MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-First Session

May 17, 2001

 

 

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 9:47 a.m., on Thursday, May 17, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  Exhibit A is the Agenda.  Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.  All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

Senator Ann O’Connell, Vice Chairman

Senator Dean A. Rhoads

Senator Mark Amodei

Senator Raymond C. Shaffer

Senator Michael A. (Mike) Schneider

Senator Maggie Carlton

 

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District             No. 9

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, and Employers             Insurance Company of Nevada

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor-            Congress of Industrial Organizations

Raymond Badger, Attorney

Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Nevada Society of Oriental Medicine

Linda L. Sheldon, Lobbyist, Great Basin Primary Care Association

 

Michael Jones, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of             Human Resources

Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Sierra Health Services

Reanie R. Walters, Executive Director, Certified Court Reporters’ Board of             Nevada

Mary Manna, Executive Secretary/Office Manager, State Board of             Cosmetology

Joe Lamonca, Owner, Euphoria Salons and Day Spas

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Contractors’ Board

Margi A. Grein, Lobbyist, Executive Officer, State Contractors’ Board

Shauna L. Swainston Haipola, Concerned Citizen

Maureen Lamerdin, Dipl. Ac., Concerned Citizen

Jack Lehman, District Judge, Department 10, Eighth Judicial District

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 338.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 338:  Makes various changes concerning workers’ compensation. (BDR 53-711)

 

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, stated he would give an overview of the proposed amendment to A.B. 338, as submitted (Exhibit C).  He stated the purpose of the amendment to section 5, subsection 3, was to make the injured worker whole by reimbursing for the amount previously paid within 30 calendar days.  He averred the second amendment was to section 7.  He said the first part was for subsection 2, which provides if an insurer has not designated a provide, the injured employee may select from the panel of physicians and chiropractors established by the administrator of the Division of Industrial Relations.  The amendment to subsection 3, he said, requires the injured employee to select or be assigned a specialist at the time of referral and be provided the names of the specialist associated with the managed care.  Mr. Ostrovsky noted subsection 3 would delete some language, and add if the needed specialist is not contracted with the organization for managed care, then the organization must select the specialist.  He proposed deleting section 8 regarding the selection of any physician or chiropractor for a second determination of the percentage of disability; and to delete section 13 regarding criteria for reopening a claim for compensation.  He elucidated section 14, subsection 8, changes the language regarding light-duty to make it clear what the employer has to do to make an offer of light-duty employment.  He averred section 15, subsection 3, provides that the insurer’s inquiry of the provider as to whether the injured employee has suffered a permanent disability, then the insurer must provide the pertinent section of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment or a copy of the actual guide.  He recommended deletion of subsections 5 and 6 of section 15, concerning psychological impairment.  Mr. Ostrovsky proposed the lump sum settlement for vocational rehabilitation, in section 18, subsection 2, paragraph (b), be set at $20,000.  He remarked this amount does not mean either party is forced into a settlement or has to accept a settlement.  He concluded that the effective date be changed to July 1, 2002, to allow time to determine if there are any cost factors.

 

Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, stated everyone easily agreed to the proposed amendments to A.B. 338.

 

Senator Townsend acknowledged the work done on the bill, and everyone’s willingness to work together, so that all might benefit.  He addressed a conversation he had with Senator Carlton regarding the issue of a lump sum, and then going to a permanent total.

 

Senator Carlton responded that it was the 22 percent versus 10 percent issue presented last week over a compilation of bills, and it was put off until another day, so the injured workers who were losing 22 percent of 662/3, would not be impacted so greatly.  She recalled that Mr. Ostrovsky was opposed to the 10 percent, because of the fiscal impact.  She asserted she could not agree, because she saw the fiscal impact on the family as more important than the fiscal impact on the company.

 

Senator Townsend elucidated the issue regards individuals who receive a permanent partial disability (PPD), and subsequently determined to be permanently totally disabled (PTD), at which point a recovery is made.  He said it becomes a debate between what is fixed in statute about recovery.  He explained it was recommended that the amount be changed from 10 percent to 25 percent.  He communicated the substantial impact was rather large, so the committee decided rather than make a determination up or down on the issue, that it would be brought up another day.  He noted the suggested amendment (Exhibit D), would be if an employee has not received a minimum lump sum, the insurer of the employee’s employer shall deduct from the compensation, for PTD, a reasonable monthly amount that does not create undo hardship to the claimant, until the insurer has deducted an amount that equals the amount it has already paid out as a lump sum, et cetera.  He conveyed, rather than have a fixed amount, this language allows a determination to be made that if it is necessary to be more than 10 percent, that could be determined, if it would help the claimant.

 

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, conveyed as part of a PPD award, the injured employee is entitled to take some portion as a lump sum.  He said for those with larger rather than smaller lump sums, the rules vary.  He said on the small lump sums there is a 10 percent deduction.  He voiced, for larger lump sums, the amount the insurer could deduct is fixed in statute.  He pointed out the proposed language change would leave the larger lump-sum deduction open to negotiations between the claimant and the insurance company.  He added that all the rights would still remain.  Adopting this language, he noted, increases the amount of litigation, because insurance companies want to get the money back before the injured employee passed away.

 

Senator Townsend commented he wanted to make sure the language had the intended value.

 

Raymond Badger, Attorney, remarked there are a few injured workers who are impacted, but it is very significant to those impacted.  He said there are other areas of the law for appeals officers to decide what was reasonable.  He opined the proposed amendment to A.B. 338 was valid, and worth consideration.

 

Senator Carlton stated since there is no bottom or top end to the reasonable amount without causing undo hardship, it is possible the amount could exceed the original monthly installment.

 

Mr. Badger opined the workers’ compensation judges would not order an amount higher than the original.  He contended this language would bring parties together to make an agreement, because no one knows what the judge would decide as reasonable.  He said he supported making people come together to discuss and resolve the issue.  Mr. Badger acknowledged that anything was possible when interpreting the word reasonable.

 

Mr. Thompson said as he recalled the earlier testimony of Herbert Jones, he received $1500 as a PTD, and the repayment was $300 a month.  And, Mr. Jones wanted the repayment to be 10 percent a month, and Mr. Thompson said that would be fair.

 

Senator Townsend commented that the committee, initially, did not want to make any decision until they had better informed themselves of the issues and how things worked, and promised to revisit the issue.

 

Mr. Ostrovsky surmised most insurers would come close to the equal monthly installment rate, because that was a rate actuarially fixed in the beginning, which has something to do with a person’s life expectancy.  He contended the insurers were concerned they would not recover enough of the actuary basis over the lifetime of the claimant.  He noted the burden would fall on the claimant to prove hardship regarding undo hardship.

 

Senator Townsend articulated that was why there are arbitration officers who would consider the adjustments on an individual-case basis.  He suggested the committee just amend the bill with the proposed amendments, and take no further action.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 338 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY MR. OSTROVSKY AND MR. THOMPSON.

 

SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

SENATOR CARLTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 338  WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NEVADA REVISED STATUTES 616C.440.

 

SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION FAILED.  (SENATORS O’CONNELL, SCHNEIDER AND CARLTON VOTED NO.  SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Townsend stated he would like to hold any further action on the bill until Senator Amodei returned.  He opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 192.

ASSEMBLY BILL 192: Revises provisions relating to barber schools. (BDR 54‑735)

 

Senator Townsend referenced the Work Session Information (Exhibit E), where Assemblyman Morse Arberry, Jr., Clark County Assembly District 7, was asking to amend page 1, line 11 to read “one instructor.”  He said the current statute requires two instructors on the premises of a barber school at all times if the active enrollment is 20 or more.  The proposed Amendment No. 671 is to have at least one instructor on the premises at all times if the active enrollment is 10 or less, with one additional instructor on the premises for each additional 10 students enrolled.  Additionally, he said, under subsection 3, there would be two instructors to provide instruction at all times.

 

SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 192.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 452.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 452:  Requires certain providers of health insurance to contract with federally qualified health centers as providers of health care under certain circumstances. (BDR 57-1177)

 

Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Nevada Society of Oriental Medicine, offered to contact Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, who was currently chairing the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means to consider her bills.  Senator Townsend accepted Mr. Skancke’s offer, commenting they did not like taking action on someone else’s bills without full disclosure.

 

Linda L. Sheldon, Lobbyist, Great Basin Primary Care Association, stated there have been problems with contracts being obtained by federally qualified community health centers.

 

Michael Jones, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources, stated, per information provided to him, that Charles Duarte, Administrator, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, Department of Human Resources, would like to amend section 13 with additional language.

 

Senator Townsend suggested a clearer understanding might be wanted, and asked if Nevada Revised Statutes 422.273, the establishment, development and implementation of Medicaid managed care programs, covered the concerns.

 

Scott Young, Committee Policy Analyst, said he specifically asked Jan K. Needham, Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel, if Mr. Duarte’s proposed amendment were to be adopted, would that create a conflict with existing statute NRS 422.273.  He said Ms. Needham indicated it would not, although it would need to be specified in A.B. 452, except as otherwise provided in NRS 422.273.  He stated he shared Ms. Needham’s opinion that, essentially, Mr. Duarte’s operation was already covered by NRS 422.273.  So, if it is made clear the exemption was not meant to exempt Mr. Duarte from the existing statute, he would still be covered.  Mr. Young, clarified if Mr. Duarte’s amendment were to be adopted, and the amendment contained the appropriate language, he would still be covered, and required to comply with the same provisions under the existing statute.

 

Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Sierra Health Services, stated there is a technical change to section 1, lines 13 to 14, regarding requirements relating to the probate credentials for employees of providers of health care.  He said, “for employees,” should be deleted.  He explained, when credentialing, it is the providers.  Otherwise, it could mean the credentialing of file clerks, and that was not intended.  He mentioned there were a couple of other places in A.B. 452 where that change needs to be made.

 

Mr. Young interjected the technical change had been brought up in an earlier hearing, and the committee also agreed to the change at that time.

 

Ms. Sheldon also agreed with the technical change to the bill.  She added, the main concern was the federally qualified health care centers get an opportunity to have those contracts because they are essential to their well being.

 

Senator Townsend reiterated the proposed amendments are the ones that exempt the requirement for licensing of staff, such as clerks, and the amendments by the Medicaid group.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 452.

 

SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 622.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 622:  Makes various changes to provisions governing practice of court reporting. (BDR 54-533)

 

Senator Townsend stated there was some confusion on the bill concerning the amount of licensing.  He elucidated in the drafting of the bill, some old amounts were not removed, and in some areas a number was omitted.

 

Mr. Young explained the amount on page 5, line 2, was intended by the Assembly to be $150.  Further, he said, page 4, line 29, was intended by the Assembly to be $100, not $150 as requested by the court reporting board.  He commented the Assembly wanted to raise all existing fees by $50.  He articulated the board had asked for the floor of $90, but that was never an existing statute, so it did not get touched by the $50 increase, and that was how the odd $10 spread occurred.  Continuing, he said, page 4, line 29, was to raise that amount to $150, and the Assembly, consciously, left that one at $100.

 

Senator Townsend commented, based on what the Assembly intended to do, the $90 becomes irrelevant, therefore, “and not less than $90,” should be removed, and leave the cap at $100, and meet the standard.

 

Mr. Young agreed it would be consistent with the Assembly intent.

 

Reanie R. Walters, Executive Director, Certified Court Reporters’ Board of Nevada, stated the board concurs that the amount should be $150.  She said she was perplexed regarding section 12, subsection 1, paragraph (a), the cost for the court reporter examination.  She stated the original bill submitted to the Legislature had a cap of $250 with a minimum of $90, and went to the Assembly that way, but she was surprised that they said the board was requesting $150 cap.  She conveyed the amount was needed to be in line with other states that charge $150, and to augment the cost of putting on the examination, which costs almost $3000.  She commented, as far as the discussion on the $150 cap, the board was referring to the court reporting firms, not to the examination charge.  She explained the cost to just rent a facility for the examination is almost $3000, not counting the other expenses.

 

Responding to Senator O'Connell’s inquiry about actual cost, Ms. Walters said it depends on how many people take the test.  She said the rooms would still cost the same, but then there is the cost of power for 100 to 120 typewriters, plus $300 for the extra power strips, the cost of printing the test, copying, and postage.  She noted that right now the board is losing $800 per test, and the last time the fee was raised was in 1973.

 

Senator O'Connell stated she would like to consider the amendment on page 4, line 29, to be $250, as opposed to the $100, so the language to be removed will be $100, and not less than $90, and at the top of page 5, lines 1 and 2, to change the $50 to $150.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 622.

 

SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR CARLTON VOTED NO.  SENATOR AMODEI WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

Ms. Walters inquired that she heard $100 for line 29, and would like clarification on the amount.

 

Senator O'Connell answered the $100 was being taken out and replaced with $250.

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 551. 

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 551:  Revises provisions relating to practice of cosmetology. (BDR 54-1133)

The chairman posed the issue was to differentiate between the person who works in a salon and/or spa who sells a product, and the person who works in a department store.  He queried as to how to separate the two regarding licensing one, because they work in one place, but are not licensing the other, because they work in a different place.

 

Assemblywoman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Clark County Assembly District No. 9, stated, as she recalled, the purpose was because of exempting those people in the retail stores.  She said they are not even affected by this change, and the reason for demonstrators was to give a comfort level to the cosmetology board, because they did not want to go back to the old assistant designation, which was in the original draft.  She expounded that these would be short terms, because the demonstrators are brought in by the business to do this specific function, and would only apply to those on a cosmetology site.

 

Senator Townsend commented the intent was to not limit jurisdiction nor to put anyone in salons and day spas in jeopardy, the point was consistency.

 

Mary Manna, Executive Secretary/Office Manager, State Board of Cosmetology, acknowledged the point is to assist the salons and the rapidly growing day spas.  Referring to section 2, she said it explains the demonstrator is specified in a cosmetological establishment.  She stated this particular type of license would only be contiguous to a salon establishment.  She explained the board wants to raise the bar for the customer’s protection when cosmetics are demonstrated in a salon or day-spa environment.

 

Senator Townsend stated he wanted to be sure everyone understood what was being discussed, and said these are the exemptions:  Retailers, at a retail establishment, insofar as their usual and ordinary vocation and profession is concerned when engaged in the demonstration of makeup, if (1) The demonstration is without charge to a person to whom the demonstration is given; and (2) The retailer does not advertise or provide a cosmetological service except makeup and fragrances.  He remarked that if they want to be very strict, then the day spa group might be exempt under this, except for the potential legal argument about section 2, where you do not advertise and provide cosmetological services, except makeup and fragrances.  Senator Townsend inquired if section 2 was where Mr. Lamonca was getting caught.

 

 

Ms. Manna answered that was correct.  She added it also has to do with the current requirement that the owner of an establishment may only lease or employ licensed individuals.  She said the board’s concern was that without licensing the employees, the business could be a front for certain unlicensed activity.  Whereas, the benefit regarding the licensing issue would identify the correct people.  Additionally, she said, the board would be setting a standard of requiring the demonstrators to take a sanitation class that the board would offer, as well as to require the applicant test for the license.

 

Senator Townsend queried regarding NRS 644.471, how the difference was made for Nieman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, or any retail establishment with a large cosmetological sales area, that also have a licensed salon within the store.

 

Ms. Manna responded, under the current law, a cosmetological establishment is a place where cosmetology services are performed.  She explained the board assumes a retail store is just that, a retail store, whereas a cosmetological establishment currently meets standards within the cosmetology code for a license to practice cosmetology services.

 

Senator Townsend said, for example, if one of those large retailers has a full-page ad advertising the traditional makeup the store sells, and in the corner of the ad there is a photograph of their salon that says, “and by the way, our cosmetological services on the third floor, are available 7 days a week.  He said that places them under this, which means there is a problem.  He elucidated that, in the next interim, the need to clear up that language so everyone knows what is, and what is not going to be dealt with, based on past policy.  He expounded that the sad thing is these lines are being blurred between the operator of a salon and day spa, and what retail department stores do.

 

Ms. Manna commented she understood everyone’s concern.  She responded department stores with retail cosmetic counters, and a separate cosmetological salon, the salon is the only part that is required to follow the requirement of chapter 551 of NRS.

 

Senator Townsend stated, in the future, others may have a different interpretation, and he wants to be sure of consistency.

 

Joe Lamonca, Owner, Euphoria Salons and Day Spas, stated he was concerned about being competitive.  He explained in a cosmetological establishment, the only people who apply makeup in a demonstrated manner are the estheticians; the ones that do skin care treatment or hairstylists.  He said it is not financially lucrative for them to give up their chair or their room to apply the makeup.  In order to sell makeup, he said, he needed someone to demonstrate it.  That is when the board suggested this demonstrator license.  He expounded this is not intended to do anything to the retailers, it is for those who own a cosmetology license, that if they are going to apply makeup, then they, too, have to be licensed for health and safety by also knowing the sanitary way to apply makeup.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 551.

 

SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RHOADS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 620.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 620:  Makes various changes relating to contractors. (BDR 54‑407)

 

Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Contractors’ Board (NSCB), stated that at a previous hearing there was some confusion between Southern Nevada Home Builders Association (SNHBA) and the NSCB regarding the amendment.  He pointed out, in the amendment, the reference to liens in section 13 has been dropped.  He noted in section 14, the word, delivered, was changed to sent.

 

Mr. Scott reminded the committee they did take action on A.B. 620 on May 11, 2001, of amend and do pass, which only changed delivered to sent.

 

Margi A. Grein, Lobbyist, Executive Officer, State Contractors’ Board, said she agreed.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN ON A.B. 620.

 

SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RHOADS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 620.

 

SENATOR CARLTON SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR RHOADS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)

 

*****

 

Senator Townsend opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 302.

 

ASSEMBLY BILL 302:  Makes various changes relating to practice of Oriental medicine. (BDR 54-1083)

 

Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Nevada Society of Oriental Medicine (NSOM), stated the society had worked with a number of entities over concerns with the bill, to arrive at this current version.  He conveyed there still might be a few people that have some issues, but they tried to accommodate as many people as possible to open the market to additional acupuncturists in Nevada.  He explained the new amendment submitted by Assemblywomen Giunchigliani (Exhibit E).

 

Shauna L. Swainston Haipola, Concerned Citizen, stated she was in agreement with the new proposed amendments.

 

Maureen Lamerdin, Dipl. Ac., Concerned Citizen, stated she was in agreement with the amendments.  However, she said, section 6, subsection 1, paragraph (a), still concerned her.  She said those people who are still in school or have not received their bachelor’s degree, could return to an Oriental medicine college to continue their education, instead of returning to a university for a non-related course.  She clarified they could stay in school another 2 years and continue the practice of Oriental medicine.

Mr. Skancke affirmed Ms. Lamerdin’s remarks, and added that Assemblywoman Giunchigliani thought it was appropriate to have a 4-year undergraduate degree.  He remarked that in his research to identify comparable accreditation, the credit spread varied widely from 112 to 128.  He proposed over the next 2 years they would have time for additional research to identify a national equivalent of what would be enough hours of education.

 

Mr. Skanke stated the doctors have agreed to help.  Once the bill passes, he said, the NSOM would coordinate with the drug court to make sure a licensed Oriental medicine doctor is on premises when the technique of ear acupuncture to treat drug abuse was being administered to ensure the quality of health care.  He conveyed the sticking point was if a doctor was not available all the time.  He said that was worked out by requiring the doctor licensed for that facility to sign off on any acupuncture administered.  He noted that doctors from the board and in the industry, in the Clark County area, have agreed to volunteer 2 to 3 hours of community service a week to the drug court.  Additionally, he said, the court would also have to employ one or two doctors to assure continuity in the program.

 

Commenting further, Mr. Skancke said Washoe County has a different situation, because there are only two licensed Oriental medicine doctors.  He said one doctor has already agreed to work with the drug court, and the NSOM is talking to the other doctor about arrangements to become involved.  As for the rural counties, Mr. Skancke conveyed the board has yet to work out how to provide the service, but two doctors from the state have stepped forward to help from a community-service standpoint.  He said it was suggested as new doctors come into the field, that Choices Unlimited and the courts work with them, and this will also help the doctors to get established and set up a practice.

 

Jack Lehman, District Judge, Department 10, Eighth Judicial District, added that the acupuncture drug treatment program has been worked out.  He emphasized the importance of the program to about 1200 people in Clark County, and the approximate 400 people in Washoe County.  He stated the proper protocol in administering the program has been demonstrated to be very successful.

 

Mr. Skancke posited everyone was meeting in June to ready the program to function during the interim or for full implementation upon passage of the bill.

 

Senator Townsend indicated the committee’s agreement to have the bill effective upon passage.

 

SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 302.

 

SENATOR SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED.  (SENATOR CARLTON VOTED NO.)

 

*****

 

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:24 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman

 

 

DATE: