MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
April 30, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:53 p.m., on Monday, April 30, 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
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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Mike Schneider
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Neena Laxalt, Legislative Representative, Nevada Nurses Association, Reno, Nevada
Amy Berndt, Vice Chair, Legislative Committee, Nevada Nurses Association, Advance Practice Nurses Special Practice Group, Family Nurse Practitioner, Assistant Professor, Orvis School of Nursing, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Kathy Apple, Executive Director, Nevada State Board of Nursing, Reno, Nevada
Steven Phillips, Geriatrician, Geriatric Care of Nevada, Reno, Nevada
Sean Gamble, Legislative Representative, Clark County Health District, Reno, Nevada
Bob Barengo, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, Reno, Nevada
Emma Sepulveda, Professor of Foreign Languages, University of Nevada, Reno, President and Founder, Latinos for Political Education, Reno, Nevada
Bobbie Gang, Legislative Representative, Nevada Women’s Lobby, Incline Village, Nevada
Richard Harjo, Chairman, Nevada Indian Commission, Reno, Nevada
John Kern, private citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
Elvira Ruiz, private citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
Dalia Sanchez, private citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
Angela Iturrios, private citizen, Las Vegas, Nevada
Mary Manna, Executive Secretary, Office Manager, Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, Las Vegas, Nevada
Larry Walthers, President, National-Interstate Council of State Board of Cosmetology, Inc., Carson City, Nevada
Kay Collins, Chairman, Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, Las Vegas, Nevada
Bonnie Schultz, owner, International Academy of Style, Reno, Nevada
William Lile, licensed Cosmetologist, Nevada
Tammie Mann, licensed Cosmetologist, salon owner, Las Vegas, Nevada
Jan Garrett, Department Chair, Cosmetology, Votech, Las Vegas, Nevada
Sharon Shaffer, Chairperson, State Board of Funeral Directors, Embalmers and Operators of Cemeteries and Crematories, Carson City, Nevada
Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada
The meeting was called to order and a quorum was present. Chairman Dini opened the hearing on S.B. 52.
Senate Bill 52: Authorizes advanced practitioner of nursing to prescribe controlled substances under certain circumstances. (BDR 54-291)
Neena Laxalt, Legislative Representative, Nevada Nurses Association, introduced Amy Berndt.
Amy Berndt, Vice Chair, Legislative Committee, Nevada Nurses Association, Advance Practice Nurses Special Practice Group, Family Nurse Practitioner, Assistant Professor, Orvis School of Nursing, University of Nevada, Reno, submitted for the record a copy of her PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit C), copies of protocols (Exhibit D. Original is on file in the Research Library.), numerous letters of support from physicians (Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.), and a pamphlet defining advanced practice nursing (Exhibit F. Original is on file in the Research Library.). The presentation given by Ms. Berndt included information on the following topics:
Chairman Dini asked how many APNs currently practiced in Nevada. Ms. Berndt responded there were over 300 nurse practitioners in the state. Chairman Dini asked how many APNs practiced in rural Nevada. Ms. Berndt deferred the question to Kathy Apple, Director of the State Board of Nursing, who would testify later.
Ms. Leslie asked what safeguards were in place to guard against abuse of controlled substances by APNs. Again, Ms. Berndt deferred the question to Kathy Apple.
Kathy Apple, Executive Director, Nevada State Board of Nursing, stated the Board of Nursing supported S.B. 52 and believed that safety components, as outlined in the previous presentation, provided for safe practice by APNs. Responding to Chairman Dini’s earlier question, Ms. Apple indicated approximately one-quarter to one-third of APNs in Nevada practiced in rural areas. As to safeguards against abuse by APNs, Ms. Apple noted part of any protocol included a formulary list that must be approved by the collaborating physician so the APN could only prescribe medications from that list. The collaborating physician regularly reviewed the list of medications, and the Board of Nursing conducted a routine audit of APN practice.
Mr. Beers inquired whether an APN started out as another type of nurse. Ms. Apple responded an APN was first a registered nurse who received additional education that enabled him or her to qualify for certification by the Board of Nursing as an APN in the specialty area in which the APN was educated.
Steven Phillips, Geriatrician, Geriatric Care of Nevada, indicated he and his partner currently employed four APNs and he had worked with APNs for over 15 years. Dr. Phillips stated his support for S.B. 52 and, as a collaborating physician, emphasized the importance of collaboration, noting the relationship was essentially a partnership developed between the physician and the APN. He felt S.B. 52 would expand the ability to deliver the kind of care that was needed on a daily basis within the area of geriatrics.
Mr. Oceguera asked whether the APNs employed by Dr. Phillips each operated under different protocols. Dr. Phillips stated there was a protocol for each APN, but noted the protocols were very similar as to the kinds of services to be performed outside the office. He noted one reason for different protocols was APNs were not allowed to prescribe medication until the APN had accomplished 1,000 hours of direct patient care in collaboration with a physician.
Sean Gamble, Legislative Representative, Clark County Health District, stated the health district was in support of S.B. 52, and stated APNs currently had the authority necessary for current Clark County programs; however, with the implementation of pilot programs and school-based clinics, Ms. Gamble felt APNs would need the authority to prescribe controlled substances.
Mr. Goldwater wondered about the worst thing that could happen if S.B. 52 were passed. Ms. Apple responded the worst thing that could happen was a medication error. She noted, however, that a review of ten years of discipline involving APNs did not reveal even one complaint about a medication error.
Chairman Dini believed APNs were well trained before they were authorized to prescribe medication, and noted APNs must be approved by the pharmacy board to prescribe controlled substances. Ms. Apple agreed, noting Nevada honored prescriptions written in states that allowed APNs to prescribe controlled substances.
Dr. Phillips pointed out that in California and Arizona a nurse practitioner could write a prescription for a schedule II or III controlled substance to a visiting Nevada resident, who could then have the prescription filled in Nevada. He noted the State Board of Pharmacy already created a mechanism to honor a prescription for a controlled substance written by a nurse practitioner in Arizona. However, Dr. Phillips further noted there currently was no way of tracking a prescription written by a nurse practitioner in Nevada due to the fact that the prescription was written in the doctor’s name because APNs were not issued a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) license number. Dr. Phillips felt the issuance of a DEA number to APNs was a key element to both the bill and the ability of APNs to prescribe controlled substances.
Mr. Nolan asked whether there was a law that compelled a physician that corroborated with an APN to report any adverse outcome in which the APN was involved. Dr. Phillips advised in his practice a minimum of ten percent of all charts were voluntarily reviewed on an annual basis, based upon the protocols the physician and APN agreed to, and the information was not provided to outside agencies but was used internally for quality improvement. He stated APNs in hospitals and long-term care settings were reviewed on an annual basis for renewal of privileges. Dr. Phillips was not aware of any law that required reporting of adverse outcomes.
Mr. Oceguera asked at which level of controlled substances was the prescribing individual required to have a DEA number. Dr. Phillips indicated a DEA license was renewed every three years and the applicant/provider determined what level of controlled substances were to be prescribed, except for schedule I controlled substances which could only be prescribed by those in a research setting. He noted the level of controlled substances to be prescribed was also a part of the collaborating agreement between the physician and the APN. Mr. Oceguera asked what kept a pharmacist from honoring a prescription written by an APN for a controlled substance beyond the level of controlled substances the APN was authorized to prescribe. Dr. Phillips advised that the information as to a person’s ability to prescribe was available online to pharmacies and was well monitored.
Mr. Goldwater indicated he was in favor of the bill, and asked whether nurses were required to carry appropriate liability and malpractice insurance. Dr. Phillips responded APNs were already required to carry malpractice insurance.
Mr. Beers asked how many states regulated APNs and, as to the states that regulated APNs, how many allowed APNs to prescribe controlled substances. Ms. Apple responded all 50 states had some form of regulatory oversight of APNs, and 42 states allowed APNs to prescribe controlled substances.
Bob Barengo, Legislative Representative, Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, indicated the Board of Medical Examiners regulated the physician that collaborated with the APN, and the physician was essentially required to regulate the practice of the APN.
A letter by William C. Torch, M.D., M.S., was submitted for the record in support of S.B. 52 without comment (Exhibit G).
A statement on behalf of the Nevada State Medical Association was submitted for the record in opposition to S.B. 52 without comment (Exhibit H).
There were no other witnesses present to testify and Chairman Dini closed the hearing on S.B. 52.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS S.B. 52.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. SPEAKER PERKINS, MS. BUCKLEY, AND MR. ARBERRY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened the hearing on S.B. 153.
Senate Bill 153: Provides for examinations for licensure as cosmetologist to be offered in languages other than English. (BDR 54-855)
Senator Mike Schneider, sponsor of the bill, introduced S.B. 153 to the committee and indicated the Hispanic population was growing in Nevada and was in need of basic services, including cosmetology. Senator Schneider stated he met with many salon owners in Las Vegas prior to introducing the bill and saw a tremendous demand for services for, and provided by, people who communicated in Spanish. Senator Schneider indicated the language in the bill also allowed people who spoke languages other than English or Spanish to take the examination in their native language after providing six months’ notice to the cosmetology board of their intention to do so. Senator Schneider noted opposition to the bill from the cosmetology board focused on the cost of preparing the test in Spanish. He advised that members of the community were willing to translate the test for the cosmetology board at no charge, and introduced Emma Sepulveda to the committee (Exhibit I).
Mr. Beers indicated he received numerous communications regarding the cost issue and asked for confirmation that cost was no longer an issue. Senator Schneider indicated cost was not an issue because the test would be translated for free.
Emma Sepulveda, Professor of Foreign Languages, University of Nevada Reno, President and Founder, Latinos for Political Education, stated her belief that S.B. 153 was about putting people to work and helping small business. She stated providing the test in Spanish would help those who were already qualified to do the job in another country, but could not speak English well enough to pass a test, and accordingly were working in salons for reduced wages simply because they could not pass a test. Dr. Sepulveda indicated giving the test in Spanish would not create any expense for the cosmetology board because the University of Nevada Reno had committed to translating the test at no charge and had performed similar services for the Washoe Medical Center, district courts and others. She addressed the idea of using translators to conduct the test, and noted the difficulty in regulating such a practice and in assuring the qualifications of the translators. Dr. Sepulveda concluded by urging the committee to support S.B. 153.
Ms. Leslie asked Dr. Sepulveda why it made sense to give the test in a person’s first language. Dr. Sepulveda stated taking a test often created anxiety and people were not able to perform as well in a second language. She noted it took five years to master a language, and she observed the vocabulary involved in passing the cosmetology test could be very complicated.
Mrs. Gibbons asked what percentage of applicants seeking a cosmetology license were Latino or Hispanic. Dr. Sepulveda did not have that information, but stated she spoke to numerous people who were qualified to practice cosmetology but could not pass the test because of the language barrier.
Bobbie Gang, Legislative Representative, Nevada Women’s Lobby, indicated support for the bill, together with all programs and policies that enabled women to become economically self-sufficient. Ms. Gang felt S.B. 153 provided a means for women, who would not otherwise be able, to enter a career and earn a living wage, allowing them to contribute to the economy and pay taxes.
Richard Harjo, Chairman, Nevada Indian Commission, indicated support for S.B. 153, and felt the key issues were cultural sensitivity and keeping the people who would benefit from the bill off of public assistance.
John Kern, private citizen, told the committee he was the owner of a Hispanic salon. He stated the Hispanic population in Clark County had grown from 35,000 to 200,000 in the past 20 years and the Nevada Budget and Planning Division projected the Hispanic population would increase by at least 50,000 in the next four years. Mr. Kern indicated the majority of Hispanics in Clark County read, wrote and spoke only Spanish, which created an overwhelming demand in all aspects of the marketplace for services provided in Spanish. He wondered how a Spanish-speaking person could go to an English-speaking salon and communicate exactly what she wanted done to her hair. Mr. Kern felt that more important than the language barrier was the Hispanic community’s determination to preserve its cultural identity. Mr. Kern said the State Board of Cosmetology expected Hispanic salon owners to service their customers with English-speaking cosmetologists, which was impossible because no non-Spanish-speaking cosmetologist was going to work in a salon where they could not communicate with their customers, and no non-English-speaking customer wanted to be attended by someone who could not understand exactly what they wanted done.
Mr. Kern continued by stating the State Board of Cosmetology was aware of the problem and already had the power to administer the test in Spanish, but refused to even make an effort to address the problem. Mr. Kern felt the solution to the problem was to license qualified cosmetologists by providing the test in Spanish, and noted California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Washington, D.C., already provided the test in Spanish. He noted there were a number of qualified cosmetologists drawing welfare in Nevada because they could not pass the test in English and were not allowed to work.
Mr. Kern observed Nevada was a member of the National-Interstate Council of State Licensing Boards of Cosmetology (NIC) and used the NIC’s national written exams. He stated the NIC conducted all the research necessary to create exams and Nevada paid $12.50 for each written exam it received from the NIC, which included the cost of correcting the exam and furnishing the results. Mr. Kern indicated the national written exam was available in Spanish through the NIC at the same cost as the English exam. Mr. Kern noted the bill was written to take effect January 1, 2002, and he felt that the NIC written Spanish exam could be made available immediately without any inconvenience to the State Board.
As to the translation issue, Mr. Kern reiterated Nevada did not have its own test; Nevada used the national test owned and provided by the NIC. Accordingly, translation of the test was not an issue and there was not a start up cost to develop or translate a test. The only function the State Board would have in administering the test in Spanish was to monitor the testing.
Chairman Dini asked why the effective date was January 1, 2002. Senator Schneider responded he was agreeable to moving up the effective date. He also took the opportunity to advise the committee that the Mormon Church had committed to the use of their missionaries as interpreters for people who wished to take the test in other languages.
Mr. Nolan asked whether there was a renewal test that must be passed in order to renew a cosmetology license. Mr. Kern indicated as long as the cosmetology license was kept current a cosmetologist did not have to pass another test to renew the license. In response to Mr. Nolan’s follow-up question, Mr. Kern indicated the only requirement to keep a license current was a fee, which was due every two years.
Chairman Dini left the room and Vice Chairman Buckley chaired the remainder of the meeting.
Elvira Ruiz, private citizen, indicated her support for S.B. 153 and pointed out that major manufacturers provided instructions in Spanish. Ms. Ruiz requested that her daughter be allowed to read testimony, which was not provided for the record, on behalf of Ms. Ruiz. Testimony indicated Ms. Ruiz was the manager of a Hispanic salon and a licensed manicurist. She indicated that when she ran ads in the local Hispanic newspaper seeking cosmetologists, for each response she received from a licensed cosmetologist, she received at least 75 responses from nonlicensed cosmetologists, who usually were licensed in other states, but could not pass the written test in English due to a language barrier. She indicated she had personal knowledge of qualified, award-winning cosmetologists who could not work, or worked in lesser positions for less money, because they could not pass a test in English. Ms. Ruiz felt the State Board’s treatment of Hispanic cosmetologists was nothing short of racial discrimination and was an effort to keep Hispanics out of the working community of cosmetology and urged the committee to pass S.B. 153.
Vice Chairman Buckley reminded those still wishing to testify not to repeat testimony already provided to the committee.
Dalia Sanchez, private citizen, indicated her support for S.B. 153 and noted salon owners were still experiencing difficulty finding licensed cosmetologist who spoke Spanish.
Angela Iturrios, private citizen, told the committee she had taken the test ten times and had not yet passed. Ms. Iturrios indicated she had gone to school to learn to read and write English, but the vocabulary on the test was not in the dictionary.
Vice Chairman Buckley called for witnesses who wished to testify in opposition to S.B. 153.
Mary Manna, Executive Secretary, Office Manager, Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, testified in opposition to S.B. 153 and provided the committee with a packet of information relative to the board’s position on the bill (Exhibit J). She did not believe the issue was discriminatory, and noted the board’s main function was to protect the health and safety of the general public and not to ensure that salon owners would have licensed cosmetologists to employ. Ms. Manna stated when the issue of bilingual testing was brought to the board two years ago, the board conferred with the deputy Attorney General who advised the board that it was more constitutionally correct to test only in English. Ms. Manna confirmed that the board did contract for national testing to ensure the validity, credibility and defensibility of the examinations. She indicated she was aware of the large Hispanic population, and stated the board dealt with individuals from all around the world, noting the rapid growth of the Asian community. Ms. Manna drew the committee’s attention to pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit J regarding the NIC’s examinations. Ms. Manna acknowledged there was a Spanish test available through the NIC, but noted the test had not been updated in over 12 years due to its lack of use. She also noted the board did not want to cater to one ethnic group, and indicated if the board was required to provide testing in a language other than English, the board would like to provide the opportunity to anyone interested in the industry, which could be done through the use of interpreters.
Ms. Manna continued by stating the best utensil the board had to protect the public was the testing process, and noted the board’s concern that translation of the test by anyone other than the NIC would result in the loss of use of the test by the NIC. She observed that if the state was left without an exam, Nevada would lose its reciprocity with other states. In conclusion, Ms. Manna stated legislation should address all ethnic groups and not just Hispanics.
Vice Chairman Buckley asked whether the NIC offered tests in languages other than Spanish. Ms. Manna indicated the NIC only offered the test in Spanish and English. Vice Chairman Buckley asked why the board did not utilize the Spanish test that was available now, and requested the NIC to consider providing the test in other languages prevalent in Nevada. Ms. Manna responded the Spanish test was not updated.
Vice Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Walthers with the NIC why the Spanish test was not updated.
Larry Walthers, President, National-Interstate Council of State Boards of Cosmetology, Inc., indicated 42 states allowed testing only in English, and out of 55,000 tests given last year, only 179 were in Spanish. Mr. Walthers indicated the NIC did not feel it was cost-effective to update a test that was only given 179 times out of 55,000; however, the NIC was looking into updating the test because of the interest generated in Nevada.
Vice Chairman Buckley expressed her opinion that updating the test once every five years would be worthwhile as a service to NIC members throughout the United States. Mr. Walthers indicated the NIC conducted a nationwide survey in 1997 and testing in languages other than English was not a problem identified by the survey.
Mr. Beers felt it was important for the NIC to understand that one-fifth of Nevada’s population was Hispanic. He asked whether there was a difference in the cost to provide the Spanish test. Mr. Walthers indicated it cost $78,000 for the NIC to rewrite an examination and the NIC did not feel there was enough demand for a Spanish examination.
Mr. Nolan sought confirmation that after an applicant passed the initial test nothing further was required to maintain a cosmetology license except for a biennual fee. Ms. Manna confirmed that Mr. Nolan was correct and noted additional testing was only required when a licensee allowed their license to lapse for a period of four years.
Mr. Nolan asked whether there was a practical examination that must be passed in addition to the written examination. Ms. Manna indicated the testing procedure was to first offer a written examination, and after the written exam was passed, a practical exam was administered and the applicant was required to bring in a model on which to perform services.
Mr. Nolan asked whether there was a language barrier in conducting and performing the practical exam. Ms. Manna responded there were 45 Hispanic salons in Southern Nevada and out of 1,200 candidates there were 125 Asian applicants and only 53 Hispanic applicants.
Kay Collins, Chairman, Nevada State Board of Cosmetology, responded to Mr. Nolan’s question by stating a practical examination in Spanish was not available through the NIC.
Mr. Nolan noted the disparity between the Asian population and the number of Asian applicants as compared to the Hispanic population and the number of Hispanic applicants. Ms. Manna indicated there were a larger number of Asian applicants at the Southern Nevada office than Hispanic applicants. She noted the board’s position was not in opposition to the Hispanic community but in favor of giving the same opportunity to all ethnic individuals, and indicated the board would like to have the opportunity to use interpreters in order to accommodate all ethnic individuals. Ms. Manna pointed out S.B. 153 addressed cosmetologists and observed that the board also licensed manicurists, instructors, electrologists, hair designers and others.
Mr. Hettrick asked whether there currently was reciprocity with other states. Ms. Manna indicated if an individual had a current license from another state and had taken a nationally recognized written exam in that state, the board would grant them reciprocity after the applicant passed a short written exam on the laws of the state of Nevada.
Mr. Hettrick asked why the updated NIC English test was not simply translated into Spanish. Ms. Manna referred Mr. Hettrick to page 2 of Exhibit J, which reflected that the state board could not provide the NIC test to any person other than the candidate taking the test, including a translator for translation into Spanish, or the state’s contract for testing would be cancelled. Mr. Hettrick suggested Professor Sepulveda translate the test for the NIC, leaving the test in the hands of the NIC for dissemination by the NIC. Ms. Manna indicated she could not respond for the NIC.
Ms. Leslie noted the letter from the state of New Mexico on page 3 of Exhibit J did not indicate the test was outdated or invalid and did not back up the position of the board. As to the practical exam, Ms. Leslie wondered whether there was a state law or regulation that prohibited the use of a certified interpreter during the practical exam. Ms. Manna indicated until 1985 the board allowed the use of interpreters for both the written and practical exams, however, the board discovered several potential areas of cheating and cheating instances. Ms. Leslie inquired specifically about the use of interpreters for the practical exam, noting she did not see how it was possible to use an interpreter to cheat on the practical test using an independent certified interpreter.
Ms. Collins requested the committee to consider allowing the use of interpreters in order to open up the testing process to all languages, with the candidates bearing the cost of the interpreter. She noted the bill was limited to cosmetology and Ms. Collins wanted to see the bill amended to apply to all categories licensed by the State Board.
Bonnie Schultz, owner, International Academy of Style, indicated she was opposed to S.B. 153 because the bill gave a privilege to one small group of applicants and was not fair to all ethnic groups. Ms. Schultz asked that the bill be amended to provide for the use of interpreters for all ethnic groups, including United States citizens that could not read.
William Lile, licensed cosmetologist, indicated he was opposed to S.B. 153 and felt the bill failed to address the problem of United States citizens that went to school but could not pass an exam written on a sixth grade level.
Tammie Mann, licensed cosmetologist, salon owner, provided her prepared statement in opposition to S.B. 153 for the record (Exhibit K). Ms. Mann noted other regulatory boards in the state of Nevada were not required to offer licensing examinations Spanish or any other language except English. She felt the bill posed a safety threat to the public because of the dangerous chemicals involved in cosmetology and noted not all manufacturers provided instructions in Spanish.
Jan Garrett, Department Chair, Cosmetology, Votech, expressed concern about the ramifications of providing tests in Spanish on the curriculum of vocational schools, and wondered whether cosmetology courses would soon be required to be taught in Spanish. Ms. Garrett also expressed concern about an individual’s ability to understand and read directions, and noted many of the products used in cosmetology could be dangerous if not used properly. Ms. Garrett urged the committee to vote against S.B. 153.
Vice Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.B. 153 and opened the hearing on S.B. 281.
Senate Bill 281: Revises provisions governing embalmers and funeral directors. (BDR 54-1238)
Sharon Shaffer, Chairperson, State Board of Funeral Directors, Embalmers and Operators of Cemeteries and Crematories, provided her written statement in support of S.B. 281 for the record, and noted the legislation was merely a housekeeping bill (Exhibit L).
Vice Chairman Buckley called for other witnesses to testify in support of or in opposition to S.B. 281, and there were none. Accordingly, Vice Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.B. 281 and opened the hearing on S.C.R 10.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 10: Urges various persons and entities to coordinate efforts to promote economic development and diversification in this state. (BDR R-261)
Rick Bennett, Director of Government Relations, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, indicated he supported the resolution.
Vice Chairman Buckley called for other witnesses to testify in support of or in opposition to S.C.R. 10, and there were none. Accordingly, Vice Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.C.R 10.
Vice Chairman Buckley indicated she would conduct a work session and the committee was provided with a work session document (Exhibit M). The first bill considered was S.B. 45.
Senate Bill 45: Provides remedy for dilution of marks. (BDR 52-256)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, indicated S.B. 45 provided remedies for dilution of marks and reminded the committee there was no testimony in opposition to the bill and no amendments were proposed.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 45.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. CHAIRMAN DINI, SPEAKER PERKINS, MR. ARBERRY, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. GOLDWATER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Vice Chairman Buckley turned the committee’s attention to S.B. 50.
Senate Bill 50: Revises provisions governing trade secrets. (BDR 52-257)
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, reminded the committee S.B. 50 revised provisions governing trade secrets (Exhibit M). There was no testimony in opposition to the bill and no amendments were proposed.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED DO PASS S.B. 50.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. CHAIRMAN DINI, SPEAKER PERKINS, MR. ARBERRY, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. GOLDWATER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Vice Chairman Buckley asked whether there was a motion on S.C.R. 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R 10.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. CHAIRMAN DINI, SPEAKER PERKINS, MR. ARBERRY, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. GOLDWATER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
Vice Chairman Buckley asked whether there was a motion on S.B. 281.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS S.B. 281.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. CHAIRMAN DINI, SPEAKER PERKINS, MR. ARBERRY, MRS. GIBBONS AND MR. GOLDWATER WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joseph Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: