MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE Sixty-eighth Session February 1, 1995 The Committee on Commerce was called to order at 3:35 p.m., on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, Chairman Larry Spitler presiding, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Chairman Ms. Maureen E. Brower, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Late/Excused Ms. Barbara E. Buckley Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. David E. Humke Late/Excused Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Lynn Hettrick Excused STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada Attorney General Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General Gordon Fink, Deputy Attorney General Jerry Higgins, Nevada State Board of Engineers Following roll call, Chairman Spitler asked for committee introduction of B.D.R. 54- 688, an act relating to the State Contractors' Board, requiring that one member of the Board be a licensed architect or licensed engineer. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS TO INTRODUCE B.D.R. 54-688. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The hearing was then opened on A.B. 25. ASSEMBLY BILL 25 - Prohibits discrimination on basis of sex in equal entitlement to public accommodations. Attorney General, Frankie Sue Del Papa, introduced Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Fink, Deputy Attorney General, and continued with a general overview of the intent of A.B. 25. Deputy Attorney General Fink then came forward to further explain the bill. He asked that Exhibit C, a memo addressed to Co-Chair Larry Spitler, from Edward Johnson, Administrator of the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, and Exhibit D, a memorandum to the Committee on Commerce from Mr. Fink, be distributed to committee members and entered into the record. Mr. Fink's testimony was a summary of the information contained in Exhibit D. He further stressed A.B. 25 would not prohibit different prices for goods and services where different work was performed for those goods and services. Basically, he said, it was their desire to allow the State of Nevada statutory authority for appropriate consumer protection in cases where pricing schemes were based solely on gender. Thirty-eight states, plus the District of Columbia and the United States Virgin Islands, have existing laws prohibiting this particular type of discrimination. Channel 8, Deputy Attorney General Fink noted, had done a documentary on price discrimination based on gender, called "Miscrimination." (A copy of this video was entered into the record as Exhibit E, and may be viewed in the Legislative Counsel Bureau Research Library.) Co-Chairman Tiffany asked what had prompted the need for the bill, and if the Attorney General's Office had documented phone calls, letters or complaints, which would provide a statistical record. In reply, Mr. Fink stated although there had been inquiries made to the Attorney General's Office, as well as other state offices (particularly the Equal Rights Commission), a statistical log had not been kept. With no statutory authority to proceed with this particular kind of discrimination, complainants had to be turned away. Ms. Tiffany asked if there had been a common thread. Mr. Fink indicated this practice occurred principally with dry cleaners, cosmetologists and to some degree occurred in auto repair matters. If A.B. 25 was enacted, an individual could take the matter to small claims court, the Attorney General's Office or the Equal Rights Commission. Additionally, Assistant Attorney General Brooke Nielsen stated district attorneys would have some authority in the area, which would widen the sources for redress. For the record, Ms. Nielsen added, the purpose of A.B. 25 was not to burden any business in Nevada, nor did the Attorney General's Office believe it would. Possibly, certain businesses might have to reexamine some of their pricing practices, but the intent was simply to have all businesses in the state recognize if they were providing one service, they could charge only one price to either their male or female customers. She acknowledged this was not a wide-spread problem, however, it did exist; and A.B. 25 would: 1) Put everyone on notice, and 2) provide remedies for people actually hurt. Ms. Tiffany asked how businesses would be notified of the provisions of the bill. In response, Mr. Fink said the dry cleaners and the Board of Cosmetology had already received letters from the Attorney General's Office asking them to comply with the public policy stated in NRS 233. If A.B. 25 became law, the Attorney General's Office would proceed to notify state boards and commissions of the provisions of the bill. Generally, he believed, prices were dictated more by the marketplace rather than by government interference. Ms. Buckley wondered if the Attorney General's Office had compiled lists of unanticipated situations which might be affected. Although Ms. Nielsen said they had not done this, they would be happy to do so. Mrs. Buckley questioned if the standard that "all persons were entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the privileges and advantages of any place of public accommodation" would not prohibit even the invitation, when it was based on gender. In the bill draft, Ms. Nielsen pointed out, there was language which tried to clarify what the bill did not apply to. It did not prohibit separate facilities where that was appropriate (such as in restaurants). Because of this concern, Ms. Nielsen said she had conferred with Mr. Spitler and Mr. Fink, and consequently believed it might be appropriate for the Attorney General's Office to work out clarifying language delineating what the bill would not affect; and then bring it back to the committee. With regard to the remedies available to a person who was injured as a result of a violation, Ms. Buckley asked, was there an accompanying statute which set forth the remedies or the penalties that would be assessed for a violation. In response, Ms. Nielsen said these were found in both NRS 233 and NRS 651, which provided a variety of remedies. Discussion followed. Ms. Giunchigliani said she wanted it to be clear that the intent of the bill would not affect the current manner of pricing for services such as those in a beauty salon, where prices were determined by the amount of time taken and supplies used to perform a given service, rather than on the issue of gender. Mr. Fink agreed it was not the intent of A.B. 25 to change this practice, and believed the bill would allow flexibility for those in the private sector to set their prices based on the service provided, not on the gender of the individual it was being provided for. Additionally, Ms. Giunchigliani suggested, perhaps the bill should not become effective "upon passage and approval," but rather the effective date to be October 1, 1995, so notice could be properly given. Ms. Nielsen agreed the Attorney General's Office would be happy to again notify state boards and commissions if the bill was enacted. If a business, such as a barber/beauty shop, posted the cost of men's haircuts on the wall, would this be a way to sidestep the requirement imposed by the bill, Mr. Allard asked. Ms. Nielsen acknowledged the bill would need to clearly state that pricing must be based upon the nature of the work, the equipment used, and what went into the service. A.B. 25 needed to fulfill a rational purpose, she emphasized. Chairman Spitler indicated to Ms. Nielsen and Mr. Fink the committee needed an opportunity to study Exhibit D, as well as the additional clarifying language to come from the Attorney General's Office. Ms. Nielsen said her office would be able to supply the language within a week to ten days. It was agreed the bill would be rescheduled to be heard by the Commerce Committee sometime during the last two weeks of February. This would also give committee members time to view the video tape provided by Mr. Fink (Exhibit E). Mr. Spitler commented he had received a number of phone calls, principally in the area of "does this impact business with hotels." The "ladies night out" and restroom issues had also been questioned. He predicted they would have a more thorough hearing after the two-week break for hearings in Las Vegas. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Spitler closed the hearing on A.B. 25 and opened a work session on A.B. 26 and A.B. 63. ASSEMBLY BILL 26 - Authorizes state board of professional engineers and land surveyors to adopt regulations relating to continuing education for professional engineers and professional land surveyors. Chairman Spitler reminded committee members they had first heard testimony on A.B. 26 on January 25, 1995. At that time, Mr. Humke had indicated a concern with the word "reasonable" as seen on page 1, line 3 of the bill; and had adopted amendatory language from regulations governing dentists and dental hygienists (Exhibit F), which satisfied his concerns. The new language, "The Board shall adopt reasonable regulations relating to continuing education for professional engineers and professional land surveyors. ..." was also agreeable to Jerry Higgins, the representative from the State Board of Engineers and Surveyors, Mr. Spitler noted. Coming forward, Mr. Higgins suggested a slight change in the amendment. Since the Board registered engineers and land surveyors bi-annually, he believed the word "annually," item 1, should be changed to "bi-annually." After discussion, it was decided to delete the reference entirely, leaving the language to read, "1. The number of hours of credit required; ...". MR. HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 26 WITH LANGUAGE SHOWN IN EXHIBIT F, AND DELETING THE WORD "ANNUALLY" IN ITEM 1, AND DO PASS A.B. 26. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MS. TIFFANY. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY AND HETTRICK ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) The Chairman thought perhaps it would be more productive to schedule committee hearings when there was more than one bill ready to be heard. He said he and Co- Chairman Tiffany would discuss this before the next committee meeting. ASSEMBLY BILL 63 - Revises provisions relating to qualifications of certain applicants for registration as professional engineers and professional land surveyors. Chairman Spitler reviewed previous testimony on A.B. 63, and the questions and concerns posed. Copies of a communication from Rita Lumos, Professional Land Surveyor (Exhibit G), were distributed to committee members and made a part of the record. Mr. Spitler reminded committee members the proponents of A.B. 63 believed it was necessary for individuals in the land surveying and engineering professions to become more sophisticated, as currently, changes took place so rapidly. Therefore, it followed the internship for persons without a graduate degree should be expanded from eight to ten years. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 63. ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Spitler called for a roll call vote. THE MOTION RECEIVED A TIE VOTE. ASSEMBLYMEN ALLARD, BUCKLEY, HUMKE, SCHNEIDER AND TIFFANY VOTED NO. ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER, FETTIC, GIUNCHIGLIANI, PERKINS AND SPITLER VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY AND HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. Under the rules adopted by the Assembly, a tie vote in committee, without a full committee in attendance for the vote, required the bill to be returned to a full committee for further action. There being no further testimony or business to be addressed, Chairman Spitler adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary APPROVED: ________________________________ Chairman, Larry L. Spitler ________________________________ Chairman, Sandra Tiffany Assembly Committee on Commerce February 1, 1995 Page