ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MINUTES

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor

Seventy-Second Session

May 5, 2003

The Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order at 2:17 p.m., on Monday, May 5, 2003. Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.

Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. David Goldwater, Chairman

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairwoman

Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Mr. David Brown

Mrs. Dawn Gibbons

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. Josh Griffin

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. Ron Knecht

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Mr. John Oceguera

Mr. David Parks

Mr. Richard Perkins

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Joe Neal, Senatorial District No. 4 (Las Vegas Area):

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Wil Keane, Committee Counsel

Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst

Corey Fox, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Mary Walker, Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County

Ted Olivas, Assistant Director, Finance, Clark County; and Chairman, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission

Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation

Jack Kim, representing Sierra Health Services

Fred Hillerby, representing Washoe Health System

Sharon Shaffer, Chair, State Board of Funeral Directors, Embalmers, and Operators of Cemeteries and Crematories

Jay Gunter, Operator, Gunter’s Funeral Homes, Hawthorne and Tonopah, Nevada

Jim Smolenski, General Manager, Fitzhenry’s Funeral Homes, Carson City and Gardnerville

George Campbell, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office

Gerald Hitchcock, State Funeral Board

Lewis Noel, Walton’s Funeral Home

Bob Gastonguay, Executive Director, Nevada State Cable and Telecommunications Association

Russell Rowe, CC Communications

Dan O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board

Renny Ashleman, State Public Works Board

Lori Ashton, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters

Jeanette Belz, Associated General Contractors, Nevada Chapter

Chairman Goldwater:

We’ll bring [the Committee on] Commerce and Labor to order. We’ll begin as a Subcommittee. I’ll note for the record when we get a full complement. All members are here and accounted for. On the agenda today we have Senate Bill (S.B.) 19. Senate Bill 19 is sponsored by the estimable Legislative Committee, the study of the competition. Who’s here on S.B. 19?

Senate Bill 19 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to advertising and awarding contracts for certain smaller public works projects and requires Department of Transportation to follow contracting procedures used by other state agencies. (BDR 28-409)

Mary Walker, representing Carson City, Douglas County, and Lyon County:

[Introduced herself.] Michael Stewart, staff for Senator Schneider, who is the chairman of the Committee to Study Competition Between Local Government and Private Enterprise, wasn’t sure if Senator Schneider would be able to be here. Basically, this bill came out of [that Committee]. We worked for approximately six months in coming up with the concepts as well as the actual language for this bill. It started with a concern from the Associated General Contractors that smaller projects, public works projects under $100,000, were being done in-house rather than going out to bid. Our response was one of the main reasons for that because of the length of time it takes to go through the procurement process from the very beginning to the end. Sometimes it can take months for projects that only take a week or two to actually construct. A lot of times it’s a lot easier for us to get our own in-staff personnel to go out and actually do the work rather than going through a lengthy process. The response from the Associated General Contractors is, “Let’s take a look at loosening the purchasing requirements for those projects less than $100,000, so that the local governments would be able to go to bid for those types of smaller projects.”

I did have a handout (Exhibit C) that was provided to you, [titled] “Local Government and Associated General Contractors Legislative Proposal,” the concept paper that was provided to the Committee to Study Competition Between Local Governments and Private Enterprise. It has four conceptual points to it. First, we are changing NRS Chapter 338 to allow local governments to use three informal bids for those public works projects between $25,000 and $100,000. Contract awards would be [awarded] to appropriately licensed contractors who are the lowest responsible bidders. When I talk about three informal bids, I am talking about calling people and asking them for bids. They would respond back in writing, and we would take the lowest responsible bidder. That way you can get them online within a few days or a week. The second concept is to change NRS Chapter 338 to require quarterly reporting to the governing Boards of the projects between $25,000 and $100,000, which have been awarded to contractors. The quarterly report would state who the projects were awarded to, the amount of the bid, and the description of the project. This is just for some accountability into who we are actually hiring. The third change to NRS Chapter 338, is to require local government officials responsible for the projects, this would primarily be your public works folks, to document in their files the following, and this would be for those projects between $25,000 and $100,000. They would document an attestation to the best of their knowledge, the estimated cost of the project being performed in-house, a general statement why the project was being performed in-house, and a general statement that the project follows the same specifications as is required by the private sector. The fourth concept is to change NRS 338.143 to allow local governments to use informal bids by soliciting at least three contractors. Currently, the law, for some reason, we believe it’s actually an error, requires local governments to solicit bids from not more than three contractors. It actually limits you in the amount of competition that you would actually be pursuing. The reason for the change is that the current law requires local governments to maintain cumbersome contractor lists for small public works projects. These lists are not utilized by most local governments when bidding smaller projects; instead, the projects are either performed in-house or contracted out formally. Therefore, it takes a few months. By eliminating some of the purchasing red tape, it would no longer take months in bidding time to do the projects that would only take one or two weeks to complete. It would encourage the local governments to bid out their projects rather than performing the work in-house.

[Ms. Walker continued.] The legislative change would also allow local government to respond more efficiently and expediently to citizens’ concerns and requests for public works improvements. We had a team of about 50 people involved in crafting this bill. We had local government public works directors, purchasing directors, a lot of contractors from Associated General Contractors (AGC), and other groups who have worked on this. I think what you have here is a consensus of these concepts.

In Las Vegas is Ted Olivas, who is the Clark County Deputy Finance Director. Mr. Olivas and Justine Chambers, with Carson City Public Works, helped us draft the original language of the bill. Ted could go through the actual language with you. We also have representatives from AGC here and there is a friendly amendment that NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) is providing to you. It is an important amendment because an amendment was made on the Senate side that pulled NDOT into [NRS Chapter] 338, which is [aimed] more at state and local government purchasing. NDOT has to follow federal procurement laws and by pulling them into [NRS Chapter] 338, they are no longer going to be in conformance with federal procurement laws and it could [create] major monetary problems. They will come up and speak to that, but we are all in concurrence with their amendment.

Ted Olivas, Assistant Director, Finance Clark County; and Chairman, Nevada Public Purchasing Study Commission:

[Introduced himself.] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. As Ms. Walker mentioned, this was a collaborative effort amongst industry and the local government jurisdictions. I will very quickly go through each of these sections for you, although Ms. Walker did a very good job of explaining what we did. For those of you who don’t know, NRS Chapter 338 is broken up into different sections, depending on how you bid your projects. When we made these changes for our projects under $100,000, we had to make changes that are duplicates to various sections of the law.

Section 2 relates to the prequalification section of NRS Chapter 338, and it just defines that here is the process for under $100,000. Section 3 relates to both state and local governments. It says if the project is from $25,000 to $100,000, you’ll solicit bids from at least three properly licensed contractors. If it’s under $25,000, you’ll solicit a bid from at least one properly licensed contractor. Of course, the most important part here is the “properly licensed.” We want to make sure that we’re using the appropriate contractors for all of our public works jobs. Section 2 also talks about the process for rejecting bids, which is consistent with other purchasing rules. It also includes the reporting requirements for those projects that are approved by the authorized representative for projects from $25,000 to $100,000. We wanted to make sure that we had the proper checks and balances in the award of these contracts.

Section 4 relates to prequalification as well, and defines the process if the jurisdiction decides to do the work “in-house,” the reporting requirements, and what has to be done in that regard. Sections 5 and 6 are pretty consistent with sections 2 and 3, but it’s for the traditional method of purchasing, which is: you advertise, you get the bids, you review the bids, you award the contracts. We had to make the same changes that we did in 2 and 3, under our traditional method, which is Sections 5 and 6, so I won’t go through that explanation again.

Section 7 is the same as Section 4. Again, this is for the traditional method for purchasing. It’s exactly the same as Section 4. Section 8 is cleanup language, which was the result of making these changes to the process. Section 9 is basically cleanup, as well. This defines the methods that the local government jurisdiction can use to award their public works projects.

Sections 10 and 11 are basically clean up. The sections both have to be changed because Section 10 has a sunset provision, so there are two sections that we had to change. It’s basically deleting the current process for projects under $100,000, and that’s on page 8, Section 10, lines 18 through 30. That’s the current process that we use for projects under $100,000. The rest of Section 10 is cleanup. As I mentioned, Section 11 is the same as 10.

[Mr. Olivas continued.] Section 12 relates to bidder’s preference, and this is the bidder’s preference section for prequalification, so we’re going to have this same wording in our traditional method as well, so Section 12 is just cleanup of that language. Section 13 and 14 are the same as Sections 10 and 11. This is the same where Section 13 has a sunset provision, so the two sections read the same. It deletes the process that we currently use for projects under $100,000.

That gets us to Section 15, which is the same as Section 12. Again, this is the bidder’s preference law, and we are changing it in our Section that relates to the traditional method of bidding for our public works projects.

Sections 16 and 17 are cleanup of the design/build sections as a result of making the changes that we’re proposing. Sections 18 and 19 are cleanup of the State Public Works Board section, again, as a result of this change in process. And, Sections 20 through 24 are cleanup of the NDOT sections, as a result of making this process change. Section 25 is the cleanup of the Professional Engineering and Surveyors Law, which is NRS Chapter 625, as a result of this. Section 26 repeals various sections of NRS Chapter 408, and I believe that is part of the friendly amendment. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

Chairman Goldwater:

Note for the record a quorum is present. Did you intend for the bidders and the contractors to be absolutely prequalified to do this work?

Mary Walker:

This doesn’t deal with prequalification at all, except that this new format we are using will be consistent in prequalified [bidders] but it’s not mandatory.

Chairman Goldwater:

Secondly, will we see a commensurate decrease in our state and local government budgets?

Mary Walker:

I think what you’re going to see more than anything is projects being turned down much more quickly, because you’ll be able to get somebody on line and there doing the work. I think, as far as looking at what the cost may be, we’d actually have to look at that. Sometimes we do projects a lot cheaper because we do hire seasonal [workers] at $7.00 an hour, which contractors can’t do because they are unions. Some you may be a lot higher, some you may be a little bit lower, but I think more than anything the process is going to be quicker. When you had citizens screaming and yelling at you, “Why can’t government work like the private sector and get these done?” a lot of times it’s because of the types of process that we have to go through. That’s the intent of this.

Chairman Goldwater:

Further questions? I don’t see any. Thank you. Further testimony on Senate Bill 19? Yes, sir?

Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Nevada Department of Transportation:

Chairman Goldwater and members of the Committee, I have a handout (Exhibit D), which includes a letter to Chairman Goldwater as well as some suggested or proposed amendments and a fiscal note. [It] talks about what happens if we lose our independence as a transportation organization and turn into a public works organization, we have the possibility of losing up to $200 to $240 million in federal funding every year. That would be quite disastrous to the state. That would be my biggest concern with the bill as written right now. We did testify on this bill when it was in the Senate. It looked as if NDOT was an afterthought to that. There are no real problems. If you look at the testimony that took place in the Senate, the AGC actually testified that we didn’t have a problem and they were concerned about the future. So, I really don’t think that there is a problem there.

We do follow most of those regulations already in [NRS Chapter] 408. The federal laws, bylaws, and regulations are actually more stringent than the state laws, and we follow the state laws on all of our projects. About 85 percent of our projects have federal funding in them. On state-funded projects we do include bidder’s preference and those types of things.

As far as reporting goes, we do track our projects, who bids our projects, and we do make a report. I don’t believe it’s quarterly; I believe at every Transportation Board meeting we report to the Governor and to our Transportation Board the contracts we have awarded, what the amount was, and where they were at, so I think that we are covered there also. I don’t believe the Public Works Board is suitable to handle NDOT contracts. They’re not a big enough agency to do that. We’re probably ten times the size of the Public Works Board and if we were to give them all of our projects, they would be sunk. Highway contracts are considerably bigger and have a different nature than what they’re used to looking at. I think that this Legislature, years back recognized that and created NRS Chapter 408, which [says that NDOT] alone governs the operations of NDOT. [NRS Chapter] 408 was written in conjunction with the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration).

Lastly, I think that the passage of this bill, as it is, would significantly slow down the delivery of projects. You heard from Mary [Walker] that this was one of the things they were trying to improve, the speed of the delivery of projects. If we had to have the director sign off on all small projects of that type, I think that we could severely hamper our ability to do that. As such, I won’t drag this testimony on, but I would respectfully request that NDOT be exempted from S.B. 19 for the reasons stated, and we have proposed the amendment here that would do so. Thank you.

Assemblyman Brown:

As I’ve disclosed before, I’m an attorney that represents contractors in many cases. I’ve had occasion to work with quite a few contractors on NDOT projects, and while you’re probably not familiar with my name, I’ve seen your name on a lot of documents. I appreciate your good work. All I want to say is, having reviewed NDOT files, along with other public works projects, I think it’s very appropriate to treat them separately. I know we operate under [NRS Chapter] 408, which is a statute that I’ve had occasion to deal with separately, and I can’t imagine you being included in this as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that amendment would be most appropriate.

Chairman Goldwater:

I will close the hearing on S.B. 19. Welcome to Commerce and Labor Senator Neal. It’s an honor to have you. We’ll open the hearing on S.B. 24.

Senate Bill 24 (1st Reprint): Provides for access for certain persons to health care records of deceased. (BDR 54-178)

Senator Joe Neal, Senatorial District No. 4 (Las Vegas Area):

[Introduced himself] I’m here in support of the passage of S.B. 24, which is a bill to provide access for certain persons to health care records of deceased. I’ll give you a little bit of history about this particular measure. It came to me [through a] telephone call. The person who had difficulty getting records of a deceased individual was a close relative and found out the doctor could not grant that information to them. In checking out the law, we found that was the case, so we have here in the presence of S.B. 24 a measure that attempts to correct that type of situation, which would allow a parent or guardian of a deceased patient who died before reaching the age of majority to receive these types of health care records.

The bill is not intended to deal with the gory aspects of autopsy reports and things of this sort. It just deals with health care records of the deceased that passed in a hospital and allow an individual to see those records and have someone to go over those records with him or her to determine the cause of death of that person. As you noticed, this bill was amended in the Senate. Section 1, the original section, was amended out and replaced by Section 2, which is now Section 1 in the bill that you have before you. The bill just simply states a personal representative of the estate of the deceased [and] the parent or guardian of the deceased would have access to the records providing that they had written authorization from the person to do so. That’s simply what the bill does, and I ask for this Committee’s passage and approval of the bill.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Age and majority in the state of Nevada for this purpose, would that be 16 or would it be 18?

Senator Neal:

Well, it depends on what happens after this session is over, Ms. Giunchigliani.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

But at this point it’s still 18, right?

Jack Kim, representing Sierra Health Services:

[Introduced himself.] We have a friendly amendment to S.B. 24. We have discussed this with Senator Neal and we would like to thank him.

Chairman Goldwater:

Senator Neal, are they representing true fact? He has indicated yes.

Jack Kim:

As many members in this Committee know, in April of this year the Federal Privacy Rule came into play with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1997). One of the things that entities who are preparing for HIPAA did was go back and research and take a look at the laws. One of the issues that came up with medical labs was we had a statute in Nevada that basically said that that laboratory could only give the lab reports to the doctor who ordered them or the patient. Now, that has caused some significant problems.

For example, a surgeon who orders a lab [that] wants that lab report to go to the anesthesiologist, or the nurse who is trying to take that lab report to the anesthesiologist, doesn’t have access to those reports. Under the federal law, this would be allowed. Under Nevada law it wouldn’t. Nevada law would prevent a doctor from sending a lab report to a specialist who he’s referred the patient to.

We have drafted some language that we believe would address this problem. I can go over that language for you. I hope everyone has a copy of it. I’ve provided a copy to the secretary (Exhibit E). Our amendment would allow the lab to provide a copy of the report to a provider of health care who is either treating or finding assistance for the patient or provider of health care who the patient has been referred to. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Fred Hillerby, representing Washoe Health System:

Jack has explained the purpose of the amendment. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things in case the question did come to mind. As Jack said, this federal law came into place in April, and it was interesting that my client contacted me about the same time Jack’s employer contacted him about the problem. The first thing you do is begin to search for a vehicle that you might be able to use to attach an amendment such as this. We were unsuccessful at first because, as you see, we’re amending NRS Chapter 652, so I got permission to go see Brenda Erdoes. Your counsel and Brenda found that, in fact, under S.B. 24, since it was dealing with patient records, this amendment would be germane to that bill. Therefore, we went to Senator Neal to get his acceptance of the amendment. We’ve talked with the Health Division, who licenses laboratories and deals with this. They’re fine with this amendment. We didn’t anticipate anybody would be opposed to this, but I just wanted to let you know what had happened to bring us to S.B. 24 with this amendment.

Chairman Goldwater:

I certainly wasn’t opposed to it, given what happened to Johns Hopkins University with that organ transplant of the wrong blood type. Having reviewed the systems in place certainly, as much access to the lab results by a health care professional seems better even with full access sometimes.

Fred Hillerby:

Although I’m not here representing him, a friend of yours and mine, Dr. Solloway, with Quest, called us with the same interest in this issue. We discussed this with them. They think this is great because they want to be able to give that information to as many people involved in that patients care.

Chairman Goldwater:

Sure, and you still have kind of the protections of HIPAA. I don’t see much of a problem with that. Questions from the Committee regarding the amendment? Thank you. Further testimony on Senate Bill 24? The hearing on S.B. 24 is closed. I think that’s relatively non-controversial.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 24.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED. (Mr. Arberry, Ms. Buckley, Ms. Leslie, Mr. Parks, Mr. Perkins, and were not present for the vote).

Senate Bill 323 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing funeral directors, embalmers and operators of cemeteries and crematories. (BDR 54-306)

Sharon Shaffer, Chair, State Board of Funeral Directors, Embalmers, and Operators of Cemeteries and Crematories:

Chairman Goldwater and members of the Committee. The bill is predominantly a housekeeping measure for the State Board of Funeral Directors, Embalmers, Operators of Cemeteries and Crematories. The most notable changes (Exhibit F) are:

Changing the name of the Board to the State Funeral Board, so that we don’t have to do that great big handle all of the time.
Adding references to clarify that the Board is required to enforce the provisions of NRS Chapters 451, 452, as well as 642.
Authorizing the Board to suspend a license upon a hearing or order a person to desist or refrain from engaging in violation of a provision of Chapters 451, 452, or 642 of NRS, or a regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
Making various changes to clarify the existing licensing provisions and revising the provisions governing the fees charged by the Board to take them from various sections of NRS and place them in one section of Chapter 642 of NRS.

It is this provision that makes the bill require a two-thirds majority vote. You have the four-page summary in front of you and the bill is important for continued success in regulation of the Funeral Board. I urge your support in passage of the bill. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Chairman Goldwater:

Sharon, most boards are required to come to the Legislature for fee increases and we like it that way. Why are we allowing the Funeral Board to set their own fee?

Sharon Shaffer:

Well, we’re not actually setting the fees there. Most of the fees are at the same rate for applications, examinations, late renewals are increased by $75, and the fee for placement inactive status is increased by $25.

Chairman Goldwater:

Look at Section 16, paragraph 1.

Sharon Schaffer:

The fees aren’t changed, to my knowledge.

Assemblyman Hettrick:

The old language says, “the Board shall charge and collect pursuant to Chapter 451 or 452 of NRS,” in annual fees, ”sufficient in the aggregate, together with fees received from applicants… to defray the Board’s necessary expenses.” It looks to me like all we’ve done here is clarify the language by saying “an annual fee” by the Board “and they” shall adopt regulations that establish the fee in an amount that is sufficient and aggregate. So, I think we’re only clarifying existing law.

Sharon Shaffer:

There are fees all over the board in each section and we put them in one spot.

Chairman Goldwater:

It seems to me to read…

Sharon Schaffer:

We didn’t raise any fees of the licensee.

Chairman Goldwater:

“The Board adopting regulations establishing an annual fee”?

Sharon Shaffer:

They already have that; it’s already established, and there are caps on those. It’s in the law already. There’s a cap on all the fees that would pertain to the licensing of funeral homes, funeral directors, cemeteries, and crematories.

Chairman Goldwater:

Further questions? Has the Funeral Board filed a disciplinary report, since we’ve required that, with our Legislative Counsel Bureau?

Sharon Shaffer:

We didn’t have any disciplinary action. Our audits are up to date, however. We don’t have any disciplinary reports. We haven’t taken any disciplinary action.

Chairman Goldwater:

That’s good news.

Sharon Schaffer:

I have to tell you our industry has been running very smoothly and we don’t have any complaints.

Jay Gunter, Operator, Gunter’s Funeral Homes, Hawthorne and Tonopah, Nevada:

I’d like to start out with a brief history about this Board [Funeral Board]. This was the sixth Board established in the state of Nevada, in 1929. The secretary that was appointed and started operating in 1931 served in the capacity until 1976. Upon his death, another gentleman was appointed. He served in that capacity, I believe, until about 1992 or so. I was the third secretary-treasurer of this Board since its beginning in 1929.

One of the areas that we noticed is scratched we were able to put in back in 1991, and it would be under Section 10, line 16. It’s the four-year exception, as far as the terms being two 4-year terms. We fought very hard to get that in at that time and we see that’s been omitted there as to eliminate term on this Board. That’s one of the things that I’m here to speak about. We are opposed to that. We do favor term limits, so that’s just one of the things that I wanted to speak to you about.

The other issue is the fees, under subsection 6.3, line 11, this provision of an administrative fee of $75. I’d like some clarification on that. Is that for answering the phone or is that for answering a question? What exactly is that fee? I think it’s pretty open there for discussion. [For] my two little funeral homes, my annual fee is $900 a year for this Board. As far as the fee caps here, that’s fine.

The Board really needs to revisit this issue since we don’t have any specialized people at a crematory or at a cemetery that have to pay an annual renew license. The facility does, but not the people, my people. Field directors’ embalmers have to pay this fee. I think it’s time to look at charging the funeral homes, the cemeteries, and the crematories a dollar assessment per case that they handle each year. It’s a much fairer way and it would give the Board the needed funds to regulate us.

Assemblyman Knecht:

I have a question and a little bit of a problem with each of your points. First of all, as far as term limits go, I support, somewhat reluctantly, term limits for elected office because they are the best practical solutions to certain problems that attend elective office. Those problems, in my mind, don’t attend people serving in employed or in administrative capacities and they don’t attend appointed capacities. I don’t know, for example, whether you would impose term limits on the director. You said the first administrator served some 40 years. It seems to me the public gets a lot of benefit out of continuity and the appointing authority will know when to impose a term limit, so just telling me that, “We had term limits in there, and therefore we ought to continue them or go back to them,” isn’t very persuasive. I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that viewpoint. It seems to me that the factors that attend term limits for elected officials don’t attend or require them for appointed officials. Then I want to take up your other point with you.

Jay Gunter:

If we go through and look at all the other boards, the Pharmacy Board, the Agriculture Board, all have term limits. They’ve been there for years. We’ve got this time limit in. I think we’re looking at a little different scheme of things. From 1929 until 1976, approximately, there were less than 30 funeral homes in the state of Nevada, and I don’t know what the current number is now; I’m sure it’s well over 100. When it was small and had little pull, maybe that individual, Silas Ross, did well serve the state of Nevada, but it was also extremely difficult if you weren’t a native Nevadan to get a license, and if you didn’t belong to a certain social group, you didn’t get a license. I can tell you most of the funeral directors that were licensed prior to me all had to take that state board [exam] two and three times. I hold license number 18 of funeral directors. My embalmer’s license is 186. I realize that the complexion has changed, but I think it’s healthy because we have more people who are willing and want to serve in that capacity. We need to have that in there.

Assemblyman Knecht:

I appreciate those answers and some insight on the history there. I have to say I’m not particularly persuaded, but I did want to give you that opportunity. Turning to the matter of fees, it seems to me that the cost to the state is what ought to determine the fee that’s charged and the cost to the state is not completely variable in the number of cases that a funeral home handles each year. I’m wondering, in view of that, why we would want to charge per funeral or per case.

Jay Gunter:

I’m currently paying $900 a year. I handle approximately 125 to 150 burial/cremations a year. Las Vegas Palm, let’s use them as an example, they’re doing a little over 6,000 a year. You can use the Walton chain up here. They’re doing about 5,000 a year. So, you can look at it that way, and it’s not going to hurt anybody to pay their fee based on their business, as opposed to capping higher and higher on the fees. As I pointed out, you don’t have anybody specially licensed. They don’t have to go to college; they don’t have to have any special kind of schooling, and [are not] required to have any kind of testing to run a crematory or to do a burial at a cemetery. They have to have a license, yes, to run a private cemetery in this state. I think the fee is $1,000. I don’t know what the renewal is. I believe it’s probably a $200 establishment fee or something like that. But, at the same time, it’s like we’re being picked on because we’re the ones that have the embalmers and the funeral directors.

Assemblyman Knecht:

I think we have a little bit more common ground there. I think that the cost to the state, again, should be the marker here. The cost to the state is partially, but not totally, variable in the number of events that you, or that a licensee is handling. Therefore, I can understand a hybrid, or a two-part fee, with an additional payment, plus a payment per case, burial, or event. I would certainly support that as an alternative here, or with direction to the Board to develop such a fee, but I don’t think it should be purely that the fee would be linear, in terms of the number of cases. I thank you for your input.

Chairman Goldwater:

Are there further questions for this witness? There are none.

Jim Smolenski, General Manager, Fitzhenry’s funeral Homes, Carson City and Gardnerville:

[Introduced himself.] I too am speaking against Senate Bill 323. First and foremost, of course, is in regard to the term-limits of the Board members appointed by the Governor. I believe I’ve had copies made for at least four of the responses that I got from various funeral homes throughout the state (Exhibit G). There are a couple of other gentlemen here that represent quite a number of other funeral homes. The majority states that we all firmly believe there should be some term limits for the Funeral Board. The funeral industry is a rather unique industry. It is constantly changing. That’s why I feel there should be that opportunity for change to be in the regulatory portion of this Board.

Furthermore, I have one other question in regard to Section 6.3, under the fee structure. You’ve got application for a license, you’ve got examination for a license, renewal of a license, late renewal, reactivation, but in this industry, like Mr. Gunter had mentioned, I have to hold four different licenses, and this does not distinguish as to which license we are talking about. I am a licensed embalmer; I am a licensed funeral director; I hold a license for an establishment and also for a crematory. Just like Mr. Gunter said, he had to pay over $900. I pay over $1100 to operate two establishments within the state of Nevada. In the other NRS statutes, I believe it says not to exceed a certain amount, but in Section 6.3, where it spells out the set fee, it doesn’t say which license is which.

Chairman Goldwater:

Questions for this witness?

Wil Keane:

You are correct that Section 6.3 does not contain the language “up to, but not more than, or anything equivalent to that,” so you’re right. These would be fees that would have to be charged or could not charge a lesser fee. That was your first point, I believe. On another point, since it does not specify which license or which renewal, it would apply to whichever fee. Well let me back up a step. There are particular sections in the chapter that require you, if you’re going to renew your licenses and embalmer, to pay a fee that’s required. I believe that all of those sections have been changed or refer to this Section 6.3, so that whatever your license would be, that would be the fee for it. So, there wouldn’t be a differentiation. I’m just saying that to clarify.

Jay Gunter:

In regard to that response, then, for me to renew my embalmer’s license, I pay $100. If I’m renewing a license, it’s gone to $200. So, in other words, the fee has gone up. [The] funeral director’s [fee] is $150, an establishment is $250, and crematory is $250.

Wil Keane:

My understanding is that several of the fees were increased. My understanding that the fees for applications, examinations, late renewals, were all intended to be increased by $75 and the fee for placement in inactive status is increased by $25. If that’s not accurate, I’d be happy to go back and make sure those fee increases were done properly.

Jay Gunter:

I apologize for not being very organized here, but a lot of us did not even hear about these changes or even that this bill was being produced until last week. If there was supposed to be a public workshop or a Board meeting, there has not been any notification to any of the funeral homes that this was taking place.

Chairman Goldwater:

Chairwoman Shaffer, did the Board itself discuss this submission of this bill?

Sharon Schaffer:

Everything here was discussed at Board meetings. Our legal is here also.

Chairman Goldwater:

Your legislative agenda was discussed at the Board meeting?

Sharon Shaffer:

And all put into the bill form.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I guess this question is for you in light of the industry’s concern about the term limit and the fees. Would you be willing to eliminate those sections from the bill?

Sharon Schaffer:

The fees are spelled out. We have our legal deputy here.

George Campbell, Deputy Attorney General, Attorney Generals Office:

Just to provide a point of clarification on the renewal issue that was raised. The statement was made that it’s going from $100 to $200. I don’t believe that’s correct. I think the statute, and it shows here that it’s currently $200, and the number here is the same, $200. As to each application, it’s another $375. That’s an opportunity for the Board, by regulation, to raise it to $375. It’s currently $300. Perhaps I’d answered the question that was just asked, I’m not sure.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I guess my question was that industry seems concerned about the term limits being eliminated. Would there be any objection to eliminating the elimination to satisfy the industry’s concern?

Sharon Shaffer:

I guess it would be all right. We felt that it would be up to the Governors to decide that. There aren’t a lot of Boards that have term limits. When the new Board was formed in 1993, that was put in there, but we felt that would be a better way to let the Governor decide whether he wanted the Board members or not. It’s always hard to get Board members, too.

Gerald Hitchcock, member, State Funeral Board:

I am currently a member of the Funeral Board. Just the point to make, I was not aware that the term limits was going to be on this bill. The fees and all of that was going to go through, but, as far as term limits, I was not aware that was going to be on, and I’m a Board member.

Chairman Goldwater:

And you attended all of the meetings?

Gerald Hitchcock:

Yes.

Chairman Goldwater:

How did that make it in there? These things don’t come without someone asking for them.

Sharon Shaffer:

I think it was discussed with our A.G. when he was writing the [bill] up and he put that in.

Chairman Goldwater:

Did you put this submission in?

George Campbell:

I think this is how this came out of LCB.

Chairman Goldwater:

So, they wanted to repeal term limits?

George Campbell:

No, I think LCB was given a shopping list of what the Board wanted. They wanted, as I understand the discussion, sort of a blending of the three NRS Chapters – 642, 451, and 452 – to get rid of some inconsistencies, house cleaning, that sort of thing. You’re asking me to test my memory of meetings that occurred probably a year ago. I just don’t know.

Sharon Shaffer:

Ms. Buckley, if I may? If there is that much of a problem with it, eliminate it. We didn’t think there was any problem, but evidently there is. Most of the people that are here don’t come to Board meetings. We wish they would, but they don’t come to Board meetings.

Chairman Goldwater:

Further testimony?

Jim Smolenski:

One other thing, Mr. Chairman, in regards to other term limits. Just in another Senate bill that I had picked up because there was some reference to it in regards to funeral [people]. Senate Bill 310, just in there alone, I highlighted three Boards that are appointed by the Governor that do have term limits. Thank you.

Lewis Noel, representing Walton’s Family Funeral Home:

I have been asked by Ed [McCaffrey] and Tammy [Brunson], representing Walton’s Family Funeral Homes, nine chapels in northern Nevada, to relay to you they are adamantly opposed to having term limits on the Board positions.

Chairman Goldwater:

Is there further testimony on Senate Bill 323? We will close the hearing on Senate Bill 323. We will open the hearing on Senate Bill 429.

Senate Bill 429 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to community antenna television systems and video programming services. (BDR 58‑1072)

Bob Gastonguay, Executive Director, Nevada State Cable:

We’re here to let the Committee know that this is a joint bill between Charter Communications and CC Communications, or Churchill County Telephone Company. During the interim there was a committee chaired by Senator Schneider on local government. This bill came from the interim committee, local government, and private businesses in the same business. CC Communications is a long-standing telephone company in Churchill County. They had built up their system to include fiber optics and are now selling cable television as well. Charter Communications had some issues with local government getting into our business and we resolved it through this particular piece of legislation. If you so desire, I will go through the bill, or I will entertain questions.

Chairman Goldwater:

Let’s go through the bill, Bob.

Bob Gastonguay:

In Section 1, we felt, as a private enterprise, that if you’re going to be in our business, you need to have a franchise in order to provide cable television. Section 1 does just that. It makes the individual who is getting into the business comply with all federal, state, and local television, cable community, and antenna television provisions. The phone company wanted an interlocal agreement and we conceded to allowing interlocal agreement to take place. In Section 2, to “the governing body of a county whose population is 50,000 or more,” we added, “and any entity or agency that is directly or indirectly controlled by such a city,” such as Churchill County Telephone Company. Section 2, subsection 2, if the governing body of a county or any entity is in business as of April 1, 2003, they are basically grandfathered in and can continue to do business as such. Section 4 puts the “teeth” of protecting the private company and I’m going to turn that one over to Russ to give an explanation of how that does that.

Russell Rowe, CC Communications:

[Introduced himself.] To state it briefly, Section 4 prohibits the County from certain acts. Three specifically: (1) selling video programming services at cost, (2) use their general revenue funds for the provision of those services, (3) to prohibit them from using their status to create any preference for them because they’re the governing body and essentially grant franchises to the private entities that come to them and with whom they compete. It’s important there’s a provision that they won’t grant any preferences to themselves nor use their status to discriminate against any private provider. Section 7 essentially creates provisions to enforce Section 4. That uses NRS Chapter 354, which sets out the requirements for local governing bodies to audit themselves and remit those audits to the state controller. Under that provision, Churchill County would have to show they’ve complied with Section 4 and signed a declaration saying that they’ve done so. That is essentially it. If you have any questions, we’d be happy to answer them.

Chairman Goldwater:

Russell or Bob, why all of the analogies between this and S.B. 400 and the references to the Federal Code, the same Federal Code, the definitions?

Bob Gastonguay:

Originally, the BDR was set aside for SBC [Communications] and some of their broadband issues that are in S.B. 400. We gutted the bill as a whole and utilized it to resolve the issues between Churchill Telephone Company and Charter Communications.

Chairman Goldwater:

[Discussion ensued over the bill and the Committee received the correct reprint of S.B. 429]. OK, this is a much different bill. Ms. Buckley, please.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I’m sorry, but I think I missed something. What’s wrong right now that you want to get fixed?

Russell Rowe:

The heart of the bill, essentially, is trying to level the playing field between a governing body, Churchill County Communications, and a private entity, which is Charter Communications. There are two major sections to the bill. One is the first introduced by Bob, which essentially says Churchill County Communications will enter into franchise agreements if it operates outside of its jurisdiction, or it will enter into franchise agreements or into local agreements if it operates within its jurisdiction of the County, to try and level the playing field. In fact, Churchill County Communications is doing that right now. They’re in the process of negotiating an interlocal agreement with the city of Fallon. The second half of the bill, which is what I summarized, is an enforcement mechanism to make sure Churchill County is complying with that, so there is a level playing field between the county, the public body, and the private entity that’s also competing with Churchill County and their jurisdiction.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

So, we have one government, Churchill, instead of wanting to run the boring television shows that are free, they actually want to get into the cable business and compete?

Russell Rowe:

That’s correct. Churchill County is the oldest and, I think, publicly owned telephone company in the county. It began in the 1800s and was a telegraph service and it’s been consistently owned since then. Over the last ten years they’ve expanded because of advances in communication technologies. They’ve been able to offer more services over those telephone lines, Internet, cable, and those types of services. Of course, with Charter Communications also involved, we want to make sure there’s a level playing field with everyone involved.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

And are they here today to oppose it?

Bob Gastonguay:

There is no opposition to this particular piece of legislation from our perspective. Both CC Communications and Charter Communications worked this out and this is the end piece of legislation.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

And, why are they still in the business? I’m just kind of curious.

Russell Rowe:

I’m sorry, “they” being? [Assemblywoman Buckley indicated Churchill County.] Just because they’ve always been in the business and now their revenues represent about $25 million to Churchill County itself. It has a large number of employees. It’s just a very significant base of revenue that’s been with Churchill County for years. If this were to disappear, it would be a significant blow to Churchill County.

Assemblywoman Buckley:

So, if this bill passes, will it harm Churchill County and that revenue you just mentioned?

Russell Rowe:

No, we don’t believe so. Churchill County is already, as I said, negotiating with the city of Fallon to enter into a similar and a local agreement where it would pay what would equate to the same franchise fee that Charter Communications pays. So, they don’t have any problem doing that and don’t anticipate it will impact them negatively.

Chairman Goldwater:

Has Churchill County ever considered selling this franchise?

Russell Rowe:

I think they’ve been approached, but I don’t know their history enough to say specifically. I think they have been approached, but again, whether they’re actually out actively trying to sell it, I am not sure.

Bob Gastonguay:

To our knowledge, they have been so successful that they actually built out their fiber system and that allowed them, with the technology, to be able to get into the cable television business. So, to answer your question, I don’t think so.

Assemblyman Beers:

Was Charter already doing business in Churchill County when they built out their fiber?

Bob Gastonguay:

Yes, they were. Charter has been serving in Churchill, Fallon Navy Base, and the city of Fallon ever since I have been in the cable business. That is 22 years and I believe in the series of success, that is prior to AT&T, TCI, and so forth down the line, so they have been in the cable television business in that particular jurisdiction for well over 20 years.

Assemblyman Beers:

CATV, I think, is purely taking the television signal in the air and reproducing it at a home that’s down below the mountain, whereas cable would be additional video services, which sounds like CC is doing now. Are they servicing any other areas besides Fallon?

Bob Gastonguay:

Just to clarify the record, CATV is an acronym for community antenna television system, or cable TV. They are one and the same, basically. CC Communications, vis á vis their telephone system, is providing the same product over an open video system, which is a similar product.

Assemblyman Beers:

When did they start offering more than an antenna that’s higher up than your house? When did they expand their offerings beyond the available…?

Bob Gastonguay:

It’s been in the last two to three years.

Chairman Goldwater:

I will close the hearing on Senate Bill 429 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 445. [No one was there to testify on S.B. 445, so Chairman Goldwater closed the hearing on S.B. 445].

Senate Bill 445: Revises provisions governing grants of money from Fund for the Promotion of Tourism by Committee for the Development of Projects Relating to Tourism. (BDR 18-510)

[Chairman Goldwater opened the hearing on S.B. 491].

Senate Bill 491 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes regarding bidding on contracts for public works of this state. (BDR 28-487)

Dan O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board:

Renny Ashleman, one of our Board members, will be in shortly to assist me. We’re requesting your support for the passage of Senate Bill 491. The intent of this bill is to help the state facilitate successful construction projects. As the manager of the state agency that is responsible for the construction and millions of dollars worth of state facilities, it’s very important that we have all of the tools necessary to successfully complete our projects on time, within budget, in the most cost-efficient manner. One of those tools is the “qualification of bidders of provisions” that’s currently within NRS 338.1375. Currently, as adopted, the qualification of bidders provisions does not require that subcontractors who work for general contractors on state construction projects be qualified through the state’s process.

[Mr. O’Brien continued.] The first items that are contained within this bill regard subcontractors and the presumed qualification of them. During the process that we were going through originally, we proposed that all subcontractors would be qualified to be required to go through the qualification of bidders process, but it became evident that that was a huge burden that would be placed upon the state to do that. Through amendments we changed that to require that they would be presumed qualified. If verifiable evidence was provided to the Public Works Board, it would then require that the subcontractor submit an application for qualification, and we would go through and do the investigation into their past performance. This bill addresses nine different areas within the qualification of bidders process.

The first issue is prequalification, or presumed prequalification of subcontractors that is within Section 1, page 1. We attempted to provide a process that is not a burden to subcontractors. It would only require us to conduct an investigation if we have received verifiable evidence of past performance problems. Also, there are provisions that a subcontractor may appeal a disqualification that has been determined through the normal process that we’ve already established through our regulations. The Public Works Board may disqualify a subcontractor for a period of time and also the criteria used would be the same criteria that we had used for a prime contractor. I know there may be some questions regarding that particular issue, but if you like, I’ll go ahead and go through all of the nine issues first. I think most of them are pretty much just clean up areas that we need when it comes to time frames.

One of the items was the truthfulness and completeness of the application. This is Section 3, subsection 3(b)(6). If there’s a situation where a subcontractor or contractor submits information, currently as a general contractor, that is not complete on the application or we find it’s not truthful, that could be grounds for disqualification. The next item is Section 4, page 3, lines 37-40. These really are the third and fourth issues. This reflects the concerns we have regarding time periods. We’re asking for additional days because some of the days that are provided are not sufficient to render decisions and to go through the necessary processes. The 10 days that’s listed on line 37 is being requested to go to 20 days. The 20 days is requested to 45 days. If both parties agree to extending the time, then that’s allowed and being addressed here.

The fifth issue is burden of proof. Currently, there’s a question as to which party has to provide the burden of proof in an appeal. I believe Renny could address any specific questions on this. Renny is the Chairman of our Appeals Board and has done a great job with his background in that appeals process, making sure that we have all of our information correct.

[Mr. O’Brien continued.] The sixth issue is the subpoena power of the Appeals Board. We are requesting that the Appeals Board would be able to administer oaths, take testimony, issue subpoenas, require the production of related information, and issue commissions to take testimony. If the Appeals Board is really going to do its job and hear appeals, it needs to have information provided to it.

The seventh issue is that a prime contractor in a design build team must be prequalified. The eighth issue is that a prime contractor must be qualified prior to submitting a preliminary proposal. The ninth, and final issue, is that the minimum number of design bill finalists required when one or more finalists are either disqualified or withdrawn is at least two remaining finalists. This was an issue that has come up on past design bill situations where some of the finalists withdrew. We want to make sure that we don’t have to start the process all over again. That ends my testimony. I’d like to turn over to Renny Ashleman, who can talk about some possible amendments, or some issues that have come up.

Renny Ashleman, representing State Public Works Board:

Part of this bill involves an issue that has been very active, at least in Government Affairs, and that’s the issue of prequalifying contractors. We think we can do that at the present time on an individual basis. We had contemplated qualifying all subcontractors and decided that it was just entirely too burdensome. There were far too many of them, since just the prime contractors took an awful lot of Board time and staff time. We thought we ought try to regularize under what condition you could disqualify a subcontractor under and how you would have appeal rights and so on. You’re going to hear from, I think, diametrically opposite points of view on that entire thing, so I’m not going to beat it to death. I suggest that the parts of the bill that deal with procedures, taking testimony and being able to issue subpoenas and so on, are extremely important to us. Either way, you make a policy decision on the prequalification of subcontractors.

There is a concern by all of the local governments brought to my attention, and of course I also represent Clark County, as you know. Page 6, line 6, subsection 6, and line 31, subsection 2(f), drag the local governments into these rules. They have their own set of rules and their own procedures and they don’t want to be dragged in. I’ve talked to LCB, who preliminarily agreed with that. Now I think they think they are probably all right.

[Mr. Ashleman continued.] I think that the local governments very strongly feel they would like to see an amendment, which I didn’t have because LCB didn’t tell me about their position until before the hearing. They would like to make it clear that they’re being dealt with under their own rules and their own procedures. We never intended to bring them in. With one exception: under Section 8, page 7, line 33, also affects the locals, but it has to because you don’t want to have a situation where one person is disqualified and you have to start all over again on the design bill. Those are my comments. I tried to keep them very brief and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman Goldwater:

Renny, let me get this straight. On page 6, subsection 6, you think that needs to be eliminated?

Renny Ashleman:

No, I think it needs an amendment that makes it expressly clear that it does not affect the local governments, and the same thing on subsection 2(f).

Chairman Goldwater:

Why would the local governments be exempt?

Renny Ashleman:

Because they have their own methods of qualifying and disqualifying in dealing with subcontractors. They’re somewhat different from ours, and the State Public Works Board is more willing to be proactive in the disqualification area than the locals are. That’s really the nub of it.

Assemblyman Brown:

First of all, I’ll disclose again that I’m an attorney who sometimes represents contractors. I wouldn’t be affected by this any differently than any other [attorney]. With that disclosure, I’ve had occasion to deal with the prequalification statutes or ordinances with some of the local governments and I have to tell the Committee, and maybe our witness here, that some of this stuff really drives me crazy. I see some real problems. I have concerns about the verifiable information. I know we’ve defined that as being disciplined or defined by the State Contractors Board, but I can tell you there are minimal offenses that sometimes draw those types of fines, that are related to tardy filings and things like that. So, I have some misgiving about that.

I also have some misgivings about handing over the criteria for establishment of regulations. I think the real problem I have is the various regulations coming out of all the different public agencies and departments. Many of them have provisions that state “records of complaints,” or “records of facts,” and, if they’re mere allegations that are being recorded, you’ve got some serious due process issues. It sure would be nice to try to get all of these agencies to have a standard set of criteria instead of being all over the Board. Some of the provisions are based upon mere allegations and create due process problems.

[Assemblyman Brown continued.] One provision here that’s not part of the bill, but is included in this statute that I’ve always, frankly, had a problem with, is whether the applicant has breached any contract with a public agency or person in this state or any other state. That’s any contract, and I’m not sure how you can really get your hands around that. Contracts are breached for a lot of reasons, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, but I see some problems with that. I would ask, at least for these particular witnesses, relative to the subpoena power on page 4, are you anticipating the ability for the applicant that has been either denied or disqualified to have the right to compel, or is that just the right that the Board has to compel?

Renny Ashleman:

On the item that you were talking about, the subpoena power, either the state or the applicant would have the right to ask us to issue subpoenas in a given case where it was appropriate. We had to drop an entire case because a local government had disqualified somebody and they refused to testify in any way unless we subpoenaed them. It was most unfortunate in that situation, so they end up being qualified without any examination. As to the rest of your comments, if you’d like me to comment on them I will, but I didn’t understand it to be a question.

Assemblyman Brown:

And it wasn’t. Maybe you and I could sit down and talk about it later.

Chairman Goldwater:

Are there questions from the Committee?

Wil Keane:

Mr. Ashleman, I just wanted to clarify. On page 6, subsection 6, and the subsection 2(f), were you suggesting that those be amended so they do not apply to local government under any conditions, or amended just so they do not apply to local governments that are proceeding under NRS 338.143 through 338.148?

Renny Ashleman:

They have an entire set of bills of their own dealing with this sort of information. I just don’t want a request of the Public Works Board to undo the work that they’ve been doing for two years in Committee on those issues. I think we’d have to look at what they did to answer your question. I’d be happy to sit down and discuss that with you or have them do that. This is an extremely tricky area of the law, as you know, so if you would do that, I’d be very appreciative.

Chairman Goldwater:

Further questions from the Committee? I don’t see anyone. Dan [O’Brien], all I would leave you with is [this]: these are the kinds of issues I think, I’ve spoken with you on Ways and Means, the entire publics works process of checks and balances and processes I think needs to be looked at by an interim study with resources and time. I would do it if I had the time. It would be a great service to the people of the state.

Is there anyone else here that would like to testify on Senate Bill 491?

Lori Ashton, Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters:

[Introduced herself.] We commend the State Public Works Board for, as Dan and Renny both stated, being proactive. They’re the only entities that have willfully addressed the issue of subcontractors. Ninety percent of the work on public works is done by subcontractors. When opposition to this bill is asked if they don’t want to address who does 90 percent of the work, are they willing to utilize a disqualification to a general who chooses to use subcontractors that violate the law? They say, “Absolutely not, that’s a contract issue.” With that, we agree with the ability for a public body to take a look at a subcontractor to see that they are qualified to do the work, that they have not violated, willfully, the law in contracts against workers: Where they continue to degrade the bidding process, when they cheat and they do it continually, and they do it habitually, I think the public bodies have a responsibility to the public to remove them from that process. At some point, I would hope that they are totally removed from even hurting private citizens. We commend them for their efforts to address this. We would sincerely hope that this Committee and the Assembly passes this and then maybe, if the other side doesn’t pass one, local governments, in two years, we can see which process best works.

Chairman Goldwater: