyford provided the committee with a chart reflecting the Contractors’ Board’s fee history, together with a list of the additional duties imposed on the Contractors’ Board (Exhibit G). He estimated the decrease in renewal revenue, if A.B. 392 were passed, would be over $1 million dollars. He noted there were three different types of licenses, general engineering, general building and specialty contracting, which were based on the type of work performed. Mr. Lyford further noted the enforcement powers of the board had increased dramatically over the last several years, and coupled with the implementation of more stringent application requirements and consumer protection programs, increased licensing fees were necessary. He stated the board currently received approximately 130 new applications for contractor’s licenses each month and it cost the board approximately $813 to process an application, which did not include the cost of a background investigation. He noted within the past three years new personnel had been hired, policies and procedures had been established, the consumer education program had been expanded and a disciplinary policy had been enacted wherein the board was more involved in disciplinary actions against contractors. Mr. Lyford stated disciplinary hearings were turning into “mini trials,” at a significant cost to the board, and told the committee a small construction defect case had cost the board over $100,000 to prosecute. Mr. Lyford acknowledged that fees had increased over the last several years, but noted services provided by the Contractors’ Board had also increased, together with regulation and licensing by the board, all of which justified the increase in fees.
Chairman Dini asked whether the Contractors’ Board had notified contractors of the proposed increase prior to increasing the fees. Mr. Lyford responded all required posting of notice was performed and two public hearings were held on the matter of increased fees. He indicated there was no opposition at the hearings to the fee increase, and noted a newsletter was sent to members after the increase went into effect advising members of the increased fees. He acknowledged that contractors from Elko might not have been aware of the posting and hearings. Chairman Dini noted it would be a good idea to include the proposed fee increase in the newsletter prior to conducting hearings and imposing an increase in fees.
Ms. Buckley asked whether the board’s financial information, including its budget, was accessible to the public, and Mr. Lyford indicated it was available to the public. Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Lyford to provide financial information to staff so the information could be made available to the committee for review.
Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged that the Legislature had imposed increased duties on the Contractors’ Board, and suggested that in the future the board make more of an effort to advise rural communities of the necessity for potential fee increases prior to imposing the increased fees.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 392 and opened the hearing on A.B. 625.
Assembly Bill 625: Provides for the licensing and regulation of massage therapists. (BDR 54-755)
Daren Winkelman, Director, Carson City Environmental Health Department, told the committee he was the Chairman of the Carson City Massage Board, although he was not a massage therapist. Mr. Winkelman recognized the importance of a massage licensing program and saw an opportunity through state licensing for massage therapists to obtain reciprocity from other counties, noting that therapists were currently required to take a test in each county in which they wished to be licensed. Mr. Winkelman felt the bill was important both for therapists and public health and safety and encouraged the committee to cultivate the massage therapy profession by passing A.B. 625.
Chairman Dini inquired whether there were other problems experienced by the massage therapy industry. Mr. Winkelman replied the only problem he was aware of was the reciprocity issue.
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that local ordinance currently provided for the practice of massage therapists, and noted the massage therapy industry was a legitimate business and not a front for a prostitution ring. She reported she had received many questions about the bill and inquired about the impact of the bill.
Ron Reese, past chairman, City of Reno Massage Board, Licensed Massage Therapist, Native Touch Massage Services, responded that certain modalities, such as reflexology, were anticipated to be exempted by regulations prepared by a state board. Mr. Reese stated there were only seven jurisdictions within the state that licensed and regulated massage therapists and noted that outside of those seven jurisdictions, a person could get a business license and promote themselves as a “licensed” massage therapist. He felt such a situation presented an issue of public safety and believed the public would be better protected by offering a set of standards for all individuals performing massage and body work throughout the state.
Mr. Reese continued by highlighting his prepared testimony in support of A.B. 625 (Exhibit H). He noted the bill required applicants to pass the National Certification Written Examination, which was a standardized test that was updated every two years and could be taken at any time after a person graduated from a massage program. The bill also provided for a practical examination, which would be given four times a year, in order to establish basic standard competency. Mr. Reese stated graduation from an approved massage therapy program with a minimum of 500 hours of education would be the minimum education requirement for massage therapists, and noted continuing education would be a requirement for annual license renewal.
Ms. Leslie asked whether the seven jurisdictions that currently regulated massage therapists were consulted regarding the bill. Mr. Reese responded that all seven jurisdictions were consulted and a coalition committee was formed. Ms. Leslie inquired whether all of the massage schools in the state had been consulted regarding the bill. Mr. Reese noted all of the meetings were open to the public and many of the massage schools attended the meetings.
Kim Paige, Licensed Massage Therapist, member, Carson City Massage Board, noted she relocated from New Mexico with a New Mexico state license and was still required to get five different licenses from five different counties in Nevada. She believed that massage therapists supported the bill and noted therapists desired to separate therapeutic massage therapy from sexual massages. Ms. Paige stated the purpose of the state board would be to regulate only therapeutic massage therapists and asked for the committee’s support of A.B. 625.
Sally Hacking, Nevada Legislative Consultant, American Massage Therapy Association, Nevada Chapter, indicated she dealt with legislative issues for massage therapy for 14 years in 30 states and addressed the issue of national certification as adopted by Clark County two years ago. Ms. Hacking stated national certification was a program, not just a test, which offered standards for ethics, discipline and complaints. She noted Clark County provided for a generous grandfathering clause and recertification every four years. Ms. Hacking felt it was appropriate for Nevada to license massage therapists at the state level and supported A.B. 625.
Rachel Marcus, Nevada Chapter President, American Massage Therapy Association, stated she supported A.B. 625 and the national certification program that was implemented two years ago by Clark County.
Penelope Lohr, Nationally Certified Massage Therapist, Massage Instructor, Community College of Southern Nevada, told the committee she supported A.B. 625 and the standard of national certification as implemented by Clark County.
JoAnn Welland, Licensed and Nationally Certified Reflexologist, President, Nevada Reflexology Organization, asked the committee not to regulate reflexology under massage therapy because reflexology was different than massage. Ms. Welland was not opposed to the bill, but urged the committee to exempt reflexology from A.B. 625.
Lynn Maguire, Representative, Nevada Physical Therapy Association (NPTA), stated the NPTA was generally in favor of health care legislation designed to protect the public interest and safety. Ms. Maguire noted the NPTA was concerned about A.B. 625 because it was unclear whether the legislation clarified the role and scope of practice of the group seeking a licensure board, whether the legislation required the same educational standard for all professionals to be regulated by the licensing board, and whether the licensing board would have sufficient strength to enhance the professional status of the Nevada Massage Therapist Association. Ms. Maguire indicated the NPTA thoroughly reviewed the bill and suggested several amendments to resolve the NPTA’s concerns, including addition of the word “mobilization” in Section 6.2, addition of a public member to the board of massage therapists, and amendment of Section 43 regarding the grandfathering provision to allow three years for massage therapist who were currently licensed to meet the minimum educational requirements (Exhibit I).
Vinnie Baum, Owner/Director, Baum Healing Arts Center School of Massage, indicated his support for A.B. 625, and noted his belief standardization and educational requirements were absolutely necessary.
Juanita Gibbs Brock, member, Douglas County Massage Board, told the committee she was licensed as a nationally certified therapist and supported A.B. 625. Ms. Brock stated she had dealt with the problem of clients who expected a certain service that was sexual in nature or beyond the scope of therapeutic practice, and noted her concern about consistency and quality of training.
Carol Ann Pitner, Licensed Massage Therapist, Chairperson, Reno Massage Board, stated she was in favor of A.B. 625 and felt it was time the massage therapy industry became more professional. Ms. Pitner indicated the only issue with which she was concerned was the issue of grandfathering, and noted her belief that people who had previously passed a written and a practical exam and were currently performing massage therapy should not be required to meet the educational requirements proposed in the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that the proponents of the bill were not looking to capture those individuals that performed massage without pay.
Paula Berkley, Legislative Representative, Chiropractic Physicians Board of Nevada, indicated the board supported A.B. 625 and advised the board’s concerns were addressed by the amendments proposed by the NPTA.
Chairman Dini called for witnesses who wished to testify in opposition to A.B. 625.
George Flint, Legislative Representative, Nevada Brothel Owners Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 625 and noted the bill exempted traditional healing arts, family members and athletic team trainers, but did not exempt brothels. Mr. Flint stated he was concerned by the restrictive conditions of the bill and proposed several amendments to limit the bill to counties with populations of 400,000 or more, which would include Clark County, or limit the bill to counties with populations of 100,000 or more, which would include Clark County and Washoe County, or simply exempt brothel owners, physicians, chiropractors, school athletic departments and immediate family members (Exhibit J). Mr. Flint further indicated a concern regarding the definition of massage therapy.
As to the advertising issue, Mr. Flint noted the brothel industry was cautious about advertising and the use of the word massage in advertising, and he noted his belief that most of the advertising in phone directories that used the word massage was sponsored by illegal prostitution. Mr. Flint concluded by asserting there were more massage therapists in the state of Nevada who opposed A.B. 625 than massage therapist who supported A.B. 625, and he urged the committee to exempt brothels from the bill should the committee desire to process the legislation.
Robert Ostrovsky, Legislative Representative, city of Las Vegas, Nevada Resort Association, noted the city of Las Vegas had not “signed off” on the bill in its present form and stated if the committee chose to process the bill the city of Las Vegas wished to propose some amendments in the work session. Mr. Ostrovsky stated the Nevada Resort Association opposed the bill because the association was satisfied with the current licensing procedure in Clark County. He felt the bill was fraught with drafting problems and required numerous amendments to correct.
Carol Pruner, Chairperson, Sparks Massage Board, noted she was not a massage therapist, but was involved in the administration of the Sparks Massage Board. Ms. Pruner indicated she had reservations about supporting A.B. 625, and felt there were unresolved issues, including the practice of reflexology, healing touch and the biannual exam.
Debra Rilea, Administrative Director/Co-Owner, Ralston School of Massage, provided prepared testimony in opposition to A.B. 625 (Exhibit K). Ms. Rilea stated there were no statistics that demonstrated the public was in danger of being harmed by the lack of regulation of the massage therapy industry, and she felt the bill was more regulation than the industry needed. She commented massage schools in Nevada were licensed and monitored by the Department of Education, Commission on Postsecondary Education, and must be in compliance with the applicable provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes and Nevada Administrative Code. Ms. Rilea stated smaller jurisdictions that did not have a regulating board still had requirements which applicants must meet prior to licensing.
Patricia Patton, Licensed Massage Therapist, indicated her opposition to A.B. 625, noting concerns regarding exemptions and fees.
Monique Heying, student, Ralston School of Massage, indicated concern regarding Section 7 of the bill which she felt would not allow her to work on another student in order to obtain required practical hours. She also expressed concern about the frequency of the written exam, noting a student might be forced to wait six months in order to take the exam and begin earning a living.
Vaughn Smith, Reflexologist, provided the committee with information on facts about foot reflexology and requested reflexology be excluded from A.B. 625 (Exhibit L). He told the committee in order to obtain a license to perform reflexology he was forced to get a license for massage therapy. Mr. Smith felt reflexology was so different from massage that reflexology should be excluded from the definition of massage and the bill.
Debra Soderbeck, student, Ralston School of Massage, noted Section 7 of the bill allowed a person who was an employee of an athletic department to perform massage within the scope of employment, and she noted part of the Ralston School’s curriculum was practicing massage on athletes in order to obtain practical required hours. Ms. Soderbeck urged the committee to vote against A.B. 625 as written.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 625 and opened the hearing on A.B. 623.
Assembly Bill 623: Creates Advisory Commission on Internet Commerce. (BDR S-1458)
Assemblyman Bob Beers presented A.B. 623 to the committee and stated the idea for the bill was suggested by William Mark, chief clerk for Supreme Court Justice Rose, who noted that Nevada had two unique geographic opportunities because Las Vegas and Reno both sat on top of huge bundles of fiber optic cable designed to carry all data processing needs and communication needs from the metropolitan areas of California to points east (Exhibit M). He noted such a geographic coincidence might create a unique economic development opportunity, but such an opportunity would have to be sought after. Mr. Beers advised the bill was written in an effort to create an interim study committee that would explore potential opportunities and he noted the interim study committee would be much less expensive than a normal interim study committee, if approved, because the private sector members would not be compensated. Mr. Beers provided the committee with a statement by William Mark who could not be present to testify in support of the bill (Exhibit N).
Mr. Goldwater asked why A.B. 623 sought more government involvement rather than leaving the opportunity to the private sector. Mr. Beers stated his belief that the bill would actually result in potential minimization of government involvement in the economy, and indicated there may be some current state laws that needed to be repealed or other laws that needed to be enacted in order to enable the private sector and economic development agencies to proceed in attracting the kinds of business that the unique resource might provide. He did not believe the issue had been specifically explored by the Economic Development Commission, and noted the committee would involve economic development people.
Ms. Buckley confirmed the sponsor of the bill was suggesting the issue be considered by an interim study, and she felt the only way to keep the bill alive would be to amend and rerefer the bill to the Committee on Elections, Procedures and Ethics. She noted the amendment would change the bill to an Assembly Concurrent Resolution and would not be subject to the pending deadline. Ms. Buckley noted a recent interim study looked at ways to attract businesses to Nevada communities.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED AMEND AND REREFER A.B. 623 TO THE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, PROCEDURES AND ETHICS.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Giunchigliani clarified for the record that the bill would be amended and rereferred to redraft the bill in the form of a concurrent resolution.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. OCEGUERA WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini turned the committee’s attention to its scheduled work session, and a work session document was provided (Exhibit O). Chairman Dini opened A.B. 572 for discussion.
Assembly Bill 572: Establishes single fraud control unit for insurance within office of attorney general. (BDR 18-487)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED DO PASS A.B. 572.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. OCEGUERA WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened A.B. 207 for discussion.
Assembly Bill 207: Imposes certain restrictions and requirements upon transfer, registration, titling and operation of, and requires certain notices and disclosures regarding, motor vehicles that have sustained certain damages. (BDR 43-441)
Ms. Buckley provided the committee with proposed amendments to A.B. 207, and noted the bill required disclosure when an automobile had been in a wreck or a flood (Exhibit P). She advised that a subcommittee meeting was held and amendments were proposed to streamline the bill. Ms. Buckley noted the amendments had been shared with members of the industry, who believed the amendments made the bill better.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 207.
ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini turned to A.B. 338.
Assembly Bill 338: Makes various changes concerning workers’ compensation. (BDR 53-711)
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, stated Ray Badger of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, and Danny Thompson of the AFL-CIO, proposed several amendments to the bill, and she reviewed those amendments with the committee (Exhibit O, pages 3-5). Ms. McGee noted that during the original hearing an amendment was proposed by Gene Munnings of Odyssey Business Services to provide a prescription card for injured employees (Exhibit O, page 28).
Chairman Dini suggested adopting the amendments identified in Section 1, pages 3-5 of Exhibit O.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 338.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Hettrick felt the amendments helped the bill, but noted he was still concerned over the “psychological impairment of the whole man” issue and stated he could not support the bill.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH MR. HETTRICK, MR. BEERS AND MR. NOLAN VOTING NO. SPEAKER PERKINS AND MR. PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini turned to A.B. 324.
Assembly Bill 324: Revises various provisions regarding regulation of mortgage brokers, mortgage agents and mortgage companies. (BDR 54-491)
Mr. Goldwater stated there were conceptually three different sets of amendments and reviewed each amendment with the committee (Exhibit O, pages 18-27). Mr. Goldwater noted the only contentious part of the bill centered on Nevada Revised Statute 645E licensees, and Mr. Goldwater hoped NRS 645E licensees could be exempted from the legislation except when engaged in conduct which was overlapping and thus allow NRS 645E licensees to continue to be regulated by financial institutions, unless there was occasion for the new commission to be actively engaged in the regulatory process.
Ms. Buckley asked for the sponsor’s comments on the proposed changes regarding the issue of powers of attorney as set forth on Exhibit O, page 27. Mr. Goldwater indicated the amendment exempted accredited investors, who were not the people that needed protection from the state in the regulatory process.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 324.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Arberry disclosed that he was involved in a mortgage company and stated the legislation would not affect him any differently than anyone else. Mr. Hettrick made the same disclosure.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS AND MR. PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini turned to A.B. 123.
Assembly Bill 123: Revises provisions relating to health insurance. (BDR 57-603)
Ms. Giunchigliani reported the subcommittee worked with the sponsor to clarify certain items expected from the self-insurance plan, which included ensuring the commission had oversight in certain areas. Mr. Giunchigliani noted changes were also proposed to Sections 5 and 6, and reviewed the proposed amendments as set forth on Exhibit O, page 11.
Chairman Dini asked whether the bill implied privatization, and Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that it did not.
Ms. Buckley confirmed the intent of the amendment was to offer a choice regarding benefits to public employees, including a program of self-insurance and a commercial health plan.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 123.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS AND MR. PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini moved to A.B. 132.
Assembly Bill 132: Authorizes possession, use, manufacture, purchase, installation, transportation or sale of chlorofluorocarbons. (BDR 40-743)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 132.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION FAILED WITH MS. BUCKLEY AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTING YES. SPEAKER PERKINS AND MR. PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini turned to A.B. 345.
Assembly Bill 345: Revises provisions governing claims for compensation under industrial insurance for certain occupational diseases. (BDR 53-1267)
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, told the committee A.B. 345 revised provisions governing claims for compensation under industrial insurance for certain occupational diseases. She noted Chairman Dini recommended deleting Section 3 (Exhibit O, page 5).
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 345.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Buckley asked what could be done to stop wrongful denials short of moving to a no-fault system, noting her concern over the contrary testimony heard by the committee.
Mr. Goldwater noted workers’ compensation had reached the point where there was absolutely no disincentive for insurers to deny claims in bad faith, and he felt something must be done to make insurers aware that it was not acceptable to act in bad faith and wrongfully deny claims.
Mr. Oceguera asked whether the committee would consider awarding legal fees rather than treble damages for unjustified denials.
Mr. Goldwater commented that awarding legal fees would not solve the problem because lawyers’ involvement should be discouraged; however, he noted his desire that the bill be passed out of committee.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MR. PARKS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 375.
Assembly Bill 375: Enacts provisions governing possession, use, manufacture and distribution of certain items employed to commit theft. (BDR 52‑1462)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, advised the committee A.B. 375 addressed possession, use, manufacture and distribution of certain items employed to commit theft (Exhibit O, page 5). He noted technical concerns were raised at the hearing and amendments were proposed by Sam McMullen. Mr. Hughey reviewed the amendments with the committee (Exhibit O, pages 29 and 30).
SPEAKER PERKINS MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 375.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Buckley asked whether the penalties were consistent with current penalties for possession of a forged receipt under $250. Speaker Perkins responded the amendments were written to allow penalties to move forward consistently with the rest of the statutory scheme and captured the lower level felonies.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MR. PARKS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini turned the committee’s attention to A.B. 491.
Assembly Bill 491: Authorizes ophthalmologist and optometrist to cooperate in formation of professional corporation or professional association. (BDR 54-1280)
Fred Hillerby, Legislative Representative, Nevada Optometric Association, stated A.B. 491 as written was far too narrow relative to the formation of a professional corporation, and he provided an amendment for the committee’s consideration (Exhibit Q). Mr. Hillerby noted the amendment dealt with information which needed to be shared with a patient when an optometrist and an ophthalmologist co-managed a surgical patient, noting the issue was important public policy. Mr. Hillerby wanted to make it clear for the record that the amendment did not allow a fee for a referral.
Dana Bennett, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Medical Association, confirmed the Nevada State Medical Association supported the amendment, although it originally opposed the bill.
Jeanette Belz, Legislative Representative, Nevada Ophthalmological Society, indicated the amendment offered by Mr. Hillerby was the amendment originally proposed by the Ophthalmological Society at the hearing, and Ms. Belz confirmed the society’s support for the amendment.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 491.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Nolan asked for confirmation that a fee could not be charged pursuant to the amendment. Mr. Hillerby advised the new language on the second page of the amendment provided for the division of fees, and clarified that the division of fees was only in relation to the services provided and could not include referral fees. By way of example, Mr. Hillerby stated that an optometrist might diagnose cataracts and refer the patient to an ophthalmologist who would perform the cataract surgery. The ophthalmologist then returned the patient to the optometrist for post-operative care. The optometrist would be paid for the diagnosis and the post-operative care and the ophthalmologist would be paid for the surgery. There would be no fee for the referral between the two doctors.
Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed that the bill and amendment would allow for collaboration but would not change the grouping as discussed in the original bill.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MR. PARKS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 492.
Assembly Bill 492: Revises provisions governing certain licenses issued by and membership of private investigator’s licensing board. (BDR 54-1014)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, provided the committee with background information on A.B. 492, and reviewed several proposed amendments to the bill (Exhibit O, page 7).
Mr. Humke indicated his constituent felt the bill was necessary for the protection of the public, noting there were 35 individuals operating in the private sector predominantly in the field of private investigation. He stated the private investigators board was willing to assume responsibility for the function.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 492.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Ms. Buckley stated she did not see a need for the bill and was concerned that the bill would require some individuals who were not working in the private investigation industry to obtain a license from the private investigators board.
Mr. Oceguera recommended volunteers be included in the amendment language which he proposed, should the bill be processed.
Speaker Perkins indicated he shared Ms. Buckley’s concerns, and noted there were activities licensed and regulated by the private investigators board for people who did a variety of activities. He felt the bill would have some unintended consequences.
THE MOTION FAILED. MR. PARKS WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 541.
Assembly Bill 541: Provides for regulation of certain instructors of courses required for issuance and renewal of license as real estate broker, broker-salesman or real estate salesman. (BDR 54-551)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, provided the committee with background information on A.B. 541, including several proposed amendments, which allowed for certification of real estate education instructors by regulation (Exhibit O, pages 7, 45 and 46).
A memorandum from David Perlman, Administrator, Commission on Postsecondary Education and a memorandum from David Walker, Deputy Administrator, Department of Business and Industry, Real Estate Division, were provided for the committee’s review without comment (Exhibit R and Exhibit S).
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 541.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Beers noted there were not any other industries that independently certified instructors, and he felt existing sanctions were a more effective tool than a certification process.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. PARKS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 302.
Assembly Bill 302: Makes various changes to licensure requirements for professionals in Oriental medicine. (BDR 54-1083)
Ms. Giunchigliani stated amendments to A.B. 302 were proposed and included: (1) a process for complaints coming before the board, (2) the requirement of a national exam, (3) adoption of a state exam, (4) the frequency of giving the exam, (5) the requirement that the board hire a contractor to develop the state exam, (6) a provision allowing a four year degree or its equivalent, (7) a provision to allow persons licensed in another country to practice in Nevada after certain requirements were met, and (8) a grandfathering clause for the national exam (Exhibit O, pages 3, 12-17).
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, clarified that Section 5 of the bill was deleted in its entirety.
Chairman Dini noted he received a request to change the date in Section 6 from 2001 to October 2000.
Diane Crowne, Acupuncturist, told the committee there was no substantial difference between the test that will be given this year and the test given in previous years. Ms. Crowne noted she passed the exam in October 2000 and she found the 2001 date arbitrary.
Ms. Giunchigliani acknowledged the date was arbitrary, but she indicated the subcommittee chose the date that it felt was appropriate to implement new regulations. She noted her concern was with the content of the previous tests and suggested the board be allowed by regulation to review the previous exam to determine whether the content was similar.
Mr. Hettrick indicated he understood the point being made by Ms. Giunchigliani; however, he noted Ms. Crowne was already nationally certified and felt the committee should change the date to January 2000.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 302 WITH THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AND THE CHANGE IN THE DATE.
SPEAKER PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Seung B. Park, Doctor of Oriental Medicine, Park’s Oriental Medical Clinic, told the committee he had practiced Oriental medicine in the Reno area since 1983. Dr. Park provided the committee with a handout which he felt explained what was currently occurring in Oriental medicine in the United States (Exhibit T). Dr. Park stated most people in the United States did not understand what an acupuncturist or doctor of Oriental medicine was, and stated a doctor of Oriental medicine was a physician with an educational requirement of six to eight years.
Chairman Dini asked whether Dr. Park had any amendments he wished to address.
Dr. Park reviewed the proposed amendments set forth on page 8 of Exhibit T.
Chairman Dini explained the intent of the amendment proposed by Ms. Giunchigliani was to open up the availability of acupuncturists in the state, and noted the committee was prepared to vote on a motion of amend and do pass. Chairman Dini felt the Senate would be a more appropriate place for Dr. Park to address his concerns and suggested Dr. Park submit a proposal in writing to the Senate at its hearing on the bill.
Ms. Giunchigliani stated she appreciated Dr. Park’s comments, and indicated she would work with Dr. Park to address his concerns on the Senate side.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MR. NOLAN AND MR. HUMKE WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 622.
Assembly Bill 622: Makes various changes to provisions governing practice of court reporting. (BDR 54-533)
Ms. Buckley told the committee she was contacted by the court reporting community prior to the start of the session with concerns about the first version of A.B. 622. Ms. Buckley noted the second version of the bill alleviated many of the concerns expressed by the court reporting community in Las Vegas; however, amendments were proposed by Barbara Seaton to clearly indicate a court reporting firm owner need not be a certified court reporter and to reduce fees sought by the Certified Court Reporters’ Board of Nevada (Exhibit O, pages 8 and 47).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 622 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, LIMITING THE FEE INCREASE TO ONLY $50.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, sought clarification as to the amendment on the limitation of fees. He confirmed the fee for filing an application for an examination was currently $50, and the proposed amendment would allow the fee to increase by $50, additionally, the fee on line 27 which currently was $100 would also increase by $50 to $150, and so on.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS AND MR. NOLAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 624.
Assembly Bill 624: Provides for issuance of uniform identification cards and devices to process insurance claims for prescription drugs and devices. (BDR 57-549)
Keith MacDonald, Executive Secretary, State Board of Pharmacy, reminded the committee the Board of Pharmacy sponsored A.B. 624 and opposition was presented by the self-insured health plans and health maintenance organizations. Mr. MacDonald stated the parties met and resolved their differences with amendment language; however, the Insurance Commissioner continued to have reservations regarding use of language and use of guidelines from a national organization.
Chairman Dini asked Mr. MacDonald to provide his amendments to staff, and Mr. MacDonald verbally identified each requested modification in exact detail (Exhibit O, pages 48-52). In response to Chairman Dini’s question, Mr. MacDonald advised that John Sande’s concerns related to ERISA plans, and by striking the words “health care plan,” Mr. Sande’s concerns were eliminated.
Mrs. Gibbons asked whether concerns expressed by Helen Foley and Janice Pine regarding standardization of pharmacy cards had been addressed. Mr. MacDonald noted he would not have any objection to the modifications requested by Ms. Foley and Ms. Pine, and noted if the HMOs were exempted from the bill, the concerns expressed by Ms. Foley and Ms. Pine would be alleviated.
Susan Haase, Legislative Representative, Nevada Association of Health Plans, stated, on behalf of Helen Foley and others, by limiting the bill’s application to those plans that issued a single pharmacy card, the association’s concerns were satisfied.
Chairman Dini advised he would entertain a motion of amend and do pass with the reservation that before the bill went to general file, it would be put on the Chief Clerk’s desk to assure the amendments were correct.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 624.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, indicated he captured the amendments suggested by Mr. MacDonald, and asked if the other amendments proposed in the work session document were included in the motion (Exhibit O, pages 8 and 9).
Lou Roggensack, Representative, Nevada Division of Insurance, Life and Health Section, indicated his belief that Nevada Revised Statute Chapters 695C and 695F were to be included in the amendments on the second page. Mr. Roggensack indicated the Insurance Commissioner was also concerned regarding the use of the NCPDP pharmacy identification implementation guide.
Mr. MacDonald indicated he concurred with the striking of the words in Section 5 as identified in the work session document.
THE MOTION FAILED. MR. BEERS, MS. LESLIE, MRS. GIBBONS AND MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO. SPEAKER PERKINS, MR. ARBERRY, MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. NOLAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Ms. Giunchigliani indicated she voted no because she did not see who the bill captured due to all of the exemptions.
Chairman Dini opened discussion on A.B. 627.
Assembly Bill 627: Revises provisions relating to trade practices. (BDR 52-554)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, provided background information on A.B. 627, which addressed trade practices and made changes to adult entertainment establishments and related establishments. Mr. Hughey noted there were a number of amendments proposed and reviewed the amendments with the committee as set forth on Exhibit O, pages 9 and 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 627 WITH ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Hughey questioned whether the motion included Mr. Flint’s amendments and asked whether the committee desired to delete the provisions regarding consignment sales, which were currently in the statute.
Mr. Hettrick did not believe amendment four in the work session document should be included because it was existing law and he did not believe the statute prohibited consignment sales.
Chairman Dini noted he would like to have legal counsel review amendment three to ensure that the language would have the intended effect.
ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER AMENDED HIS EARLIER MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 627 WITH AMENDMENTS 1 AND 2, AND AMENDMENTS 3 AND 5 IF SO ADVISED BY LEGAL COUNSEL, ALL AS OUTLINED IN THE WORK SESSION DOCUMENT.
ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. MR. ARBERRY, MS. BUCKLEY AND MR. NOLAN WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Assembly Bill 341: Creates state board to review certain increases in rent relating to mobile home parks. (BDR 10-1087)
No action was taken on A.B. 341.
Chairman Dini adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: