MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 4:03 p.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Chairman Joe 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. Bob Beers
Ms. 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
COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Merle Berman
Assemblyman John Carpenter
Assemblyman Roy Neighbors
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst
Darlene Nevin, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Terry Johnson, State Labor Commissioner, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry
Kim Devine, mother of employee of Nevada Teen, via video-conferencing from Las Vegas
Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Families Eagle Forum
Brian Kunzi, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Crime Prevention Unit and Child Advocate, Nevada Missing Children’s Clearing House
Steve Williams, School Planner and Governmental Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District
Kent Lauer, Executive Director, Nevada Press Association
Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Frances Devine, student, former employee of Nevada Teen, via video- conferencing from Las Vegas
Vicki Wright, Executive Director, Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada
Renee Diamond, Administrator, Manufactured Housing Division, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry
Merritt K. “Ike” Yochum, private citizen
David Horton, Committee to Restore the Constitution
Juanita Cox, Legislative Advocate, People to Protect America
Elizabeth Pederson, Legislative Advocate, League of Women Voters of Nevada
Lynn Chapman, Legislative Advocate, Families for Freedom
Jim Dennis, private citizen
Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President, Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce
Mary F. Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada
Roy E. Barraclough, Administrator, Pahrump Medical Center
Roger Bremner, Administrator, Division of Industrial Relations
Charles R. Nort, President, Nevada Alternative Solutions, Inc.
Chairman Dini called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. A quorum was present.
Chairman Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 74.
Assembly Bill 74: Prohibits employment of children under 16 years of age in certain activities relating to commercial sales or distribution. (BDR 53-659)
Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Representing Assembly District No. 2, Clark County, presented to the committee A.B. 74. Referring to Section 1, Subsection 1, she communicated to the committee A.B. 74 would prohibit children under sixteen years of age from being employed for certain activities relating to commercial sales or distribution. She indicated Subsection 2 provided members of Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, Little League or other youth organizations would be exempted as well as newspaper carriers and those selling for nonprofit organizations or for a public school as defined in NRS 385.007. She explained Subsection 3 allowed for the Labor Commissioner to exempt an activity if he determined a certain activity would not endanger the child involved. She added under Section 2 anyone who employed a child or as parent or guardian permitted a child to be employed in violation of A.B. 74 would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Ms. Berman clarified A.B. 74 targeted “for profit businesses that exploited young children,” and added A.B. 74 was written to provide for the safety of children. Ms. Berman expressed the danger under which children were often placed and emphasized they needed the protection offered under A.B. 74.
Assemblyman Goldwater questioned the prime sponsor as to why they were considering a bill that would prohibit the activities rather than “making the bad behaviors criminal acts.” Ms. Berman indicated an amendment might be proposed addressing Mr. Goldwater’s concern.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani shared Ms. Berman’s concern and indicated teenagers who came to her door to sell items were not receiving the money they expected. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if these teenagers would be considered employed under A.B. 74. Ms. Berman responded these were the children A.B. 74 addressed.
Assemblywoman Buckley added she too had children coming to her door in the evening selling in hopes of winning a trip and she saw it as dangerous for the children. She asked if it were not already illegal for children under sixteen to work in these jobs. Ms. Berman responded there were no protections for these children and added that State Labor Commissioner, Terry Johnson, would address what happened when such activities occurred.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was a federal law that addressed this issue. Ms. Berman stated there was federal law and deferred to Commissioner Terry Johnson.
Terry Johnson, State Labor Commissioner, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, addressed the committee and communicated pursuant to NRS 609 the Labor Commissioner was responsible for governing the employment of minors. He clarified the federal Fair Labor Standards Act applied depending on dollar amounts involved and on whether or not the transactions involved interstate commerce. He added companies that sought to employ children found ways to get around the law.
Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Johnson to clarify if the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act was based on the amount of money made by the company, or the amount brought in by children’s sales. Mr. Johnson replied it was based on the company’s sales.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, said he supported A.B. 74 because he perceived there was a real problem and A.B. 74 would not present hardships for children trying to raise money as would the previous bill.
Mr. Goldwater contended A.B. 74 was a good bill, and pondered whether or not family businesses could be exempt. Mr. Johnson replied he had further comments to make on the bill and interjected A.B. 74 contained a provision by which exemptions could be granted by the Labor Commission.
Continuing his testimony, Mr. Johnson stated they began investigating this situation after numerous complaints from the public of children knocking on their doors at night. Also, vandalism and property theft was being associated with unsupervised children. The Labor Commission looked into this situation for two reasons: safety concerns and integrity.
Addressing safety concerns, Mr. Johnson noted children were not being supervised and were left in unfamiliar neighborhoods. For example, referring to the incident of the ten-year-old child killed while walking home, Mr. Johnson expounded this child had been told he would have to walk home if he did not meet his quota of sales. That, in fact, was the reason the child walked home. Mr. Johnson commented had the child met his quota, he would be alive today. Investigation and public hearings brought to the Labor Commission’s attention the dangers to which children were being exposed. Mr. Johnson related the experience of teenaged girls who, while going door-to-door, experienced attempts by men to lure them into their homes.
Addressing issues of integrity, Mr. Johnson reported children were being misled. They were informed the money collected went to charitable or otherwise worthwhile causes, though it actually went to businesses profits.
Mr. Johnson affirmed the Labor Commissions’ support of A.B. 74 and communicated the Labor Commission would like to see additional discussion regarding aspects of the bill. He offered the Labor Commission would be accessible for such discussions. As an example of a part of A.B. 74 that needed further discussion, Mr. Johnson referred to line 20, which addressed “nonprofit” organizations. He suggested it might be good to define “nonprofit” in order to be consistent with the U.S. Tax Code definition of “nonprofit,” 26 USC subsection 501(c)(3). This would help prevent individuals or entities from easily obtaining “nonprofit” status when they actually were not “nonprofit” in the same sense the Labor Commissioner would consider them “nonprofit.”
Mr. Johnson noted “public school” was already defined by Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) 385.007. He acknowledged there were concerns about children working for the public schools and wanted to convey his feelings for the record. Mr. Johnson expressed the inclusion of “public schools” in the exemption in A.B. 74 “didn’t hurt the bill,” but said he did not think it was necessary because the Labor Commissioner did not have jurisdiction over public employment and it was very unlikely children would be employed by the schools or school district anyway.
Terry Johnson suggested adding punitive measures, or fines, to be assessed and enforced by the Labor Commissioner’s office. He felt the threat of being charged with a misdemeanor was not as effective as being fined. He added this would give the accused a decision that could be appealed. Punitive measures would keep enforcement within the Labor Commission, which has been charged by the Legislature to monitor and enforce the activities addressed by A.B. 74.
Ms. Giunchigliani asked if A.B. 74 would address the problem of children carrying certificates, obtained through local ordinances, which declare they are allowed to solicit. Mr. Johnson believed A.B. 74 would address this aspect. He added that, especially in southern Nevada where it is the biggest problem, many local governments had expressed an interest in revising their codes in a coordinated effort to ensure children’s safety would not be endangered and entities would not be able to claim they were ”nonprofit” when they actually were not.
Ms. Giunchigliani interjected her personal opinion that public school children should not be going door-to-door. She stated, however, she did not want to jeopardize this legislation and pronounced it a ”good piece of legislation.”
Assemblyman Humke asked Mr. Johnson if the language in line 20, referring to a “nonprofit organization” as defined by the IRS code was necessary because earlier in the same sentence it described a child working “voluntarily and without compensation.” He was wondering why somebody would incorporate as a nonprofit in this state and then not pay a child for the distribution.
Mr. Johnson also did not feel the language was necessary, because a child who worked voluntarily without compensation would not be considered an employee. It was his understanding the language was incorporated to address some concerns. He added if the language was going to be included, everything “within reason” that could be defined should be defined to help prevent those who would find loopholes from doing so.
Mr. Humke asked if Mr. Johnson had “exclusive responsibility” to act on this chapter of the law. Mr. Johnson clarified Mr. Humke was addressing Chapter 609 and replied he believed he was exclusively responsible. He explained when the office of Labor Commissioner was formed in 1915, Chapter 607 contained language stating the Labor Commissioner “shall enforce all labor/industrial relations laws that are not specifically categorized to another enforcement body, officer, agent, etc.” He added Chapter 609 was not “specifically assigned to any other agency, board or commission” so the Labor Commissioner would have jurisdiction. He added references earlier in the chapter referred to the ability of the Labor Commissioner to “declare certain types of work injurious to the health and morals of persons under the age of 16.”
Mr. Humke expressed his concern about passing laws that were not enforceable in as much as the Labor Commissioner’s office would not have the resources available to them to address all complaints. Also, Mr. Humke submitted he did not like the idea of making the penalty more severe than a misdemeanor. He added he wasn’t sure that “a gross or a felony” was the answer either.
Mr. Humke addressed Ms. Berman asking for dialogue on the concept of “political speech.” He offered a hypothetical situation wherein a politician paid a Boy Scout troop to distribute brochures and asked if that activity should also be exempt. Ms. Berman acknowledged this situation was exempted in Subsection 2.
Mr. Humke posed another hypothetical situation wherein a group of children who were notBoy Scouts were paid to pass out brochures and asked if that activity would be prohibited or exempted. Ms. Berman replied Section 3 on page 2 addressed that particular situation. Section 3 allowed the Labor Commissioner to determine whether or not the activity would be exempted.
Mr. Humke offered his opinion that Section 3 gave “too much discretion” to a state official. Ms. Berman responded the State Labor Commissioner was the one who received the multitude of complaints and something had to be done for the children. She offered perhaps a decision needed to be made as to what was more important, and qualified “the kids always come out ahead on that one.”
Kim Devine, from Las Vegas, relayed her concerns regarding her daughter’s experience working for Nevada Teen. She expressed it did not matter so much who the child was working for, but that children should not be allowed out alone and unsupervised. She added there was neither regulation on how her daughter was paid nor how much she was paid. Ms. Devine further divulged her daughter never had a work permit, pay stub, workers’ compensation forms, or anything covering her while she worked for Nevada Teen. Ms. Devine suggested such companies targeted younger children because they were less knowledgeable and had less work experience than older children. For example, stated Ms. Devine, the profit to the company was high and the pay to children was extremely minimal.
Chairman Dini asked Ms. Devine if any of her children were ever “short-changed” or not paid. Ms. Devine revealed there was no way to track the sales to determine if her daughter was ever “short-changed”. There were no pay statements. She added her daughter would get paid one to two dollars on six-dollar items, and did not know how many items were in the box.
Assemblyman Nolan asked Ms. Devine how Nevada Teen found her daughter. Ms. Devine informed the committee she and her daughter knew about Nevada Teen for some time, but she felt her daughter was too young. When her daughter was older, Ms. Devine decided her daughter could try working for them. At the end of two weeks, revealed Ms. Devine, her daughter quit after a man tried to lure her into his apartment.
Mr. Nolan further asked if Nevada Teen informed Ms. Devine as to where they were transporting her daughter for the purpose of making sales. Ms. Devine said she was never contacted. She clarified in the beginning there was a brief conversation during which she was asked “was it ok if she went with them.”
Ms. Devine submitted A.B. 74 was a “good idea” for the safety of the children adding there was no supervision, no structure for these businesses, and no paper trail, at least not in her daughter’s experience.
Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Johnson how the company could “get away with” no paycheck stubs and not following any of the other laws. Mr. Johnson responded there “was action taken by the agency to establish a record and documentation was prepared and followed up on.” He added when the Labor Commission started to look into the matter, the company “disappeared.”
Chairman Dini asked Ms. Devine if she had anything further to say and thanked her for her testimony.
Mr. Carpenter contended we “walk a fine line” on trying to decide what was best and he supported A.B. 74 because he felt it was “balanced.” He further added parents were much wiser as depicted by their accompanying their children when out selling items or collecting candy on Halloween.
Janine Hansen, State President of Nevada Families Eagle Forum, voiced the concept of A.B. 74 was good. She agreed with Mr. Goldwater that families should be exempted. Relating to the committee her son’s positive experiences of working at an early age, she expressed her support of a family exemption. She added a family should not have to contact the Labor Commissioner for exemption and reiterated her belief in the value of teaching children how to work. Secondly, she shared Mr. Humke’s concern regarding political campaigns and the values of such experience for children. Referring to lines 19 and 20, Ms. Hansen questioned the definition of a nonprofit organization in reference to political campaigns, political parties and organizations that were non-profit but not classified as 501(c)(3). Ms. Hansen also questioned the implications on free speech. She reemphasized her concerns were the definition of “nonprofit,” and the “precluding” of children from participating in the political process. Ms. Hansen concluded by stating “the concept of protecting young children from those who would take advantage of them was certainly admirable.”
Brian Kunzi, Senior Deputy Attorney General and coordinator for the Nevada Missing Children’s Clearing House, offered statistics with regards to stranger abductions of children. He offered statistics showed more abductions of females than males, as well as a high correlation between the abduction of females and sexual assaults. Stranger abductions mostly occurred in outdoor public locations, which, Mr. Kunzi interjected, was specifically what A.B. 74 addressed. Ninety-five percent of stranger abductions were committed by males, and most of the victims were teenagers. Most abductions occurred outdoors. Mr. Kunzi pointed out 22 percent of stranger-abductions occurred from residences and he associated this with the aforementioned concerns of children being lured into homes. In all, stated Mr. Kunzi, 80 percent of abductions occurred in areas addressed by A.B. 74.
Steve Williams, School Planner and Governmental Affairs Representative, Washoe County School District, addressed his concerns that Subsection 2, paragraph C of A.B. 74 omitted public schools as they were nonprofit but did not fit the definition of 501(c)(3) as stated in A.B. 74. He added Ms. Berman modified A.B. 74 to include public schools. He suggested adding the terminology “public schools” was clearer for lay people and asked this language be left in A.B. 74.
Kent Lauer, Executive Director of the Nevada Press Association, Inc., requested the exemption for delivery of newspapers should also include the solicitation of newspaper subscriptions. He added there was at least one newspaper that worked closely with youth groups in fund-raising projects. Monies earned were based on subscriptions sold. He pointed out the youth involved were closely supervised by adult leaders. To address his concern, Mr. Lauer referred to an amendment (Exhibit C).
Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, acknowledged though she came to this hearing “somewhat neutral” in regards to A.B. 74, her concerns grew during the hearing that A.B. 74 was going farther than the sponsors intended. Referring to line 13, Ms. Lusk stated A.B. 74, by not applying to specific things, implied it applied to all other conditions. Referring to lines 19 and 20, which specifically exempted public schools, Ms. Lusk asked what then would be the implications for private schools. She contended this would exclude private schools from the exemption. She added although private schools might be for profit, they usually had a “tight” profit margin and their families participated in advertising for the school with or without compensation. Ms. Lusk also addressed concerns presented earlier regarding campaign involvement and free speech issues involved and indicated Subsection 1 would not exempt leaflet delivery on one’s own behalf. Referring to Section 1, paragraph 3, which would give the Labor Commissioner the authority to determine whether an activity would be exempt from A.B. 74, Ms. Lusk indicated she and those she represented would rather rely on the present legislative committee than on future labor commissioners. Regarding penalty changes proposed earlier, Ms. Lusk would be concerned with the affect on parents and guardians. Ms. Lusk declared A.B. 74 addressed worthy issues but suggested the emphasis be directed toward the supervision, fraud and the illegal or immoral business practices rather than toward a “blanket law” that might search beyond the real intentions of A.B. 74.
Frances Devine, a former employee of Nevada Teen speaking from Las Vegas, divulged that although her employer stated the employees were always supervised, they actually never were.
Chairman Dini asked Miss Devine if she felt she was paid properly. Miss Devine offered the pay did not matter to her; what mattered was that she had something to do during the day.
Assemblyman Nolan asked Miss Devine if there were any other situations in which she was “put in harm’s way,” such as being transported without a seatbelt or being approached inappropriately by those with whom she worked. Miss Devine related she and another girl were dropped off to work in an area and were instructed to separate. She added a man kept asking her into his home; she repeatedly refused and made the decision that night to no longer work for Nevada Teen.
Mr. Nolan asked Ms. Devine if she was transported safely, specifically with regards to the wearing of seatbelts. Miss Devine replied they did have to wear seatbelts.
Chairman Dini thanked Miss Devine for her testimony.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked Mr. Johnson, Commissioner of Labor, if there had been much abuse in connection with distribution of leaflets. Mr. Johnson replied most incidents were connected to commercial sales. He also related an incident of a child being kidnapped from the front of a grocery store while selling raffle tickets for a company that claimed to be a nonprofit organization. Mr. Johnson acknowledged there were legitimate concerns related to A.B. 74, but emphasized Nevada must not sanction such activities that endangered the children and there must be some workable language that could be agreed upon.
Ms. Buckley assured Mr. Johnson the committee recognized the need to address the issue and was trying to see what they could “craft;” she was simply seeking clarification as to whether the abuse was in the sales or in the leafleting. Mr. Johnson affirmed the abuse was mostly connected to sales.
Assemblyman Hettrick conveyed it was hard to write the language to address, for example, family business. He further expressed his agreement regarding advertising and would probably eliminate, as Ms. Buckley suggested, the 502(c)(3) classification as defining “nonprofit.” In reference to line 4, Mr. Hettrick questioned the wording “permitted” and “required;” for example, how could an employer require someone to work for them. He also posed the question as to who would be “permitting.” Mr. Hettrick affirmed the value of A.B. 74, but determined there was a lot of work to be done with the wording.
Assemblyman Beers, expressing his concern that the spirit of entrepreneurship in children could be hindered, referred to line 4 and suggested replacing “permitted or required” with “by another” or “by a non-family member.” Mr. Beers contended the bill as it was written prevented a child from setting up a lemonade stand.
Mr. Hettrick clarified a child running a lemonade stand was not employed by anyone. Mr. Hettrick again presented the question if a family business were incorporated, would the employer be considered family. He recognized the possible benefits of A.B. 74, but reiterated the language needed to be modified so A.B. 74 would do what it was intended to do.
Vicki Wright, Executive Director of Girl Scouts of the Sierra Nevada, speaking on behalf of all Girl Scouts in Nevada, expressed their agreement with the intent of A.B. 74, adding the Girl Scouts were carefully supervised. She expressed their one question was the meaning of “compensation,” noting the Girl Scouts did earn money for troop activities, awards, savings bonds and various items to broaden their experiences and shape their future. She added Boy Scouts also earned awards and asked if this would be considered “compensation.”
There being no further questions or testimony, Chairman Dini concluded the hearing on A.B. 74.
Mr. Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 203.
Assembly Bill 203: Revises provisions governing account for education and recovery relating to manufactured housing. (BDR 43-560)
Renee Diamond, Administrator, Manufactured Housing Division of the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, informed the committee the Manufactured Housing Division administered the account for education and recovery related to manufactured housing under NRS 489.4971 to NRS 489.4989. She communicated funds for this account were derived from licensing fees of dealers, limited dealers, salesmen, responsible managing employees, manufacturers, servicemen, rebuilders and installers. She expounded claims paid were against persons licensed pursuant to the aforementioned chapter and were made upon “appropriate court orders.” Ms. Diamond reiterated a claimant would file a claim against the “judgment debtor,” and if that were not successful, the claimant could petition the Division for payment from the recovery fund. A.B. 203 was created to address the increasing number and size of claims filed over the past three years, and clarify areas that proved difficult.
Ms. Diamond, referring to A.B. 203, Section 1, Number 1, indicated those who could benefit from the recovery fund were “purchasers and lessees of manufactured and mobile homes and travel trailers.” She submitted travel trailers should be deleted, because they were not regulated by the division. She further pointed out “or lessees,” Section 1, paragraph 1, line 5, of A.B. 203 needed to be deleted because “the recovery fund was designed to apply where defects occurred in the sale or contract”; there were no lessees. Section 1, paragraph 3, designated payments could be made on claims only upon court orders issued in actions “for fraud, misrepresentation or deceit.” Ms. Diamond clarified those actions must be “related to an act for which a license was required” pursuant to the provisions set forth in A.B. 203 in order to prevent attempts at making nonrelated claims. For further clarification in A.B. 203, Ms. Diamond submitted in Section 1, paragraph 3, line 12, ”those provisions” should be changed to “the provisions of this chapter” so payment of claims would be related to the wholechapter. She further added in Section 1, paragraph 3, line 8, the words “or lessee” should be deleted.
Referring to Section 2, paragraph 1, Ms. Diamond pointed out “travel trailer” on line 15 and “or lessee” on 14 needed to be deleted. She added the Division would like to substitute “judgment” for “claimant” on line 23 for the purpose of preventing a husband and wife from making two separate claims for the same purpose. Also in Section 2, paragraph 2, Ms. Diamond proposed adding the following after the word “court” on line 26: “The petition must state the grounds which entitle the person to recover from the fund and copies of the following documents: a) petition, b) judgment, c) complaint upon which the judgment was entered and d) writ of execution which was returned unsatisfied.” These changes, remarked Ms. Diamond, would facilitate timely notification to and response from the Division.
Finally, Ms. Diamond noted Section 3 required notarization of signatures of ownership. This change addressed the increasing number of fraudulent signatures.
Ms. Diamond apologized for the numerous changes requested on A.B. 203, but revealed they resulted from attempts by the Division’s Attorney General to facilitate and improve the process for claimants as well as for the Division.
Ms. Buckley requested clarification of Section 1, paragraph 3, lines 11 and 12: “relating to an act for which a license is required pursuant to those provisions.” Ms. Diamond responded she would bring Ms. Buckley’s concern to the Attorney General, but stated the previous Attorney General’s concern was the initial language did not relate to the chapter as a whole, and would be more limiting. For example, the Division did not want the claims related to dealers only. A.B. 203 was written to avoid placing limits on a person’s ability to make claims against the fund, and to clarify specifically what would come under their jurisdiction. The intent was to specify licensees and the recovery fund was intended to protect citizens, not major corporate companies.
Ms. Buckley, referring to Section 2, paragraph 3, lines 36 to 41, pointed out that in her experience a writ of execution proved useless. She asked why the victim would be asked to obtain a Writ of Execution when there was nothing on which to execute. Ms. Diamond responded this had always been in the law and the Division felt this would keep the court involved as well as provide a record that funds were sought. Ms. Buckley argued, however, and Ms. Diamond agreed, a Writ of Execution would not provide such information. Ms. Diamond said she preferred the Division’s Attorney General be involved in this area of A.B. 203.
Assemblyman Beers asked if page 1, lines 4 through 7 made page 2, lines 7 through 9 redundant. Ms. Diamond replied the language was to “spell out” what was always in the bill. She informed page 2, lines 17 to 18, specified who could qualify for the fund. She reiterated the fund was intended to reimburse citizens who would be listed as “a purchaser.” She was advised by the Attorney General and the bill drafter this language needed to be in both sections, even though it appeared redundant. She explained the language on page 1 referred to the account and what it did; page 2 stated what was necessary to activate the fund. The language was to specify who could make the claim.
Assemblyman Beers asked for confirmation that the only significant change requested by A.B. 203 was, as he saw it, the narrowing of the scope to purchasers or lessees and the requirement of notarizations as addressed on page 3, lines 10 and 11. Ms Diamond affirmed his observation, but added “or lessees” would be removed, stating the Division never covered those who leased homes, only those who purchased them.
Mr. Beers observed page 1, line 5 appeared to add lessees. Ms. Diamond replied the bill drafter added “lessees” and she was requesting it be removed.
There was no further testimony on A.B. 203. Chairman Dini assigned A.B. 203 to a subcommittee consisting of Assemblywoman Buckley, Assemblyman Beers and Assemblywoman Leslie. Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 203.
Chairman Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 132 and informed the committee he sponsored A.B. 132.
Assembly Bill 132: Authorizes possession, use, manufacture, purchase, installation, transportation or sale of chlorofluorocarbons. (BDR 40-743)
Merritt Yochum, private citizen, voiced his support of A.B. 132, which removed penalties from the possession, manufacture and sale of chlorofluorocarbons, which were commonly known as Freon. Mr. Yochum informed the committee the piece of literature presented to them (Exhibit D) addressed the hearing of A.B. 163 of the Sixty-Ninth Session, which he described as the same bill as A.B. 132. He further explained he had sent copies of the minutes and testimony of A.B.163 of the Sixty-Ninth Session to a number of scientists requesting their comments. Included with the literature (Exhibit D) were the responses from S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, and Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Atmospheric Consultant.
Mr. Yochum referred to his booklet “The Freon Bill” tab 5, pages 37 through 40, which supported his position favoring A.B. 132. (Exhibit E. Original on file in the Research Library.)
Mr. Yochum emphasized the large amount of propaganda and misinformation regarding ozone depletion in connection with chlorofluorocarbons and suggested the committee thoroughly read his booklet. He added members of the committee might already have been “victimized” while having their vehicle’s air conditioner serviced.
Assemblyman Beers posed a hypothetical question to Mr. Yochum. He asked if, having been “victimized” by having to alter his vehicle because of the ban on Freon, could he, under A.B. 132, have the alterations undone and go back to using Freon. Mr. Yochum replied that would not be possible with the same vehicle or equipment.
Mr. Yochum noted opponents of A.B. 132 claimed there were 2500 scientists who believed chlorofluorocarbon usage damaged the atmosphere; his research showed 17,000 scientists disagreed.
Mr. Yochum deferred to David Horton, representing the Committee to Restore the Constitution, who further addressed A.B. 132. Mr. Horton suggested there were two aspects yet to be covered, the first was other sources of contamination worse than Freon. Mr. Horton quoted Holistic (Range) Management, Second Edition, by Allan Savory, 1999, pp. 190-191 and conveyed ”biomass burning” (vegetation fires, for example) was a significant contributor to atmospheric pollution. He specified 1.85 billion acres were deliberately burned annually, releasing three times more carbon into the atmosphere than was released through forest burning.
Mr. Horton maintained it would be better if the cows were allowed to eat the grass rather than burning the rangelands. Referring to a special report entitled “The Relationship Between Livestock Grazing and Fire” (Exhibit F), Mr. Horton further noted the direct correlation between the increase in numbers of cows driven off the rangelands and the increase in wildfires.
Mr. Horton’s second point was related to constitutionality. He referred to the Nevada Public Lands Enforcement Act (Exhibit G), and contended Nevada‘s Constitution, economy and liberty were endangered. He noted the “health, safety and welfare of Nevadans was the general obligation and jurisdiction of the Legislature” and Congress’ powers were “specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution”. He offered:
Trying to get us to stop using a cheap, efficient and safe refrigerant instead of a more expensive, less efficient and more dangerous one is not one of those powers.
In closing Mr. Horton contended A.B. 132 would be in the interest of Nevadans’ “health, safety and welfare” and would save them the expenses of “retrofitting, repair and power.”
Juanita Cox, who represented the People to Protect America, maintained attempts to make Freon usage illegal were not about clean air but rather about making money. Supporting her statement she called attention to additional costs incurred by the public to replace air conditioning, and an “underground economy” selling the new product to the consumer. She concluded A.B. 312 should be passed to protect Nevadans from “corrupt corporations.”
Janine Hansen, State President of Nevada Families Eagle Forum, speaking in favor of A.B. 132, referred to material distributed by Mr. Yochum as convincing evidence of controversy over Freon usage. She also commented A Statement by Atmospheric Scientists (Exhibit H), which she distributed, was previously reported to have the signature of 2,000 scientists and now had the signature of 7,000 scientists.
Ms. Hansen also viewed the issue as one of money and added the cost to Americans would be billions of dollars. Supporting her position, Ms. Hansen pointed out Dupont once owned the patent to Freon which expired in 1992, and became the owner of exclusive rights to HFC13, the only refrigerant authorized for use in new car air-conditioning systems. She further related her purchase of a large older car in lieu of an SUV because it was more cost effective. She disclosed she had to pay $1000 to repair her air conditioning as a direct result of problems presented by the Freon issue. She maintained through similar situations corporations were making money at the public’s expense.
Ms. Hansen further commented on the manufacture of chlorine. She stated the amount of chlorofluorocarbons produced by the manufacture of chlorine was a ”miniscule” amount compared to that produced as a direct result of evaporation of seawater and eruption of volcanoes.
Ms. Hansen continued Dupont was a major promoter of arguments against the usage of chlorofluorocarbons and expressed her hope the committee would not be misled by such arguments and would recognize the economic burden on the public.
Elizabeth Pederson, representing the League of Women Voters of Nevada, submitted to the committee it was federally illegal to either produce or sell or manufacture CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, under the Clean Air Act. She referred to her handout (Exhibit I) that contained information from the Clean Air Act as obtained through the EPA website. She encouraged the committee to visit the EPA website for information regarding damage caused by CFCs. Ms. Pederson noted she believed there was ample evidence that CFCs damaged the ozone layer. She advised the costs should not be measured only in dollars but also by the negative ramifications that involved society and the environment.
Lynn Chapman, representing Families for Freedom, related to the committee information she obtained while reading in New American that former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, Dr. Dixie Lee Ray reported:
Based on the available data, all of the air polluting materials produced by man since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution did not begin to equal the quantities of toxic materials aerosols and particulates spewed into the air from just three volcanoes.
Her research supported her statement that most of the world’s pollutants came from volcanic eruptions.
Jim Dennis, private citizen, commented on previous testimony that stated federal law mandated the cessation of chlorofluorocarbon usage. He further informed the committee that in 1995 Nevada passed the 10th Amendment Resolution by which Nevada continued to be a sovereign state and did not necessarily have to abide by federal law.
There being no further testimony, the hearing of A.B. 132 was closed. Chairman Dini explained that a hearing for A.B. 154 was scheduled for today, but that Mrs. Reed could not be here due to an injury to her child. He stated, however, the committee would hear testimony from those who attended the hearing.
Assembly Bill 154: Revises provisions governing persons who conduct business under assumed or fictitious name. (BDR 52-443)
Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President of the Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed his concerns regarding Section 1, Item 2, of A.B. 154 wherein a fictitious name certificate would expire five years after being filed. He asked why a businessperson should be required to go through this process. He added most of the information was available on the business license form by which business licenses were renewed annually and that any change in business or ownership would be reason for the businessperson to file for a new business license and give the information again.
Mary Lau, Executive Director of the Retail Association of Nevada, prefaced she had not yet been able to speak with the requestor of A.B. 154 to address her concerns. One of her concerns would be that businesses be notified when the fictitious firm name was to lapse.
There were no further questions or testimony on A.B. 154. Chairman Dini closed the hearing, adding A.B. 154 would probably be taken to work session.
Chairman Dini opened the work session on A.B. 36.
Assembly Bill 36: Revises various provisions governing approval and payment of claims. (BDR 57-460)
Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, Nye, Mineral, Lincoln and Esmeralda Counties, expressed he would like the committee’s permission to meet with insurance, HMO and other agencies to develop a compromise that would benefit all parties involved regarding timely payment of claims. Mr. Neighbors would then report back to the committee. Mr. Neighbors expressed his hopes that managed-care organizations would relax some of their requirements. He noted claims were often returned for more complete information. This information, he indicated, was often not essential to the payment of the claim and caused unnecessary delays in payment. He emphasized timely payments should be made despite the lack of insignificant information on claim forms. He restated his desire to meet with managed-care administrators to discuss possible amendments to the law, acknowledging the changes needed to be part of the statutes.
Mr. Neighbors further referred to the Nevada Rural Hospital Magazine, (Exhibit J), which addressed prompt payment and a letter (Exhibit K) from Dr. Michael David Daubs, President, Nevada Orthopaedic Society, which expressed his support of A.B. 36. In his letter Dr. Daubs presented problems they had experienced that could be alleviated with the passage of A.B. 36. Mr. Neighbors also mentioned S.B. 99 was heard recently and addressed penalties and fees. He noted he did not have concerns with A.B. 36 in regard to penalties; his main concern was prompt payments. He added he had already met with a representative from one of the largest HMOs who was looking forward to meeting and discussing the issue. Mr. Neighbors thanked the staff for the report on the various states, which showed fluctuations in payment schedules.
Roy Barraclough, Administrator, Pahrump Medical Center, expressed support of Mr. Neighbors’ proposal that he meet with representatives of the insurance industry to develop amendments to the bill that would be acceptable to all parties. Mr. Barraclough wanted the record to show from his perspective the issue needed “the force of law” and indicated they had tried, unsuccessfully, to approach the problems administratively. He declared providers should not have to work so hard to obtain payment. He also observed when the tables were turned and an enrollee was late in submitting payment, the insured was soon notified coverage could be cancelled. Mr. Barraclough stressed the need for the committee to look closely at A.B. 36 so relief could be provided, especially to rural and smaller organizations where cash flow was extremely critical.
Chairman Dini asked Mr. Barraclough if each company had a different contract with the Medical Center. Mr. Barraclough responded contracts did differ from one company to another with respect to the filing of claims. He reiterated other states had addressed this issue and improvised billing forms to facilitate the process. He reiterated the need for the “force of law” to prevent claims from being returned so frequently to the medical provider, causing delays in payments.
Ms. Buckley expressed her agreement but questioned how the problem would be addressed. She added her affirmation the parties involved should come together to work out solutions.
Mr. Neighbors again requested he meet with the health plan representatives in hopes of returning to the committee with a plan acceptable to both sides.
Chairman Dini asserted he wanted to see a “workable bill”.
Chairman Dini closed the work session on A.B. 36 and opened the work session on A.B. 45.
Assembly Bill 45: Requires administrator of division of industrial relations of department of business and industry to create pamphlet concerning use of subsequent injury funds. (BDR 53-770)
Chairman Dini asked Mr. Bremner if he could offer a solution to the costs associated with distribution of a pamphlet as proposed by A.B. 45.
Roger Bremner, Administrator of the Division of Industrial Relations, informed the committee the Division could “produce” a pamphlet, that is, create it and print it in limited numbers. They could also put it on their website. The problem would rest in the cost of providing and distributing the large quantity of pamphlets needed. The fiscal note that included printing and mailing was expensive. If the numbers could be limited and the pamphlet posted on the website, Mr. Bremner proposed it could be done at no cost. His only question would be that in the amendments language it stated hard copies of the pamphlet would be made available. If the number of hard copies was not significant there would not be any fiscal impact.
Charles R. Nort, President of Nevada Alternative Solutions, Inc., considered the proposal acceptable for himself and the members of the standing committee on workman’s compensation. They would like to see a method by which more workers could be informed of the program and know how to access it. Accessibility seemed to be the biggest problem.
Ms. Giunchigliani suggested making “camera-ready” copies available to organizations that could in turn be reproduced. Mr. Bremner further suggested they could download it as well from the website, print it, and distribute it to those interested.
Mr. Hettrick voiced his agreement with Ms. Giunchigliani, qualifying A.B. 45 stated ”available to any association of employers” and added employers would all have Internet capability and could easily download the pamphlet. He added he would not address the merits of this action since it wouldn’t cost the agency any money; he said he didn’t think anyone would be asking for the pamphlet anyway.
The committee discussed the need for the bill.
Crystal McGee, Committee Policy Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division, informed the committee that during the interim Mr. Bremner and John Wiles, Division Counsel for the Division of Industrial Relations, expressed they were willing to provide the information on a website. Ms. McGee concurred with Mr. Hettrick that A.B. 45 could be adopted although the pamphlet could be put on the website without this legislation.
Mr. Bremner responded the Division would put this pamphlet on the website and requested a letter of intent from the committee expressing it agreed to such action.
ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED THE COMMITTEE DRAFT A LETTER OF INTENT FOR MR. BREMNER.
ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini thanked the committee for their hard work.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Darlene Nevin
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: