MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-second Session
March 12, 2003
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 7:05 a.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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 Warren B. Hardy II, Vice Chairman
Senator Ann O'Connell
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Michael Schneider
Senator Maggie Carlton
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Courtney Wise, Committee Policy Analyst
Lynn Hendricks, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Debra Scott, R.N., M.S., A.P.N., Executive Director, Administration, Nursing Practice, Compliance, Nevada State Board of Nursing
Fred L. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Nursing, and McDonald's Corporation
Robin L. Keith, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Rural Hospital Partners Foundation
Doreen Begley, Lobbyist, Nurse Executive, Nevada Hospital Association
Terry Jacobs, Member, State of Nevada Employees Association, and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041
Maureen Hanifin, R.N.
Lisa Black, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Nurses Association
Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Southwest Medical Associates
Cathy Dinauer, Chief Nursing Officer, Carson-Tahoe Hospital
Jerri Strasser, Member, Service Employees International Union, and Nurse Alliance
Debbie J. Smith, Lobbyist, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, and Service Employees International Union No. 1107
Carin Ralls, Organizer, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor‑Congress of Industrial Organizations
David Rosin, M.D., Medical Program Coordinator-Statewide Mental Health, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services, Department of Human Resources
Cynthia A. Pyzel, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners
Jerry Gulyes, Government Relations Chairman, Mystery Shopping Providers Association
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada
Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, T-Mobile, and Marriage and Family Therapists
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association
Andrea Boggs, Member, Nevada Society of Professional Investigators
Chuck Kenerson, President, QSI Specialists
James Bartel, Member, Nevada Society of Professional Investigators
Gina Crown, Owner, Crown, Stanley, and Silverman Investigation and Security Services
Dorothy B. North, Lobbyist, President, Board of Examiners for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors
Richard Harjoe, Chairman, Nevada Indian Commission
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter
Kevin Quint, Vice President, Board of Examiners for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors
Chairman Townsend:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 93.
SENATE BILL 93: Authorizes State Board of Nursing to allow certain persons to practice nursing in this state without license issued by Board. (BDR 54‑96)
Debra Scott, R.N., M.S., A.P.N., Executive Director of Administration, Nursing Practice, Compliance, State Board of Nursing:
This bill presents a short-term way to deal with Nevada’s nursing shortage. I have a presentation developed by Laura Poe, Utah State Board of Nursing, describing the benefits of the mutual recognition compact (Exhibit C). Regulations have not kept pace with changing technology. For example, a nurse who advises an out-of-state patient via e-mail or telephone must be licensed in the state where the patient lives. The National Council of State Boards of Nursing met to address these issues and came up with the model of the mutual recognition compact. A compact is an agreement between two or more states to remedy a problem of multistate concern. Each state enacts the compact via legislation. The nurse licensure compact addresses jurisdiction, discipline, information sharing, and compact administration. Eighteen states are currently involved in this compact.
Under the compact, nurses who live in other states with which we have made this compact would be licensed and pay fees in their home states only and work in Nevada on a practice privilege, not on a license. States in the compact share information about discipline via Nursys, a nationwide database run by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. We currently share information about disciplinary actions that have been taken. Mutual recognition would also tell us when nurses had pending significant investigations.
Senator Neal:
Why does the bill refers to an agreement rather than a compact?
Fred l. Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Nursing (NSBN), and McDonald's Corporation:
I am representing the NSBN in this matter. The bill drafting people asked us not to name the actual compact but rather define it and use the term “agreement” rather than “compact.”
Senator Neal:
This seems to speak more to reciprocity than improvement of health care. Are we leading to the unionization of nurses nationally?
Ms. Scott:
I see it as a bill for access to health care. We are currently able to have nurses come in through endorsement, which is a type of reciprocity.
Mr. Hillerby:
The bill does allow some flexibility. It lets nurses in border towns work in both states without having to be licensed in both states.
Senator Neal:
We have a nursing school in southern Nevada. Is the school not meeting our needs?
Mr. Hillerby:
There are several nursing schools in Nevada, but they only turn out half of the nurses we need.
Senator Neal:
Why is California not a part of the mutual recognition compact?
Mr. Hillerby:
Because of California’s size, this compact is not as important to them at this point. Three of our other border states, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona, are part of the compact.
Senator Neal:
The bill says, “The board may enter in an agreement with one or more states.” This would make it appear that the board of nursing will be given the option to select the states they want to enter into an agreement with.
Mr. Hillerby:
If we join the compact, Nevada will partner with all 18 states. The agreement is mutual between all involved states. I will get you a copy of the compact.
Senator O’Connell:
Why is the agreement temporary?
Mr. Hillerby:
We included the sunset provision as a safeguard to provide an opportunity to reconsider the compact after 10 years. I hope we will be back to remove that provision before 2013.
Senator Carlton:
How long does it currently take for a nurse licensed in another state to get a license in Nevada?
Ms. Scott:
It can take 10 to 14 days, though it is usually quicker.
Senator Carlton:
I have some questions about traveling nurses. Do your regulations currently allow for traveling nurses? How long can they stay in Nevada? Do they get paid more? What is the philosophy behind having traveling nurses?
Ms. Scott:
Traveling nurses go through the same licensing process as other nurses. As long as they have active Nevada licenses, they can practice here. I do not know how salaries compare.
Mr. Hillerby:
The traveling nurse is one way for hospitals to address nursing shortages. They are provided by companies hired by hospitals to fill their staffing gaps. Hospitals prefer to use local nurses if possible.
Senator Carlton:
I disagree with your statement that Nevada does not have enough nurses. We do not have enough nurses in the hospitals, but there are many nurses working in doctors’ offices, inactive, retired, or doing specialty work. I would like the board to provide us with some numbers so we can better understand the problem.
Ms. Scott:
There are 17,000 licensed nurses in Nevada, of which about one-fourth have out-of-state addresses. I do not know if these are traveling nurses.
Senator Schneider:
How does this affect malpractice insurance for nurses? Who pays for it and what is the cost?
Mr. Hillerby:
Some nurses opt to carry their own malpractice insurance. Most nurses who work in hospitals are covered by the hospital’s insurance. There is no distinction between local and traveling nurses.
Senator Schneider:
If a traveling nurse has had a problem in another state, is there any way to track that?
Ms. Scott:
The license application asks advance practice nurses if they have been named in malpractice suits. It asks registered nurses (RNs) and licensed vocational nurses if they have a conviction or a civil liability. The information is then weighed by the board for potential danger to the public.
Mr. Hillerby:
Section 1 of the bill allows the board to enter into an agreement saying that nurses licensed in the other participating states can practice in Nevada without acquiring a Nevada license. Paragraph (a) of subsection 1 requires that all participating states have equivalent licensing requirements. Nevada meets or exceeds those requirements. Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 gives the board the right to restrict the privilege of any nurse to practice in Nevada. This agreement can only be changed if all participating states agree to the change. If the agreement changes to eliminate either of these protections, paragraph (c) of subsection 2 requires the NSBN to withdraw from the agreement. Subsections 3 and 4 allow the board to restrict or revoke the privileges of nurses licensed in a state that lowers its standards to a level we find unacceptable. We would like to thank Wil Keane in the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Legal Division for his help in drafting this bill.
Robin L. Keith, Lobbyist, President, Nevada Rural Hospital Partners Foundation:
I would like to make a brief statement in support of this bill (Exhibit D). Access to care is the issue here. Rural hospitals would far rather rely on Nevada-based nurses than on traveling nurses.
Doreen Begley, Lobbyist, Nurse Executive, Nevada Hospital Association:
I am the founding chairperson of the Nursing Institute of Nevada. We are in total support of this bill, as noted in my testimony (Exhibit E). In 2002, Debra Scott and I visited 27 hospitals throughout Nevada and held open forums on the mutual recognition compact. In discussion with 450 practicing nurses, we heard no overt opposition to the proposal.
Terry Jacobs, State of Nevada Employees Association and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 4041:
We support this bill, which we hope will be a tool used to better access care for Nevada.
Maureen Hanifin, R.N.:
I have been a nurse for 24 years, and I would like to support this bill. Mutual recognition is an effort to open the doors for nursing in Nevada and allow us to move into the twenty-first century for health care. Hospitals in southern Nevada are overcrowded. We need to use every tool available to attract nurses to Nevada.
Lisa Black, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Nurses Association:
When the concept of mutual recognition was brought before this committee in the last session, the Nevada Nurses Association was unable to fully support the legislation. We have been working with the NSBN and have reached compromise language that addresses our concerns (Exhibit F). We now support this bill.
Senator Neal:
Which states first initiated this compact?
Ms. Black:
The first state in the compact was Utah, which initiated the process in 1999 and implemented it in 2000. I am not sure of the entry order of the remaining states, but I believe Texas was next.
Senator Neal:
How many members are there on the NSBN?
Ms. Black:
There are seven board members.
Jack Kim, Lobbyist, Southwest Medical Associates:
We support this bill as one way to alleviate the nursing shortage.
Cathy Dinauer, Chief Nursing Officer, Carson-Tahoe Hospital:
I support this bill. Mutual recognition will reduce time to validate a license and expedite the hiring process while maintaining safe nursing care. We hire traveling nurses and want to decrease the number.
Jerri Strasser, Member, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Nurse Alliance:
We oppose this bill, as noted in my written testimony (Exhibit G).
Debbie J. Smith, Lobbyist, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 and SEIU No. 1107:
We oppose this bill.
Carin Ralls, Organizer, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3:
We oppose this bill. Nevada has some of the highest standards for licensed nurses in the nation. Nevada requires nurses to complete 30 continuing education units (CEUs) every 2 years. Of the 18 states in this compact, 12 do not require any CEUs, 4 require less than 30, and only 2 require 30. If we are part of this compact, we will be allowing nurses with a lower standard of education to practice in Nevada. The nursing shortage in Nevada is the result of demoralizing hospital working environments. Hospitals are understaffed and place profits above patient care. Mutual recognition is not the answer and will make it easier for Nevada-based nurses to practice out of state.
Danny Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State American Federation of Labor‑Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO):
We are opposed to this bill. A similar bill died in this committee last session. There are more trained and licensed nurses in Nevada now than empty positions in hospitals. Hospitals cannot fill their current vacancies because of staffing standards and difficult working conditions.
Chairman Townsend:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 93 and open the hearing on S.B. 133.
SENATE BILL 133: Revises requirements for certain licenses to practice medicine if applicant intends to practice medicine at certain mental health centers under certain circumstances. (BDR 54-508)
David A. Rosin, M.D., Medical Program Coordinator-Statewide Mental Health, Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services (MHDS), Department of Human Resources:
This bill will allow MHDS to better provide psychiatric care during times of staffing shortages to persons suffering from mental illness. The bill would restore the division’s ability to hire locum tenens psychiatrists to stand in for a staff psychiatrist who is ill or in case of a staffing shortage. We are unable to do this presently because of a change made at the end of the Seventy-First Session requiring psychiatrists who have not passed their psychiatric boards recently to pass a general medical exam before they are licensed.
Chairman Townsend:
Was this the result of a legal interpretation at the end of the last session?
Cynthia A. Pyzel, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General:
Senate Bill No. 91 of the 71st Session made very slight language changes in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 630.160, subsection 2, paragraph (d), that had profound results for the mental health systems. Section 17 of that bill changed the education requirement for licensure from “3 years of graduate education” to “36 months of progressive post-graduate education.” We appeared before the Board of Medical Examiners on this issue because our system was in crisis trying to hire psychiatrists, and it was recommended we take the issue to the Legislature.
Senator O'Connell:
The concern I have in looking at NRS 630.160, subsection 2, paragraph (e), is that we would be waiving all testing. I know what you are trying to accomplish, but I am not sure this is the best way to attack the situation. As you point out, very slight language changes can have very dramatic effects.
Chairman Townsend:
Are we going to lower standards? We do not want to whipsaw and create a problem in the opposite direction.
Ms. Pyzel:
Senate Bill 133 was drafted to make sure MHDS would not supersede the Board of Medical Examiners. It would allow MHDS to petition the board to waive the oral and/or written examinations for individual locum tenens psychiatrists. Section 2 outlines this process. The board has ultimate authority and responsibility in this regard.
Chairman Townsend:
The flexibility granted the board in this bill is very broad. Our concern is the bill would allow an unqualified person to slip into the system. I believe the board is sympathetic to your problem.
Keith L. Lee, Lobbyist, State Board of Medical Examiners:
Nevada has the strictest licensing requirements in the country. The board does not want to send the message that we accept lower standards for some specialties than others. Section 2 of bill is drafted to leave discretion to the board, but “discretion” leads to lawsuits. We would rather remove the board from the process altogether. If MHDS thinks an individual psychiatrist is otherwise qualified and should be admitted on a special purpose license for restrictive purposes under the supervision of the State, that takes us out of the picture. The board’s criteria has not changed. The board’s fear is that passage of this bill will lead to requests for exceptions in other areas.
Chairman Townsend:
How long does it take a psychiatrist licensed in another state to get a license in Nevada?
Mr. Lee:
The process starts with a 14-page application, and independent inquiry is made of every state in which the person has worked. The entire process takes 3 to 9 months.
Chairman Townsend:
Without giving up your jurisdiction or changing any standards, would you consider language whereby the State applied for an individual to be allowed to practice immediately, temporarily and under supervision, in order to meet the health needs of the State while the process continues?
Mr. Lee:
I think we could work with this. I question the immediate issuance of a temporary license.
Senator Carlton:
This looks similar to the geographically restrictive provisions of S.B. No. 133 of the 71st Session. Is there a way to fast-track the process as we did in that bill, by having MHDS apply to the specific county commission to ask for reasons of health access and the desperate need?
Chairman Townsend:
Your point is well taken, except that this process is run by the State rather than the county. Can we use the same mechanism we did in that bill last session regarding the need for dentists? Perhaps the three of you could get together to find a resolution.
Ms. Pyzel:
We are always willing to work with Mr. Lee. I understand the board’s concerns and do not want to see litigation based on the use of discretion. We are willing to do everything we can to resolve this problem.
Chairman Townsend:
Dr. Rosin, do we currently have money in the budget to fill the vacancies?
Dr. Rosin:
The figures I gave you are from July and August 2001. After massive recruitment, we currently have only 0.8 of one full-time position vacant. However, the current standard caseload for psychiatrists is roughly 350 people; ours now follow over 800 people. This means in order for them to provide quality care, their appointments are currently booked through June and July. We are staffed to our current funding level, but we need more positions to provide adequate care.
Senator Carlton:
If this effect of the change in language in the last session was unintentional, could we simply change it back?
Mr. Lee:
I do not know if this was intended or not.
Chairman Townsend:
That might be an option. All the interested parties should meet with these three and notify Senator Carlton.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 133 and open the hearing on S.B. 169.
SENATE BILL 169: Revises certain fees related to licensure of hearing aid specialists. (BDR 54-497)
Senator O'Connell:
The fees referred to in this bill have not been raised since 1995.
Chairman Townsend:
The amounts listed in the bill are intended to be caps. The intention is that they would not have to come back every session if fees need to be raised again. Since there are no representatives of the industry here, we will hold the bill for another date.
We will close the hearing on S.B. 169 and open the hearing on S.B. 228.
SENATE BILL 228: Exempts certain persons from provisions governing licensing of private investigators. (BDR 54-876)
Senator Hardy:
I was approached by the Mystery Shopping Providers Association (MSPA) to introduce this bill. In 47 other states, small businesses can offer this service at a reduced rate because they do not have to license mystery shoppers as private investigators.
Jerry Gulyes, Government Relations Chairman, MSPA:
I am president of a company that provides mystery shopper services in Chicago. This bill would exempt members of MSPA from the requirement that mystery shoppers be licensed as private investigators in Nevada. We have done this in the last 3 years in California and Arizona without any opposition. I offer a comprehensive booklet describing the MSPA (Exhibit H. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Chairman Townsend:
What problem does the public face with the way the statute is currently written?
Mr. Gulyes:
The public is not necessarily being provided the full breadth of what our industry is capable of bringing to Nevada. Presently you are served by a small group of individuals who typically offer this service as a secondary or tertiary service.
Senator O'Connell:
Mystery shopping is an extremely important service for retailers, especially for the larger stores. Employees steal more than customers. This is the biggest problem retailers have. Losses are probably in the billions annually, with consequent rise in prices.
Chairman Townsend:
Mr. Gulyes, are you precluded from hiring private investigators?
Mr. Gulyes:
We are not precluded from working with private investigative firms to conduct these services. It does make the price of the service four or five times greater than when we use our own unlicensed employees. I need to point out that looking for theft by employees is clearly the domain of private investigators and not mystery shoppers. Mystery shoppers are independent contractors who evaluate criteria like cleanliness, customer service, and product placement. We will be happy to work with dissenting parties to make sure mystery shopper reports do not result in employee termination. The MSPA was established to create industry-wide standards for this service and maintain high ethics and training.
Mr. Hillerby:
I am representing McDonald’s Corporation, which uses mystery shoppers to improve the quality of service and food. We look at store issues rather than specific personnel. The owner-operator is being evaluated rather than the staff.
Chairman Townsend:
Do the franchise owners know that this is being done?
Mr. Hillerby:
Yes, they are aware.
Mr. Gulyes:
Many franchise owners hire mystery shoppers to make their own evaluation in addition to that done by the larger corporation.
Senator Carlton:
This bill is a little different from S.B. No. 416 of the 71st Session on this same issue. How would you handle workers’ compensation, employee taxes, and so on for the people who do this job? How is it handled in other states?
Mr. Gulyes:
In general mystery shoppers are independent contractors. They are responsible for their own taxes. If a mystery shopper is injured while performing a shop, the store would be liable, as it is for any customer who is injured.
Senator Carlton:
Last session I registered as a mystery shopper on the Internet and got a certificate and form to visit a restaurant, with no pay involved. Is this something your industry still does?
Mr. Gulyes:
The amount we pay mystery shoppers depends on the type of business involved and the individual contract we have with that business. With some restaurants, all we are able to provide is a free meal or perhaps a small stipend. This keeps prices down.
Since S.B. No. 416 of the 71st Session was presented, MSPA has instituted a national certification workshop. We want to ensure that anyone who performs a mystery shop in Nevada is trained and certified to do so with a published list of mystery shoppers. Senator Carlton's experience is not normal. The MSPA wants to reduce this kind of thing by doing workshops here and building up a cadre of certified mystery shoppers locally.
Chairman Townsend:
When you are contracted by a company to provide this service, what percentage ask you to look at theft, at quality of product or service, at the abilities of staff, and at the facility?
Mr. Gulyes:
Mystery shoppers in general do not look for theft. Private investigators are better equipped to deal with such issues. We are mostly asked to evaluate areas of concern such as quality of services, products, facilities, and maintenance. We train employees for each assignment, via e-mail or phone if out of the state. Employees use a specific, developed format to look for specific things. They do not fish for problems or offer opinions.
Chairman Townsend:
I am also concerned about the reference on page 3, line 16, referring to the MSPA “or its successor organization.” We want to establish standards, but why should we tie this to one organization?
Mr. Gulyes:
We are the only association of mystery shopper providers and represent 145 companies. Mystery shopping is not rich enough to support competing associations. We tied the exemption to the MSPA to make sure the work was being done by providers committed to meeting the high standards of ethics and training of the MSPA.
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada (RAN):
We support this bill, but not as written. We prefer the language as used in S.B. No. 416 from the 71st Session. Many members of RAN use mystery shoppers to test for customer service, safety, satisfaction, and marketing strategies. For investigation of theft and dishonesty, we use licensed private investigators or proprietary guards in the large organizations. We are not comfortable with the language reserving exemption to members of MSPA.
As far as Senator Carlton’s Internet experience, I do have to say for the record I am part owner of a private investigations firm, and I am constantly getting Internet invitations to do background investigations on employees, and they are not legal to do in the State of Nevada unless you are licensed. So unfortunately, the Internet does not always follow the rules and regulations of the various states that they approach.
Helen Foley, Lobbyist, T-Mobile, and Marriage and Family Therapists:
I represent T-Mobile in this matter. We support this bill. Mystery shoppers provide a vital service to companies that hear from customers when service is bad but not when it is good. We respect the role of private investigators, who should definitely be involved when disciplinary action is considered.
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association:
We are opposed to this bill. There have been two previous attempts to pass a bill on this matter, and we still have concerns about the language. We would be happy to work with the bill’s sponsors to resolve these issues. I am particularly concerned about the bill being restricted to one organization. We would like to resolve this situation because we are potentially violating the law as interpreted by the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board (PILB). We use spotters under the statutes of the labor board. In the last session, the PILB committed to the gaming industry that they would work on a regulation exempting gaming from a lot of the requirements of the PILB. That has never happened.
Mr. Ostrovsky:
We have a problem with the language about criminal activity. We look for and pursue criminal activity in the gaming industry. Usually the actual arrest is made by the Gaming Control Board. We prefer the language from S.B. No. 416 of the 71st Session. We will be happy to work with the PILB and/or the bill’s sponsor on these matters.
Andrea Boggs, Member, Nevada Society of Professional Investigators:
We are opposed to this bill. I am here on behalf of my fellow investigators. We do not expect the individual mystery shopper to be licensed, but we do want them to be employed by accountable firms with a Nevada private investigator’s license. The 145 companies currently in MSPA are based outside of Nevada and do not pay taxes here. We are opposed to the MSPA doing the training. A lot of these companies hire people they do not know and who are not monitored. They are not accountable to the extent of a private investigation firm.
Chuck Kenerson, President, QSI Specialists:
My company is Nevada’s largest mystery shopper provider. We are members of MSPA and are also licensed private investigators. I endorse the MSPA certification process. However, because it just started last November there are only 40 certified people. The MSPA is many years away from having enough certified people to handle Nevada’s mystery shopper needs. My primary client base is small Nevada-based companies, which are not of interest to the large national MSPA companies.
I would also like to point out that most mystery shopping forms have questions about how money is handled. If the mystery shopper reports a problem, the investigation goes to a higher level of concern. I oppose the dilution of the existing statute. Nevada private investigators are doing a good job at a fair price.
Senator Hardy:
If I wanted you to come to my auto repair shop to look at courtesy and cleanliness, about how much would that cost?
Mr. Kenerson:
Most mystery shopper companies hold pricing very close to the vest in order to be competitive. That being said, I would probably do that shop for $50.
James Bartel, Member, Nevada Society of Professional Investigators:
I oppose this bill. Mystery shopper services are better provided by private investigators because an astute investigator will find fraud that would not be found by the average unlicensed mystery shopper, who is more interested in the cleanliness of the bathroom. A trained investigator can spot things an untrained person cannot. We have also found when there is no licensing requirement for mystery shoppers, professional thieves seek out these jobs and use the opportunity to observe the security systems and learn employee habits. Lastly, private investigation firms use mystery shopping jobs to provide on-the-job training for new employees.
Senator Hardy:
Mr. Kenerson, how many mystery shopping service providers are also private investigators in southern Nevada, like you?
Mr. Kenerson:
There are 177 licensed private investigators in the Nevada Society of Professional Investigators. I do not know how many of them provide mystery shopper services.
Senator Hardy:
This is a threshold issue for me. These services are necessary for small businesses that may not be able to afford to hire a private investigator.
Ms. Boggs:
Any licensed private investigator who wishes can provide mystery shopper services. “Just for the record, if you didn’t like Chuck’s price, I’ll give you a better price, and I can name you six other firms that would give you the opportunity.”
Mr. Thompson:
The AFL-CIO is opposed to this bill. The bill says an employee cannot be terminated based on the results of a mystery shopper survey. Often that is exactly what happens. When an employer receives a negative comment about an employee, discipline is often the result. If the service is provided by a private investigations firm licensed in Nevada, the investigator will appear at hearings to explain their reports. Employees should be able to face their accusers. It makes no sense to have the law go away if the MSPA goes away.
Chairman Townsend:
The gaming industry is regulated by the State Gaming Control Board, which is not the jurisdiction of this committee. In the past, labor and management in gaming have had a rapport that allows them to work on issues together.
Ms. Boggs:
I understand the executive director of PILB has made some progress with the NRA in regard to proprietary employees doing mystery shopping for hotels.
Chairman Townsend:
On the retail side, I would like to have Senator Hardy meet with all the parties to work out some common issues. Standards are very critical. They might be established by regulation by the PILB, perhaps using the MSPA standards as a guideline. This meeting should include representatives from the PILB, the NRA, and the AFL-CIO.
Mr. Thompson:
I will meet with Mr. Ostrovsky. There is nothing that precludes a company from using their own employees as mystery shoppers.
Gina Crown, Owner, Crown, Stanley, and Silverman Investigation and Security Services:
I oppose this bill in part because of the exemption from NRS 648. As the bill is written, it appears to preclude licensed private investigators from providing mystery shopping services unless they were also members of MSPA. The process to get a private investigator’s license in Nevada is a rigorous one requiring an extensive background check, 10,000 hours of experience, and so on. Mystery shopping is generally done by unlicensed employees who work for a licensed investigator, but they too must pass background checks and be registered with the PILB. We pay workers’ compensation benefits and are responsible for their conduct. Our services are probably more expensive. I commend the MSPA for the progress they have made in standards, but it is not enough to supplant the oversight of the PILB. Because the MSPA certification program is held in Kentucky, it is not cost-effective for the average mystery shopper to attend.
Chairman Townsend:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 228 and open the hearing on S.B. 248.
SENATE BILL 248: Revises provisions relating to alcohol and drug abuse counselors. (BDR 54-327)
Dorothy B. North, Lobbyist, President, Board of Examiners for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors:
This bill allows the board to certify intermediate-level counselors who do not have a formal degree, but who serve rural areas and Indian reservations and have extensive practical experience. We are pursuing this because several groups came before the board to request it be addressed. I present this written testimony on this matter (Exhibit I).
We wish to offer an amendment regarding certification for detoxification specialists (Exhibit J).
Sections 5 and 7 give the board express authority to require fingerprints and criminal background checks on persons with existing licenses. Sections 9 and 11 give the board authority to deny or revoke licenses based on the results of these background checks.
Section 10 gives the board authority to assess a fee to cover the cost of reviewing continuing education courses.
Richard Harjoe, Chairman, Nevada Indian Commission:
We provisionally support this bill. Native Americans are one of the most vulnerable populations in Nevada. As with those who live in rural areas, there is very little support for these matters. This bill will be very valuable in this area. I do think some language needs to be inserted to ensure we can assist the tribes in the State.
Ms. North:
There was testimony at the board that some of the tribes have their own training school in Phoenix under Indian Health Services. Their requirements are not as strict as ours. The counselors are allowed to work on the reservation; but when a crime is committed off the reservation, the counselor is not legally allowed to go to court off the reservation. This is how the issue arrived in our lap.
Chairman Townsend:
I would like Senator Carlton to meet with you to clarify these issues and reach consensus before it comes back to the committee.
Ms. North:
I’d like to make this just as a statement as the chairman of this board, and this is coming from me not just as the chair but also as a citizen. We’re not trying to just open this back up again so that we can lower the standard that we have set. What we are trying to do is address a specific problem here. If we need to do something else to this language to make that happen, I’m open to that.
Ms. Foley:
I am speaking for Marriage and Family Therapists in this matter. When this board was established in 1999, Ms. North said they would increase educational requirements and allow certification only with a bachelor's degree, licensure with a master's degree, and internships with a high-school diploma and enrollment in college working toward a degree. The alcohol and drug abuse counseling field had been denigrated because it did not have the educational requirements of other licensed professionals. Section 4 of this current bill would remove all educational requirements for certified counselor and intern. In all other mental health professions a bachelor’s degree is required, and most require a master’s degree. This would be a giant step backwards for the profession. If there is a specific need for the Indians to represent individuals from their tribes in court, there should be an exemption for that.
Ms. North:
It might be possible to do this under the Nevada Indian Commission.
Chairman Townsend:
Senator Carlton will work with you on this.
Senator O'Connell:
We had a similar situation with workers' compensation where injured workers had to be represented by an attorney. You might want to look at that language.
Ms. North:
In rural areas like Elko, we recruit for clinicians out of the State and pay a lot more because it is hard to get people to relocate.
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter:
This bill needs to either define another level of abuse counselors or authorize the board write regulations. If the latter is done, the board should spell out standards for education and supervised training. The statement that the certificate exam could be waived is peculiar. This does not appear in any other practice codes for mental health organizations. There are currently three levels of alcohol and drug abuse counselor: licensed counselor, requiring a master's or doctoral degree; certified counselor, requiring a bachelor’s degree; and intern, requiring a high school diploma or equivalent working toward a bachelor’s degree. We have no objection to working out whatever is needed for Native‑American communities.
Ms. North:
The need for the board has been amply demonstrated by the flood of practice complaints we have handled in the three years we have been in operation. Most of the complaints have been valid.
Kevin Quint, Vice President, Board of Examiners for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors:
This bill is meant to clean up and respond to needs of community. It would give us the flexibility we need to meet the community's needs without returning to the Legislature every 2 years to change the law.
Ms. North:
There are currently no formal regulations covering prevention specialists.
Chairman Townsend:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 248 and open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 22.
ASSEMBLY BILL 22: Revises requirements for licensure of nurses. (BDR 54‑240)
This bill clarifies the difference between “approval” and “accreditation” of nursing schools. It was passed through the Assembly without any dissenting votes.
Ms. Smith:
Both SEIU and the Operating Engineers Local Union support this bill.
Ms. Scott:
The NSBN supports this bill.
Chairman Townsend:
We will close the hearing on A.B. 22.
The committee will meet in work session on Friday. Next week we will be considering S.B. 241.
SENATE BILL 241: Makes various changes to provisions governing certain claims for constructional defects. (BDR 3-156)
I have informed the interested parties that whatever time the proponents of the bill take, we will allow the opponents of the bill the same amount of time. Please read the bill very carefully to catch all the nuances.
Let me welcome students from the Coral Academy of Science Charter School in Reno who are visiting us this morning.
Chairman Townsend:
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned at 10:26 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lynn Hendricks,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE: