MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-First Session

May 2, 2001

 

The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 4:09 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 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

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     David Humke

Ms.                     Sheila Leslie

Mr.                     Dennis Nolan

Mr.                     John Oceguera

Mr.                     David Parks

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Mr.                     Morse Arberry, Jr.

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman

Mrs.                     Dawn Gibbons

Mr.                     David Goldwater

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District Clark No. 2

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Darlene Nevin, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Todd Russell, Nevada State Board of Accountancy

Marsha Burgess, Nevada Credit Union Advisory Council

Scott Walshaw, Commissioner of Financial Institutions

Robert Barengo, Nevada Consumer Finance Association

Terry Johnson, Nevada State Labor Commissioner

 

Chairman Dini called the meeting to order at 4:09 p.m.  A quorum was present.  He opened the hearing on S.B. 512.

 

Senate Bill 512:  Revises provisions relating to accountants. (BDR 54-1208)

 

Todd Russell, Nevada State Board of Accountancy, presented S.B. 512, which was proposed by the board.  Section 1 provided for CPAs and their practices to register under fictitious names with the board.  It also allowed the board to adopt regulations and charge a fee for registration.

 

Section 2 primarily allowed the board to charge individuals who took the CPA exam in Nevada but did not plan to become certified in Nevada.

 

Section 3 allowed a broader standard for the board when determining reciprocity.

 

Section 4 would allow the board, after January 31 of each year, to revoke licenses if the renewal licensing fees were not paid.

 

Section 5 required the individual to obtain his/her annual permit within 60 days after the expiration date instead of one year.

 

Section 5, subsection 2 gave the board permission to deny an application to take the examination prescribed by the board, deny a person admission to an examination, invalidate a grade received, or deny an application for a certificate under certain circumstances.

 

Section 6 made an “LCB minor change” with regard to revoking registrations.

 

Section 7 allowed for those practicing under fictitious names to reregister and required them to pay a fee prescribed by the board by January 1, 2002.

 

Chairman Dini asked if there was any further testimony in support of, or in opposition to, S.B. 512.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 512.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY, BEERS, GOLDWATER, PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN GIBBONS AND BUCKLEY WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE.

 

Chairman Dini opened the hearing on S.B. 330.

 

Senate Bill 330:  Makes various changes relating to financial businesses. (BDR 54-748)

 

Marsha Burgess, Nevada Credit Union Advisory Council, proposed an amendment to Senator Shaffer’s proposed legislation, S.B. 330 (Exhibit C).  The amendment allowed state chartered credit unions to have the same powers as federally chartered credit unions.  Ms. Burgess informed the committee that Senator Shaffer, other sponsors, and Mr. Walshaw, Commissioner of Financial Institutions, had agreed to the amendment.  Ms. Burgess informed the committee that Mr. Walshaw also had amendments to propose.

 

Ms. Burgess clarified for Assemblywoman Giunchigliani that the proposed amendment was intended to codify what was practiced.

 

Scott Walshaw, Commissioner of Financial Institutions, testified in support of S.B. 330 and the amendment presented by Ms. Burgess.  He added that S.B. 330 did not impose additional responsibilities or fiscal requirements on the Division of Financial Institutions.  Rather, it enhanced existing law and eliminated confusing language.

 

Mr. Walshaw noted that the Division of Financial Institutions requested Section 12, which amended Chapter 604 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  It allowed the Commissioner to collect a $40 per hour fee from registrants to examine the company’s activities.

 

Another amendment, approved by Robert Barengo, Nevada Consumer Finance Association, was in the possession of Jan Needham.  It was not be processed before the mid session deadline.  Mr. Walshaw explained that the amendment would change NRS 232.545.  This statute was created “some years ago” to allow the division to deposit application fees received from licensees into a special account, which would be used to reimburse the cost of performing the investigations of those applications.  However, when it was passed, it was not amended to include NRS Chapter 604.  The amendment they proposed would add language to NRS 232.545 to clarify that NRS Chapter 604 was included along with the other chapters.

 

Mr. Walshaw clarified for Assemblywoman Giunchigliani that following the creation of NRS 232.545 in 1985 all the application fees for every type of license company went into an account created by that statute.  The account was used to defray the costs of performing investigations of those applications.  Mr. Walshaw explained that although the statute allowed for examinations and investigations, there was no corresponding ability to bill the licensee for the costs of the examinations and investigations as there was for other types of licensees.  He provided that in other chapters for which they had jurisdiction there was specific statutory authority that “mirrored each other for either the imposition of some sort of assessment or hourly examination fee.”

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if those fees were the same for each of the groups.  Mr. Walshaw replied they varied depending on the types of institutions.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the fee would be determined for this particular need.  Mr. Walshaw replied it would be an hourly fee and would have to be adopted by regulation.  He informed Ms. Giunchigliani that all of the licensees would be involved in the process as required by statutes, and that he had been in contact with them.  Mr. Walshaw also verified for Ms. Giunchigliani that any needed staff would be paid out of this fund.  He reinforced that the purpose would be to create an hourly fee that would directly offset the cost of sending an examiner out to do an investigation or examination of that licensee’s books and records.

 

Mr. Walshaw reminded the committee that Jan Needham had the proposed amendment.  Also, rather than endanger the proposed legislation on the Senate side due to the nearness of the deadline, they chose to propose the amendment to the Assembly.

 

Robert Barengo, Nevada Consumer Finance Association, which included Household American General Beneficial and Associates, related that Senator Shaffer asked him to appear in his stead.  Mr. Barengo noted that Senator Shaffer sponsored S.B. 330 on behalf of Nevada Consumer Finance Association and Household American General Beneficial and Associates.  He stated that S.B. 330 dealt with the same concept in two different chapters:  NRS Chapter 645E on mortgage companies, which addressed those who lent their own money, and NRS Chapter 675, the Installment Loan and Finance Act.  The proposed amendment would allow the licensee to change his address with ten days notice to the Commissioner, who could either accept or reject the request.

 

Under Section 2, subsection 4, the provisions of NRS 645E.130 did not require a mortgage company located outside Nevada that did not conduct business in Nevada to be licensed pursuant the chapter.  Subsection 5 stipulated that the chapter did not apply to transactions that were exclusively between a licensee and a person located outside Nevada.

 

Chairman Dini requested clarification from Mr. Barengo.  Mr. Barengo replied that if someone was already licensed in Nevada for an office they could apply for licensing for an office outside of Nevada to conduct business in Nevada.  That particular licensee could conduct business outside of Nevada and not be subject to the provisions of NRS 645E.130.

 

Mr. Walshaw informed the committee that such a provision was not particular to the mortgage industry.  He pointed out that in NRS Chapter 649, current banking codes and the Credit Union Act, there were similar provisions that allowed licensing for firms operating and licensed in Nevada to operate offices in other states.  He offered, as an example, that collection agencies were licensed in Nevada to operate offices outside Nevada.

 

With such a provision, Mr. Barengo observed, the records, papers, books and files of these businesses outside Nevada would have to be made available and the business would have to pay for the commissioner’s travel to perform the audit.

 

Mr. Barengo related that he had conferred with credit unions, banks, Commissioner Walshaw and others who would be affected by S.B. 330.  They had no objections to the amendment.  He also noted that the check cashing representative, Scott Vergiels, supported the amendment.

 

Chairman Dini closed the hearing on S.B. 330, as there was no further testimony.  He informed those who testified that the committee needed the amendment for the work session.

 

Chairman Dini opened the hearing on S.B. 373.

 

Senate Bill 373:  Makes various changes to provisions relating to labor commissioner. (BDR 53-558)

 

Terry Johnson, Nevada State Labor Commissioner, testified on behalf of S.B. 373.  It addressed changes to NRS Chapters 607 and 608 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  He felt the proposed changes would enable the agency to operate more efficiently.

 

Section 1 clarified the existing language.  Section 2 enabled the Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations for his enforcement of the labor laws.

 

Section 3, subsection 1, clarified that the Labor Commissioner could prosecute a claim for wages or commissions or initiate actions to collect wages or commissions.  Section 3, subsection 2, gave the Labor Commissioner authority to issue a subpoena, rather than a summons, for the purpose of adjusting disputes concerning wages.  Section 3, subsection 3, reduced the period of time in which unclaimed money collected from wages or commissions would be held until considered “abandoned” from five years to one year.  This would “streamline” their managerial procedures.

 

Sections 4, 5, and 6 stated that the Labor Commissioner, or another selected by him, could conduct hearings, take testimony, compel attendance or issue the written decision.  Previously, “the Commissioner’s regular staff” would select the individual for those responsibilities.  If all those in the agency had a conflict of interest and could not preside over a hearing, those provisions would allow the Labor Commissioner to select someone outside the agency to preside.

 

Section 6, subsection 3, replaced “any person subpoenaed under the provisions of this section” with “any person subpoenaed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

 

Section 8 provided that the Attorney General, rather than the District Attorneys of the several counties, “shall prosecute all criminal violations of law that are reported to him by the Labor Commissioner.”  Mr. Johnson justified this change, stating the Office of the Attorney General served as legal counsel to the Labor Commissioner.

 

Section 9 authorized the Labor Commissioner, in accordance with federal law, to establish the minimum wage.  Mr. Johnson reasoned that if the minimum wage changed after the Legislature adjourned, they would be able to change the regulations to mirror the current minimum wage.

 

Section 9, subsection 3, made it unlawful to employ at a wage less than the minimum wage.  Section 10 allowed the employee two years to “bring a civil action to recover the difference between the amount paid to the employee and the amount of the minimum wage.”

 

Section 11 included the Attorney General as receiving information concerning violations.  This change was supported by the fact that the Labor Commissioner used the Attorney General’s Office for legal counsel on all matters.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, speculating that the state could prescribe a minimum wage, asked if line 14 of page 4 should state “in accordance with state or federal law.”

 

Mr. Johnson’s interpretation led him to believe the statute would not limit the minimum wage to that prescribed by federal law.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked the Commissioner to verify what the statute actually specified.

 

Chairman Dini asked if the minimum wage for minors would be regulated.  Mr. Johnson responded that language with a separate minimum wage for minors currently existed in regulation, and would continue to be a practice as well.

 

Chairman Dini closed the hearing on S.B. 373, as there was no further testimony.  He opened the hearing on S.B. 420.

 

Senate Bill 420:  Requires occupational licensing boards to submit quarterly summaries of disciplinary actions and biennial reports of activities to director of Legislative Counsel Bureau. (BDR 54-451)

 

Senator Maggie Carlton, Senate District Clark No. 2, related that the Governor’s Fundamental Review Committee had discussed and evaluated some of the boards and their activities.  Upon requesting information about the various boards from the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Research Division, Ms. Carlton discovered that none of the reports had been given to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.  Considering the boards a “creature of the Legislature,” Ms. Carlton felt they should be reporting to the Legislative Counsel Bureau so the Legislature could ensure the health, welfare and public safety of Nevadans.

 

Section 2 of S.B. 420 listed all the boards considered “occupational licensing boards.”  Section 3 specified the due dates for the boards’ submission of disciplinary action reports.  Section 3 also governed the release of information to the public and the Legislative Commission.

 

Section 4 directed each licensing board to submit a report of its activities to the Legislative Counsel Bureau on or before November 1 of each even-numbered year.  The Legislative Counsel Bureau would then compile a report, which would be beneficial to both the Assembly and Senate Commerce and Labor Committees in each successive session.

 

Senator Carlton affirmed for Assemblywoman Giunchigliani that the reports would not include names of individuals.  Ms. Giunchigliani asked if quarterly reports would be too frequent.

 

Senator Carlton answered the reports were made quarterly to coincide with the licensing boards’ quarterly reporting.  It would also enable the Legislature to monitor the progress of the disciplinary actions.  Senator Carlton affirmed for Ms. Giunchigliani that the reports would include disciplinary actions as well as other business conducted by the board.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani was concerned about the enormity of the responsibility placed on the boards.  Senator Carlton felt it would not be an arduous task and reasoned the boards should be tracking such information anyway.  A number of boards already did so for reports submitted to the Governor’s Office.  The Legislature would simply like a copy of those reports.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if all the boards were Governor appointees.  Senator Carlton believed they were.  Ms. Giunchigliani wondered how passage of this legislation would be communicated to all of the boards.  Senator Carlton provided that almost every board was represented at the original hearing and that she would ask the Legislative Counsel Bureau to put notification on the Internet.  She would also provide information through the Governor’s Office.  Ms. Giunchigliani recommended mailing the information as well.  Senator Carlton believed she had already contacted nearly every board.  She reiterated the need to know of any boards not functioning.  If the board was not needed, it would be removed from the books.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired regarding a fiscal impact.  Senator Carlton did not recall receiving a fiscal note.  She thought it was only a matter of having to report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau.  Ms. Giunchigliani directed Senator Carlton to ascertain whether or not there was a fiscal impact.

 

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested legislators be given a card annually by which they could indicate whether or not they wanted information from state agencies mailed to their homes.  She proposed an amendment be attached to S.B. 420 for that purpose.  Senator Carlton agreed and noted the waste of postage from the mailings.  Ms. Giunchigliani said she would be glad to work with Senator Carlton on a friendly amendment.

 

Chairman Dini acknowledged the value of the proposed legislation.  He specifically pointed out page 3, lines 5 through 8, as “getting the boards’ attention.”  He concluded S.B. 420 would be especially beneficial during the first two years.

 

Assemblyman Parks and Assemblyman Hettrick related that legislators received many reports expensively copied and bound.  They, too, would like to see the unnecessary expenses to state agencies reduced.  Assemblyman Hettrick perceived S.B. 420 as a “good vehicle” for addressing the issue.  He suggested the information should be available in one place and accessible by request.

 

Chairman Dini closed the hearing on S.B. 420 and asked the committee if they wanted to take action on the Labor Commissioner’s proposed legislation, S.B. 373.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED DO PASS ON S.B. 373.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.  (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY, BEERS, GOLDWATER, PERKINS AND ASSEMBLYWOMEN BUCKLEY AND GIBBONS WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE).

 

Chairman Dini announced the amendment to S.B. 420 needed to be ready for Monday.

 

Chairman Dini adjourned the meeting at 4:51 p.m.

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Darlene Nevin

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: