MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-First Session

March 19, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:55 p.m., on Monday, March 19, 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.                     Morse Arberry Jr.

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

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

None

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

            Assemblywoman Merle Berman, Assembly District 2

            Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36

            Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Assembly District 30

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Margaret Judge, Committee Secretary

Crystal McGee, Senior Research Analyst

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Terry Johnson, Labor Commissioner

Barbara Reed, representing the County Fiscal Officers Association

 

 

Chairman Dini began the work session with the purpose of introducing a bill draft request (BDR).

 

·        BDR 54-1298 – Provide for the automatic suspension of a contractor’s license under certain circumstances.  (A.B. 495)

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 54-1298 AS A BILL.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Assembly Bill 74:  Prohibits employment of children under 16 years of age in certain activities relating to commercial sales or distribution. (BDR 53-659)

 

Chairman Dini removed A.B. 74 from the order and proceeded with it first.  Vance Hughey, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Analyst, pointed out proposed amendments in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C), which exempted newspaper subscription solicitation, removed the prohibition against the distribution of advertisements and other literature by children under 16 years of age, clarified which types of organizations were exempted from the provisions of the bill, and added a family business exemption.  Other amendments were also noted in the exhibit.

 

Assemblywoman Berman commended Mr. Hughey for his work.  She affirmed that the amendments were the answers to everyone’s concerns. 

 

Mr. Dini began the review of the amendments with Kent Lauer of the Nevada Press Association allowing for the solicitation of newspaper subscriptions.  Ms. Berman explained to the committee it allowed children to distribute newspapers and sell subscriptions. 

 

Mr. Dini then asked for clarification of Labor Commissioner Terry Johnson’s amendments.  Referring to page 2 of Exhibit C, Assemblywoman Buckley questioned if Section 2(c) created a loophole.  Neither the Nevada Secretary of State nor the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) distinguished between bona fide nonprofits and sham nonprofits.  By having an open nonprofit exemption, would sham companies become nonprofit and continue to send kids out to the door?  She asked, “Can we more tightly ensure that does not happen by either looking at direct compensation or supervision by adults?”  Furthermore, Ms. Buckley wished to know whether the concept of direct compensation applied to the Girl Scouts who were not paid but received compensation.  Terry Johnson believed Ms. Buckley was on point in regard to supervision; very rarely would a legitimate operation send children out unsupervised.  Defining and enforcing supervision was a problem.  He agreed that the nonprofit issue was a concern.  However, he felt the truly sham organizations would not bother registering with the IRS. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick wondered whether they still needed the word “direct” in line 19 of the bill.  Mr. Johnson believed that would be appropriate.  The children were not paid directly but did receive compensation by way of trips, etc.  For the record, Assemblyman Hettrick felt that a trip to Disneyland was direct compensation so they would be working for themselves.  “Without direct compensation” meant they would be working for an organization that would benefit from their labor.  Mr. Hettrick wanted to have that issue clarified.  Was it truly what they wanted to say?  Mr. Johnson agreed.  In actuality, many programs made promises to children, but then did not follow through on them.  

 

Assemblyman Beers expressed a concern that A.B. 74 would outlaw a child’s lemonade stand or lawn mowing service.  There followed some discussion of the numerous ramifications of the prohibitions of Section 1.  One Assemblyman remarked this might exclude washing cars and mowing lawns for the football team.  Another replied that was considered a legitimate child activity.  Mr. Hughey suggested the concept required legal interpretation.  Mr. Hettrick pointed out line 7, which expressly stated “product, good or service,” and lawn mowing was a service.  He felt perhaps the words “required” and/or “permitted” should be removed. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked the drafters of the amendments what their definition of “a product, a good or a service” was.  She declared Mr. Hettrick correct; they had discussed removing those words.  Mr. Johnson believed the intent had been geared toward products; “services” was added so as not to “close the door” and cover services when the need arose.  Ms. Buckley stated what the bill attempted to cover was a child employed by another person and not the entrepreneurs who set up lemonade stands.  So, if it was “employed by another” and if the words “permitted or required” were removed to narrow the loophole, what was then prohibited was “the solicitation for sale of a product or a service not the actual providing of a service.”  The second safeguard was the door-to-door solicitation for services when employed by another.  Assemblywoman Berman emphasized they were “really after those children who they pick up in a van and drop off the shopping center, leave them there until 10:00 at night.”  The committee would work with the Legal Division for the proper wording. 

 

Mr. Beers asked if Mr. Johnson could describe the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts of 1938, 29 U.S. Code, to determine if this concern was already covered by federal laws.  Mr. Johnson said the committee needed to exercise caution to avoid “a system of independent contractors” aged 8 years or so.  As he listened, he envisioned the levels of craftiness employed by persons who employed the children.  Many scenarios could be explored that might or might not be covered.  In his view, it was not something that he recognized as an endangerment to health, welfare or morals of young children, which was what the statute originally contemplated.  He admonished against possibly setting up a scenario where companies established children as independent contractors.

 

Assemblymen Hettrick and Beers and Assemblywoman Buckley engaged in free conversation about the intent of the bill and the proper wording so as not to prevent youthful enterprise. 

 

Chairman Dini moved the group on to Section 2(d) on page 2 of Exhibit C.  There were no objections.  At section 2(e), most members did not favor the removal of the specific objections.  The imposition of the $2,500 civil penalty for each violation in 2(f) was met with mixed feelings.  Assemblywoman Berman defended the measure.  It made offenders remember or leave town.  Mr. Hettrick pointed out the amendment said “after notice and a hearing” so he had no problem retaining the fine.  Mr. Beers asked how this penalty compared with those currently imposed, to which Mr. Johnson responded that the existing punitive measure of misdemeanor was not harsh enough to stop abuse.  Chairman Dini and others debated deleting the words “opportunity for a hearing” from the amendment but it was determined “legal notice and an opportunity for a hearing” were common words connoting due process. 

 

Back at Section 2(d), page 2 of Exhibit C, Ms. Berman suggested adding, “children who are self employed or employed by their parents.”  Mr. Johnson still was concerned that the children would become independent contractors.

 

With no further discussion, Chairman Dini entertained a motion. 

 

         ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 74 WITH THE AMENDMENTS BEING TO CLARIFY ON LINE FOUR “MAY BE EMPLOYED OR CONTRACTED WITH BY ANOTHER” AND TO ASK LEGAL TO ADD ANY OTHER NECESSARY LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT COVERING KIDS WHO ARE ENTREPRENEURS ON THEIR OWN, LINE SIX BE DELETED, ON LINES 14 AND 15 THAT IT BE CLEAR IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE SOLICITATION OF NEWSPAPERS, ON LINE 19 THE WORD “DIRECT” BE ADDED BEFORE COMPENSATION, AND WE ALSO ADD THE OTHER AMENDMENTS AS ARE SET FORTH IN TAB C (EXHIBIT C).

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS OPPOSED.

 

 

Assembly Bill 36:  Revises various provisions governing approval and payment of claims. (BDR 57-460)

 

Assemblyman Roy Neighbors introduced the bill to the committee, referring to the Work Session Document (Exhibit C).  Mr. Hughey discussed the revisions and modifications of the language.  The bill was intended to reduce the length of time an insurance company or managed care facility or other third-party payer was allowed for the processing of medical bills.  Tab A in Exhibit C contained Mr. Neighbors’ proposed amendments to A.B. 36 and various notes to the bill drafter. 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 36 WITH THE NOTES TO THE BILL DRAFTER.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED.

 

Mr. Hettrick inquired whether there was any opposition to the amendments as proposed.  Mr. Dini replied he had not intended to take testimony. 

 

            THE MOTION PASSED BY ALL PRESENT. 

 

 

Assembly Bill 149:  Revises provisions governing authority of state apprenticeship council to deny application for approval or suspend, terminate, cancel or place conditions upon approved program of apprenticeship. (BDR 53-1056)

 

Mr. Hughey stated that during the hearing, a representative of the U.S. Department of Labor (USDL) had concerns about the bill.  Assemblywoman Smith met with the Labor Commissioner, Terry Johnson, and provided an amendment as proposed in Tab D of Exhibit C.  Mr. Johnson pointed out that the amendment essentially deleted Section 1 of the bill, which was the bill in its entirety, and replaced it with one altered sentence of the existing statute, NRS 610.095.  Letters supporting the bill were submitted (Exhibit D).

 

Mr. Dini asked for clarification of the meaning of “or the labor and industrial relations laws of this state.”  Assemblywoman Smith testified the amendment cleaned up the bill and addressed the concerns of the Labor Commissioner.  Labor and industrial relations issues included wage and safety violations.  Terry Johnson, responding to Mr. Dini’s question, said he had spoken with the USDL.  Their concern was that the entire program would be nullified by the acts of one employer.  A second concern was that the state apprenticeship council would clarify in its administrative regulations what the expectations were and what the ramifications would be when they were violated. 

 

Chairman Dini asked if the apprenticeship council could adopt such regulations.  “Yes,” Mr. Johnson replied.  “And shall we put that in this amendment to the law?” Mr. Dini inquired.  Assemblywoman Buckley felt, unless it was stated elsewhere in Chapter 610 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), they should indicate that the council had the ability to implement regulations governing the standards by which this operated.  Mr. Johnson agreed to this.  There was language already in the NRS that spoke to “notice and a hearing.” 

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 149 WITH THE CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE REGARDING REGULATIONS.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL PRESENT.

Assembly Bill 154:  Revises provisions governing persons who conduct business under assumed or fictitious name. (BDR 52-443)

 

Mr. Hughey said Amy Harvey, Washoe County Clerk, and Laurel Moser, Deputy Washoe County Clerk, had provided a proposed amendment under Tab E (Exhibit C) which stated in the case of a general partnership where there was an artificial person as a partner the signatory authority was placed with the person required to sign the annual filing. 

 

Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, representing the County Fiscal Officers Association, verified that A.B. 154 was proposed by the association in an attempt to “clean up our records.”  Ms. Reed had no objection to the amendment and did not believe others would.

 

            ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 154.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL PRESENT.

 

 

Assembly Bill 157:  Prohibits reporting agencies from imposing charge to provide consumer reports and related information under certain circumstances. (BDR 52-612)

 

Discussion of A.B. 157 was postponed until after the subcommittee had had time to meet. 

 

Assembly Bill 160:  Clarifies that sole proprietor is not required to obtain industrial insurance or coverage for occupational diseases before performing work under certain contracts. (BDR 53-1097)

 

Crystal McGee, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Division, stated the subcommittee had met and discussed the concern that the state of Nevada and political subdivisions not be held liable for workers’ compensation in the event that a sole proprietor elected not to secure industrial insurance coverage under the provisions of A.B. 160 and was subsequently injured while working under contract with the state or a political subdivision.  The subcommittee made recommendations as listed in Tab F of Exhibit C. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley acknowledged the subcommittee worked diligently and achieved consensus.  She felt it was a good bill to reduce regulatory burden where it was unneeded. 

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 160.

 

            ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED.

 

            THE MOTION CARRIED BY ALL PRESENT.

 

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

           

 

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Margaret Judge,

Committee Secretary

 

 

______________________________

Linda Lee Nary,

Transcribing Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman

 

 

DATE: