MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics

 

Seventy-First Session

May 29, 2001

 

 

The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was called to order at 3:52 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2001.  Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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:

 

Ms.                     Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

Mr.                     Bob Price, Vice Chairman

Mr.                     Bernie Anderson

Mr.                     Douglas Bache

Mr.                     Bob Beers

Mr.                     Greg Brower

Mr.                     Joseph Dini, Jr.

Ms.                     Vivian Freeman

Ms.                     Kathy Von Tobel

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

 

Mr.                     Lynn Hettrick

Mr.                     Richard D. Perkins

Ms.                     Barbara Buckley

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, Assembly District 30

Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell, Assembly District 40

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel

Michael Stewart, Committee Policy Analyst

Ann M. VanNostrand, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director, State of Nevada Employees Association

Danny Coyle, President, Retirees Chapter of the State of Nevada Employees Association

Andrew List, Representative, Nevada Association of Counties

Marty Bibb, Representative, Retired Employees of Nevada

James Richardson, Representative, Nevada Factory Alliance

Don Crosby, Representative, Retired Employees of Nevada

Lorne Malkiewich, Director, Legislative Counsel Bureau

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing with A.C.R. 36.

 

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 36:  Directs Legislative Commission to conduct interim study of Public Employees’ Benefits Program. (BDR R-1555)

 

District 40 Representative Assemblywoman Bonnie Parnell requested support for A.C.R. 36. The program in question provided health insurance and other benefits to active and retired state employees and employees of other public agencies and their dependents. She was uncomfortable requesting an interim study but due to the 1999-documented report by a legislative auditor, the Committee on Benefits showed some very serious financial reversals during the 1997-1999 biennium.  In response to the auditor’s report, the legislature dissolved the Committee on Benefits and renamed and restructured the board into the Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP). It was hoped the restructuring would provide a greatly improved benefits program, however, based on the correspondence Assemblywoman Parnell had received, the complaints continued.  Assemblywoman Parnell explained that she represented the majority of state employees.  The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Research Division staff had also received numerous complaints. The specific concerns were rates, benefits, and most distressing to Assemblywoman Parnell, customer service.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell stated many individuals had tried for almost 12 months to obtain a correct policy identification number.  Names had been entered in the database incorrectly.  One distressed constituent had received a call incorrectly notifying her that her mother had passed away. The error occurred in the Vital Statistics office where time was not taken to cross‑reference social security numbers.

 

State retirees were the most vocal regarding concerns about the benefits program, Assemblywoman Parnell explained.  Retirees experienced larger rate increases and benefit adjustments than active employees. It would take a great deal of time to report on the complaints received.  During the prior open enrollment period, people received information late, were not given an adequate amount of time to make decisions about health care providers, and did not understand the ramifications of signing up for the St. Mary’s coverage. Assemblywoman Parnell was extremely disturbed that when state employees called the benefits office for information, they were not always treated with respect and courtesy. 

 

Assemblywoman Parnell stated the study was necessary for intervention by the state in taking responsibility for not only retirees and members, but also state employee benefits overall. There needed to be a revamp of the PEBP through a comparison to other public and private insurance offerings in Nevada and other states as well. The issue was very serious with the change in demographics of state workers. Medical and pharmacy prices continued to increase and other employers were not as supportive of their retirees as in the past, and most of that burden was transferred to the state and the PEBP.  Examples of dissatisfaction were presented in earlier committee hearings that dealt with state health insurance bills.

 

Assemblywoman Parnell said she would soon be retiring and if she were to retain her school district insurance, premiums would cost approximately $500 per month through the school district.  One of the options she was offered was to join the PEBP program at $365 per month. When looking at those who had the option of moving into the PEBP program at a $150 per month savings, the encumbrances would become even greater.

 

The importance of reviewing the internal strengths and weaknesses of the employees benefits program was stressed by Assemblywoman Parnell.   A very serious issue was the turnover in management.  During the 2001 Legislative Session, the executive officer and two acting executive officers had resigned.  She wondered why the system generated so many customer service complaints. With the health and welfare of virtually every state employee at stake, and with expenditures of over $100 million per year, the concerns were not minor. There needed to be an understanding of where everyone fit into the program and what was available for the future. Legislation and other steps needed to be considered in the now to insure the adequacy and stability of the public employees benefits in the future.  Assemblywoman Parnell urged the committee’s consideration and support of A.C.R. 36.


Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated all of the committee members had heard the various stories during the session about the increasing dissatisfaction with the PEBP.

 

Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association (SNEA), Bob Gagnier, voiced support for the study.  He thought the study should go beyond what was described on page 2 of the resolution. To do justice to the study, a research program on how retirees’ health insurance was treated in all governmental entities was needed.  Recently, a group that provided classified employees of the Clark County School District with health insurance had terminated coverage for their retirees.  SNEA thought the terminations were illegal, however, because it was not the employer that provided the insurance but a trust operated by an employee organization, the employee organization felt they could legally cancel the insurance of all retired classified employees of the school district. That decision would ultimately have an impact on the state’s plan.  The manner in which local governments treated their retirees would also impact the state’s plan as well.  Mr. Gagnier felt it was necessary to expand the study to learn how retirees were treated, not just within the state’s plan as the resolution stated.  Line 5 on page 2 of the resolution stated: “Consideration of issues relating to retired employees who participate in the program.”  Mr. Gagnier encouraged the committee to go beyond the resolution.

 

Mr. Gagnier referenced a Senate study, S.C.R. 50, which addressed labor organizations’ employee trusts, and said he felt the potential existed for combining the two resolutions.  However, if the two were combined, the A.C.R. 36 issues might not receive full consideration.  Mr. Gagnier was not speaking against combining the two resolutions, but felt it would be unfortunate.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel mentioned there had been prior discussions in the Committee on Government Affairs hearings about retirees who had been employed by the state their entire career and were not eligible for Medicare A or B coverage when they turned 65.  These people had assumed the insurance was supplemental and could not understand why the state continued to say it cost so much to cover retirees. If Medicare paid 80 percent, the state would only have to pick up the remaining 20 percent.  Those employees were the ones that needed protection by the state because they dedicated their entire careers to state government and had never worked in the private sector.  Assemblywoman Von Tobel suggested the study address retirees and make changes that would help cover the Medicare benefits. Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought that in 1985 new hires had to have a portion of their salary deducted to cover Medicare costs when they reached age 65. Those retired prior to 1985 did not have the Medicare coverage.

Danny Coyle, President, Retiree Chapter of the SNEA, said he was one of the employees Assemblywoman Von Tobel had referred to. Mr. Coyle had turned 65 during the past year and did not have enough credits to receive social security benefits to obtain Medicare A, therefore he was paying the social security system $50 per month to obtain Medicare B coverage.   Mr. Coyle strongly supported the resolution and echoed Mr. Gagnier’s testimony that there should be further delving into other political subdivisions within the state of Nevada. He was unaware of the great number of local governments who did not take care of their retirees, which added a great impact on PEBP.

 

Don Crosby, representing the Retired Employees of Nevada, stated he was one of the older retirees who had been in the system since the 1940s or 1950s. Mr. Crosby spent three years in the United States Army and immediately after that went to work for the state of Nevada and, as a consequence, had no social security credits because the state of Nevada did not see fit to participate in social security at that time. It was his understanding that presently they participated through a Medicare fund. Within the past three years during the turmoil of the benefits program, Mr. Crosby obtained Medicare B, for which he was grateful, as he would not have been insured otherwise. He agreed with Mr. Gagnier’s suggestion to look into local government and school district plans because those employees were retired with little or no health care coverage. Mr. Crosby thought the PEBP should be structured like the Public Employees’ Retirement system with every government agency contributing for not only their employee’s health care, but also their retirees’ health care.

 

Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Factory Alliance Chapters (NFAC), strongly supported the proposal and was delighted to hear of Assemblywoman Parnell’s decision to proceed with the resolution. He hoped it would be one of the chosen studies because of a number of concerns voiced by the NFAC members. Mr. Richardson said the benefits program was better in many ways than it was two years ago.  However, there were still severe problems to be addressed. One reason for having an adequate health plan was to reward workers and to provide an incentive to retain employees. He had received data from the Department of Personnel that showed the state of Nevada compared poorly with other entities throughout the state in terms of contributions made by the employer for active and retired employees. It was a growing problem, but not an unexpected one, once the legislature decided to allow non-state entities to come into the plan. The problem was the state did not understand the impact non-state entities had on the plan. A study would enlighten those serving on the committee and others to the implications of having made those changes. The way it was set up it meant more of the state’s General Fund would have to flow into the benefits area in future years because the plan was becoming the plan of choice for many public entities.

Mr. Richardson said the state would truly be hurt if it did not begin taking care of its own.  There were serious problems with the way health care had been delivered in the north during the past two years. Constituents had concerns about surcharges on HMO participation in the north.  Charges were as much as $75 a month for an active employee to participate in the state health plan if they chose the HMO option in the north -- a dramatic change of public policy. Since the inception of the self-funded plan, the state had paid the entire premium for an active employee.  Currently there were 930 active employees paying the monthly fee for a total of $900 per year to participate in the HMO in the north.  Concerns had also been expressed about the lack of services provided by that HMO program. There were a couple of bills, A.B. 123 and A.B. 564, that would go a long way to solving the problems specific to the north.  Mr. Richardson agreed with Mr. Gagnier that it was not a good idea to have the state legislature, which had a million other things to do, micro-manage the state health plan. There was a board authorized by law to manage the program.  In the past the board had failed in many areas.  The long-term impact of studying the plan in detail would be for the legislature to be able to affirm state policy:

 

  1. Should contraceptive services be available to all state employees, no matter which plan was chosen?
  2. Should state employees be forced to pay a surcharge for their health coverage?
  3. Should retiree rates be blended with active rates in establishing the charges so that the retirees were not priced out of the market?

 

There were fundamental policies that needed to be addressed and Mr. Richardson felt the legislature should affirm them, pass the decision on to the Public Employee Benefits Board, and leave the board to manage the plan with some supervision by the legislature. A very important provision added by Assemblywoman Parnell was the evaluation of the effect of withdrawal of large groups from the program. The issue was contentious because large groups, according to law, could leave the plan at any time. Before the recommended study was brought to fruition, groups might leave the plan because the option was provided by current law.  Mr. Richardson felt the option was not well thought out two years ago, and the study would provide the opportunity to review the option.  Mr. Richardson recommended that legislators be included in the state health plan.


Assemblywoman Freeman said Mr. Richardson was a constituent and an old friend.  She asked if the $75 surcharge went to the state.  Mr. Richardson stated it went into the health care fund but he did not know exactly how it was used.  Mr. Richardson thought the surcharge set a terrible precedent and cut into competitiveness with other governmental entities. Assemblywoman Freeman asked for additional information on the proposed regulations that were written and turned down three times by the Legislative Commission. Assemblywoman Freeman said PEBP had never been able to provide a good explanation as to why there was a $75 surcharge.  Mr. Richardson stated an examination of the rate design of the program would get at some of the issues if not resolved by the passage of A.B. 123 and A.B. 564.  The committee structure on the Assembly side had addressed the issues and sent the bills to the Senate for passage.

 

Marty Bibb, Representative, Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), voiced agreement with the previous speakers.  The budget committees and the Committee on Government Affairs had taken an extremely keen interest in the benefits program.  Mr. Bibb was pleased that the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics was reviewing the option of the interim study. There was a great deal of competition for a limited number of interim studies, but the RPEN felt the study of the benefits program should be a priority because of the glaring and continuing problems.  In recent weeks, some of the changes that were made within the Public Employees Benefits Program, particularly at the staff level, had provided hope there was a willingness to address the issues before they were decided and to build some consensus.  The self-funded program was initiated in 1983 and the inability of the staff to get entities to bid on operating the program resulted in the collapse of the program in the 1990s. Mr. Bibb indicated his disappointment that those closest to the plan were not at the table requesting funding.

 

Mr. Bibb testified that there was a great need to obtain accurate numbers, and RPEN was perplexed with the lack of accurate or, at the minimum, relative numbers provided by PEBP. Many members of the various legislative committees had experience in receiving inaccurate numbers from PEBP.  Medicare should pay 80 percent of an individual’s medical bills, yet in many cases Medicare retirees brought only a 50 to 60 percent range of savings to the program.  Mr. Bibb felt the percentages should be higher by virtue of having another primary payer.  The issue of non-state people in the program was a “thorny” subject.  Statute required that non-state participants be pooled and rated separately and the rates were to include administrative costs to cover those participants.  If the numbers were correctly applied, the non-state participants would be paying their own way.

 

The thing that caught Mr. Bibb’s attention in A.C.R. 36 was the information on the front page that addressed the issue of retired employees. Going to line 5, the verbiage said, “Many retired employees depend upon the Public Employee Benefits Program for their primary or supplemental health care coverage and have been disproportionately affected.”  Mr. Bibb felt the study was an excellent way to get to legislative oversight and involvement and stated both A.B. 123 and A.B. 564 provided for oversight by the insurance commissioner and reporting to the director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. 

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated the Committee on Government Affairs had conducted numerous hearings on the benefits program. She had often asked for figures on how many state retirees had Medicare, parts A or B, or had no coverage at all. The information was never provided, yet the committee continued to hear that retirees were going to be a drain on the system. With more retirees obtaining Medicare A and B, the legislature recognized the plan was supplemental even though the premium was not set at a supplemental rate.   It was very important to have accurate projections five to ten years into the future.  Mr. Bibb stated the issue again was perspective. At an earlier hearing, a 20-year projection of the impact of retirees was estimated at  $779 million.  At the same meeting the committee was told that retiree numbers projected beyond 18 months could not be considered reliable.

 

With no more testimony or further questions, Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.C.R. 36 and opened the hearing on A.J.R. 14.

 

 

Assembly Joint Resolution 14:  Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to revise certain provisions relating to system of county and township government and compensation of certain elected officers. (BDR C-1526).

 

Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) representative Andrew List voiced support for A.J.R. 14.  Mr. List stated the NACO supported A.J.R. 14 and provided a brief history of the resolution.  Every six years the NACO, or another group, presented a bill to the legislature to request pay raises for certain elected county officials, such as the county clerks, county recorders, auditors, sheriffs, etc.   The NACO had submitted a pay bill during the current session that was not passed out of the Assembly.  During a hearing of the Committee on Government Affairs, the issue of allowing elected officials to increase their own salaries was discussed.  The result of those discussions was A.J.R. 14, which would amend the Nevada Constitution to allow elected officials to increase their salaries. A.J.R. 14 had already been heard and passed by both the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs and the Assembly Committee on Constitutional Amendments.

Mr. List said there were issues regarding checks and balances, and any change had to be approved by the voters.  If not approved, the elected officials would be returning every six years to the legislature to request pay increases.  If passed, the elected officials would be accountable to their direct constituents. If a county commission raised salaries beyond the budget, the commissioners would certainly not be reelected during the next election cycle.

 

Speaker Emeritus Dini said A.J.R. 14 included a statement that “The legislature can increase, diminish, consolidate, or abolish the position, or provide for election and appointment and fix their duties.”   He asked if there was anything about pay included in the amendments or if it was implied that the county officials would be able to set their own salaries.  Assemblyman Price said the pay issue was implied, Mr. List stated that was also the understanding of the NACO.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani thought the committee should discuss A.J.R. 14 and stated both Assemblyman Price and Assemblywoman Von Tobel had worked on the resolution in the Committee on Constitutional Amendments. She stated the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics had asked to hear the bill in committee to consider an additional amendment for discussion purposes. With the continuing debate of who should, or should not be, setting salaries, a hearing was held in the Committee on Ways and Means.  At that hearing, Judge Moffit testified on the state of Washington’s procedure that eliminated a non-binding task force or commission and included a provision in the Washington Constitution of having a commission review and set salary schedules.  The legislature was removed from the responsibility of setting salaries.  With the assistance of Scott G. Wasserman, Committee Counsel, Chairwoman Giunchigliani had researched the Washington legislation. She provided the committee members with the proposed amendments (Exhibit C) and asked them to study the issues for discussion at the May 31, 2001 hearing. Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt it was time something was included in the constitution for the public to vote on so that everyone was very forthright about the procedure.  Section 32 on page 2 of the amendment, which stated the legislature would have power to increase, diminish, consolidate or abolish certain county officers, was quoted verbatim for closer review by the committee.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani closed the hearing on A.J.R. 14 and opened the hearing on S.B. 570.

 

Senate Bill 570:  Makes various changes relating to legislature and legislative counsel bureau. (BDR 17-1073)

 

Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), Lorne Malkiewich, said S.B. 570 was a generic bill that contained all of the changes that needed to be made to the bureau during the upcoming biennium.  If there were certain changes the committee did not like, or additional items that needed to be added, the bill was a good vehicle without having the committee process numerous bills.  Mr. Malkiewich referred to the summary of changes included in Exhibit D that:

 

·        Approved the use of legislative space for day care,

·        Changed bill language from “before September 1” to “on or before September 1,”

·        Allowed LCB to submit bill draft requests,

·        Required that certain statutory committees submit bill drafts by September 1,

·        Clarified that constitutional offices were subject to the limitations in number prescribed by statute,

·        Revised the preparation of fiscal notes,

·        Authorized the use of the courts to enforce a subpoena issued by a legislative committee – current procedure was outdated,

·        Added Capitol Apartments to the description of the legislative grounds,

·        Authorized reprinting of volumes of out-of-print Statutes of Nevada, and

·        Repealed the requirement that the executive branch reimburse LCB for bill drafting.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman asked about liability associated with a child care program and wondered if there were plans to use an outside contractor. Mr. Malkiewich said a provision had been added to the bill that stated: “Employees of the facility shall be deemed employees of the state for the purposes of the liability provisions of state employees.”  There was a $50,000 limitation, which they hoped would make it more affordable. After the bill passed out of the Senate a question was raised about utility costs.  He felt that would have to be figured into the child-care fees otherwise the LCB would be subsidizing that part of the program. The feasibility of onsite licensing for the Capitol Apartments or another facility would be checked.  One of the areas that would make a big difference was the liability limitation so the insurance for the provider would be a bit less expensive working for the LCB onsite. There was not a lot of useable space in the Capitol Apartments, and the long-term history was to have the apartment leveled and replaced with a parking garage and parking lot.  The child care program would be a possible use of the facility during the transition period.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman referred to the suggested amendment (Exhibit E) that reduced the number of bill draft requests that could be submitted by interim and statutory committees from 10 to 5, and said she felt reduction would be a disincentive for creating so many statutory committees. Assemblywoman Freeman then asked what was the result of the reduction of bill drafts from the statutory committees during the 70th Legislative Session.  With the introduction of bill draft limitations, Mr. Malkiewich stated there were more and more lengthy bills; if a legislator had seven ideas and was told there was a limit of five bills, three of the ideas were consolidated into one bill. The committees would also consolidate bills.  In the past, 25 bills would have been submitted for 25 different subjects.  Assemblywoman Freeman asked if that was not a burden on the Legal Department.  Mr. Malkiewich said the LCB had not pushed for more bill draft limits -- the number allowed was now manageable and currently a larger percentage of requests ended up as bills. In the past there had been a great deal of waste but currently almost every bill requested was being introduced.  The legislators and committees were being much more selective.  There were more omnibus bills, and more consolidation of similar subjects into longer bills. Assemblywoman Freeman stated she would consider dropping from ten to seven bill drafts requests.

 

Assemblywoman Freeman thought the recommended amendment to review the statutory legislative committees was an excellent idea (Exhibit E).  She also applauded the amendment that would extend the transfer time for employees of the legislature into classified service.

 

Assemblyman Brower asked if there had been great demand for a child care program and if other agencies within the state had child care programs.  Mr. Malkiewich stated the only other child care program within a state agency was an extremely successful program at the Western Nevada Community College (WNCC).  If S.B. 570 was approved, the program at the WNCC would be reviewed. The reason for pursuit of the program was the need. The LCB workforce had changed dramatically in the past 20 years.  The staff of the LCB was being forced to make a decision on whether to raise a family or continue working at the LCB.  Even with the program there would be losses but providing child care, especially during session, would prevent the loss of some staff.  Mr. Malkiewich said the LCB wanted authority to put the program in place if it was feasible.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated when the Grant Sawyer Building was finished many state employees pushed for an onsite child care center. The employees presented local government entities with the idea of going into a partnership so their employees who worked nearby would have access to child care.  If and when there was a move toward creating a child care facility for the LCB staff, Chairwoman Giunchigliani suggested contacting the local government in Carson City to develop a partnership.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani explained she had suggested the amendment to reduce the number of bill drafts.  She had more interest in eliminating the standing statutory committees but Mr. Malkiewich had advised that it was late in the session to address such an issue.  It would be better to have the Legislative Commission review the necessity of a statutory committee.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani felt it was important to eliminate frivolous committees.

 

Assemblyman Price asked how many statutory committees were mandated and Mr. Malkiewich stated the numbers fluctuated.  The Worker’s Compensation Committee had been eliminated, and the Criminal Justice Committee and a Transportation Committee were recently approved.  There was also a child welfare consolidation bill that requested a statutory committee.  If all the requests were approved there would be nine statutory committees. In response to a question posed by Assemblyman Price, Mr. Malkiewich said the High Level Nuclear Waste Committee was included in the nine.

 

Speaker Emeritus Dini suggested all statutory committees sunset at two years and then be required to appear before the 2003 Legislative Session to justify their existence.  Mr. Malkiewich’s only concern was that S.B. 570 currently contained minor changes and the suggested change to sunset committees would be a major change that would be controversial and difficult to handle.  However, if the committee desired to make the change, it would not be difficult to draft language that would repeal all provisions and have an effective date of July 1, 2003.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated the alternative was to return to a legislative commission.  There had been discussions of reducing the number of statutory committees for the past six years.  The legislature had a tendency to build bureaucracies and the workload was ever increasing.

 

Speaker Emeritus Dini said there was great difficulty in finding a sufficient number of individuals to serve on the various committees. Chairwoman Giunchigliani pointed out the legislative salary was not competitive enough to allow an individual to take time off to serve on a committee.  Mr. Malkiewich commented that in approving interim studies, legislative committees needed to closely look at the real bottom line – how many committees were in existence.  At one time there were over 20 different committees. Chairwoman Giunchigliani referred to a memo from LCB that requested legislators be more sensitive to the issue of creating more committees that would result in more subcommittees, which in turn greatly increased the workload of the LCB staff during the interim.

 

Assemblywoman Von Tobel stated if there were annual sessions there would be less need for interim studies.  Assemblyman Bache followed up on Assemblywoman Von Tobel’s comment, and said if there were annual sessions, the standing committees would work in the interim between the odd numbered and even numbered years to prepare to process the work in the even numbered session.

 

Assemblyman Price stated other states often carried bills over from one session to the next allowing the opportunity to review the bills during the interim. There were many procedures available annually that were not available biennially. Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that was an excellent point and good policies did fall by the wayside because there was not enough time for processing.  She stated the pay issue also had to be addressed.  Closing the hearing on S.B. 570, Chairwoman Giunchigliani opened the hearing on S.C.R. 24.

 

Senate Concurrent Resolution 24:  Urges Commission on Tourism and Commission on Economic Development to promote Nevada as state where choice in health care is available. (BDR R-1494)

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani stated that Lieutenant Governor Lorraine Hunt was not available to present her legislation but had sent a representative to share with the committee’s action with Ms. Hunt.  Chairwoman Giunchigliani asked the committee to review the resolution and remember that Nevada was the first state to offer acupuncture, Gerovital, Laetrile, and various other alternative health care coverages. She did not want the committee to think the bill was for straight insurance coverage and vote it down, especially since HMO coverage was so difficult to come by in northern Nevada. In essence, the bill asked the Economic Development Commission to promote alternative health care as another issue for drawing people into the state.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MOVED TO ADOPT S.C.R 24.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.  NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK, AND SPEAKER PERKINS.

 

Chairwoman Giunchigliani requested approval of the minutes for the meetings of April 5, 2001 and May 8, 2001.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BACHE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 5, 2001 AND MAY 8, 2001.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE WERE ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY, ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK, AND SPEAKER PERKINS.

 

With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:56 p.m.

   

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Ann M. VanNostrand

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: