MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE Sixty-eighth Session May 22, 1995 The Committee on Commerce was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Monday, May 22, 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 Mrs. Maureen E. Brower, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Ms. Barbara E. Buckley Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. David E. Humke Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Harmen Lyzenga, Great Western Security Lee Bergevin, Washoe County Sheriff Carol Hanna, Attorney General Lawrence Doull, Forensic Services Peter L. Seebold, Sr., Allied Security Eric S. Cooper, Washoe Country Sheriff Walt Quering, Las Vegas Metro Police Department Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metro Police Department Steve Rybar, ISC Scott Hestor Charlie Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association Following roll call, Chairman Spitler asked the Committee to take action to introduce Bill Draft Request 25-1896, an act relating to the state executive department converting the housing division of the department of business and industry into the Nevada housing agency, providing that the agency is exempt from certain provisions relating to public records, public meetings, public purchasing, and public finances, providing that the housing agency is to be subject to audit by the legislative auditor and providing other matters properly relating thereto. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-1896. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler opened the work session on A.B. 460. ASSEMBLY BILL 460 - Regulates practice of medical imaging technologists. Chairman Spitler said A.B. 460 had been heard on April 24, 1995 and the Committee was awaiting amendments from several different places. The amendment was received from Mr. Wadhams and Ms. Tyler, which was to include advanced practical nurses. - On page 2, line 1, it added ". . practitioner of the healing arts means a physician advanced practical nurse. ."; - a new number 1 was added under section 13 ". . Any person licensed or any person employed by a licensed person pursuant to the chapters where licensing has already occurred . .". Their concern was licensing would be required for people actually working for licensed people so they would be exempt from that particular section. It would require re-numbering 2, 3 and 4 under 13, and adding a new number 1. Ms. Giunchigliani asked, by adding advanced practitioner nurses, did it accomplish what was attempted in the 1993 legislative session to expand the scope of admittance by nurses? Would it have the effect of allowing nurses to admit or diagnose? Chairman Spitler answered, yes, it was one of the things to be allowed. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated it caused a bigger problem. Chairman Spitler said letters and calls had been received regarding two or three different disciplines. People felt they had not been involved in the process of building the bill. There was a real concern about going overboard in terms of regulating. It was at the pleasure of the Committee to continue hearings or deem it inappropriate to pursue it further this session. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated they were trying to do the licensing part for the board but, if added, other statutes would be affected. The nurses had made a very good case that in the "rurals" they were sometimes the first person to see a patient. The language had been worded to allow them in on an emergency basis, however, in other places they wanted to add "licensed medical provider" where it said "doctor", "chiropracter", "podiatrist". If that had been added it would have given them the same status as physicians. This made Ms. Giunchigliani uncomfortable. Ms. Buckley was not terribly impressed with the need for creation of another board. Perhaps requiring some sort of three-hour course in operation of the equipment, or something that a community college could offer, would be more appropriate to reach some of the health and safety concerns. Chairman Spitler entertained a motion. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 460. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler opened the hearing on A.B. 546. ASSEMBLY BILL 546 - Makes various changes to provisions governing lease of land for mobile home or manufactured home that is not located in mobile home park. Ms. Buckley stated the sponsor of the bill, Washoe Legal Services, had asked that the bill be withdrawn. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 546. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler, indicated A.B. 438 was the prohibition of optometrists from administering or prescribing therapeutic pharmaceutical agents without a certificate. He assigned Assemblymen Buckley and Allard to meet with the proponents and opposers of the bill, who were at an impasse, to find resolution. He advised the subcommittee to take enough time to thoroughly manage the situation but keep in mind the date was May 22, 1995 and the bill would have to go to the Senate. Therefore it was advisable not to tarry too long. Chairman Spitler requested an update on A.B. 399 from Ms. Giunchigliani. Based upon the subcommittee hearing she proposed amendments which were being retyped. Basically they had rewritten the bill deleting ten sections. She indicated she would submit them to Assemblymen Allard and Schneider for their perusal. It might be brought back to the Committee by Wednesday, May 24, 1995. Chairman Spitler opened the work session on A.B. 437. ASSEMBLY BILL 437 - Allows certain state agencies to share their records with local governments. Chairman Spitler indicated Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst, had combined three amendments, one from the Employment Security Department (ESD), one from the Taxation Department, and one from Washoe County. The Chair requested Mr. Mouritsen to walk the Committee through the amendments. Mr. Mouritsen indicated the first amendment was proposed by Mr. Ross Whittaker of the Employment Security Division (Exhibit C). He proposed tighter language on local governments requesting information from the division and wanted the request to be in writing. The added language was highlighted; the deleted language was lined through. The same changes were made in the section dealing with the State Industrial Insurance System, therefore, the language had been reproduced in the second amendment. The third amendment was a suggestion by the Department of Taxation that local government have access to some of the information from the sales tax records. Mr. Mouritsen added sub-section 4 to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 372.750 which was his attempt to draft what the Department of Taxation suggested might be appropriate for access to those records. It was very similar to the language in SIIS and Employment Security. Chairman Spitler asked what was the pleasure of the Committee? ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 437. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Giunchigliani was requested by the Chair to handle A.B. 437 on the Assembly floor. Chairman Spitler opened the work session on A.B. 474. ASSEMBLY BILL 474 - Requires evidence of insurance issued by insurer to include period for which premium for policy of insurance has been paid. Chairman Spitler believed there was a companion bill to A.B. 474. He requested Mr. Mouritsen to brief the Committee on it. Mr. Mouritsen said there was, indeed, a companion bill to the measure, A.B. 485, which had died in the Assembly Committee on Transportation. A.B. 474 required the duration for which the premium had been paid on the evidence of an insurance card. A.B. 485 required evidence of insurance to be submitted with the renewal of registration when mailed in. Chairman Spitler thought the bill had merit in several areas but found opposition was mostly regarding accounting procedures. He understood those things would have to be changed, however, when he paid his premiums on a time basis no one ever forgot to send him a bill. It seemed to him the system could be built in, including when to send out certificates. There was very strong industry opposition to it but he felt Mr. Burroughs had some good points. Ms. Giunchigliani echoed his comments. She felt it could be worked out very simply by adding the words "paid monthly premium" to the insurance verification certificate. That would be a signal to the police officer to check on it. Chairman Spitler asked what was the pleasure of the Committee on A.B. 474? ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 474. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, GIUNCHIGLIANI, HETTRICK, PERKINS AND SPITLER VOTED NO. Chairman Spitler opened the work session on A.B. 477. ASSEMBLY BILL 477 - Makes various changes relating to social workers. (BDR 54-1835) Chairman Spitler introduced an amendment to A.B. 477 (Exhibit D) and noted the changes. He asked what was the pleasure of the Committee? ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 477. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Spitler opened the work session on A.B. 480. ASSEMBLY BILL 480 - Requires landlord of mobile home park to disclose history of rental charges for lot to be rented. Chairman Spitler recalled when A.B. 480 was presented it had no sponsor. The Committee had learned that Mr. Petrak had shared the ACR-43 committee and the bill went there. It was asking for a five-year history of the rents of the lot to be provided. The mobile home people indicated it was already public information. Ms. Giunchigliani noted language could be added stating, "may upon request", which would reverse the burden of proof. Chairman Spitler asked what was the pleasure of the Committee? ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MADE A MOTION TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 480. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler opened the work session on A.B. 488. ASSEMBLY BILL 488 - Revises provisions governing regulation of accountants. Chairman Spitler indicated the particular section of law regarding A.B. 488 became effective in the year 2001. He was concerned about making it a gross misdemeanor and asked if anyone else on the Committee had concern. He asked what was the pleasure of the Committee? Ms. Tiffany suggested A.B. 488 be amended on section 1, line 3, deleting the word "gross". The Chair asked for questions. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 488. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. The Chair opened the work session on A.B. 531. ASSEMBLY BILL 531 - Provides for regulation and licensure of hair designers. Chairman Spitler asked if there were any questions, concerns or comments on A.B. 531. Ms. Giunchigliani asserted she liked the bill and her only question was regarding 18 years of age. She indicated Mr. Hillerby had stated the reason they put age 18 was in order to enter into a contract in the state of Nevada a person must be 18 years old. She was satisfied with that explanation. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 531. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler asked Mr. Schneider for an update on A.B. 497. Mr. Schneider indicated there would be a resolution in one week's time. The Chair opened the hearing on A.B. 556. ASSEMBLY BILL 556 - Revises provision governing employment of unarmed security guards by licensed private patrolmen. Chairman Spitler indicated the sponsor of A.B. 556 was unable to attend the hearing and wanted the bill pulled. The Chair did not honor that request because people in opposition to the bill were planning to attend. He did not want anyone to be turned away in that manner. Therefore, testimony would be heard on the bill but no action would be taken until the proponents had an opportunity to testify. He stated the bill was quite controversial. Mr. Stan Olsen, representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD), introduced his colleague, Sergeant Walt Quering, from the Special Investigations Bureau. Mr. Olsen began by stating the LVMPD was against the bill. It served no viable purpose to the community other than to make it a little more unsafe if the bill passed. He submitted to the Committee a notebook entitled "In Reference to A.B. 556" (Exhibit E). At that point he turned the testimony over to Sergeant Quering. Sergeant Quering indicated the function of the Special Investigations Bureau was to investigate privileged licenses and respond to appeals from denials of work cards. Sergeant Quering gave his testimony (Exhibit F) referring to (Exhibit E) for figures and examples. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a gun was used in all felonies? Sergeant Quering answered no. She asked if work cards were denied, for certain jobs, if a person had a felony? He responded the law currently read: "No person who has ever been convicted of a felony of any weapons violation or of any crime of moral turpitude may be employed by any security agency licensed under the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)". She asked, other than security agencies, who else would be eligible to be issued a work card? He answered, aside from Clark County's jurisdiction which referred specifically to child care and carnival workers, there were no other mandated prohibitions. There were some permissive ones, but security agencies, child care and carnival workers were the only mandated prohibitions in Clark County. She asked which statutes the permissible language would be in? She referenced NRS 648.0405. Sergeant Quering said the permissible language would be in the gaming code for resort hotels. Ms. Giunchigliani stated gaming was allowed to hire individuals who had a felony and were allowed to issue work cards for them to work in the area of security. He answered, yes, they were. The Gaming Control Board may have had problems depending upon the nature of the felony and how far it was in the past. However, they were allowed to hire those people. She asked why would discriminatory practices be allowed for employment purposes just because they were in the area of gaming? Sergeant Quering did not understand the question. Ms. Giunchigliani said the Gaming Board could issue a work card to someone in security as long as they were employed within the gaming industry. She indicated it was discriminatory and flew in the face of what the bill said, which was if a person was in security other than in gaming they could not be issued a work card. He said there were two different issues. One issue was if a person owned a resort hotel, he hired a person directly and knew their criminal history and background. Whereas a security agency sent people out to protect others. The clients of the agency had no way of knowing the background of the person who had been hired. Ms. Giunchigliani indicated there was some validity to that. She asked the Sergeant for a definition of "moral turpitude". He replied it depended upon whom she referred. Under the Clark County Code, "moral turpitude" was defined as: "Any illicit gain to which you are not entitled". In Black's Law Dictionary, which was equally valid, "moral turpitude" was defined as essentially "malon per se", meaning it would be bad wherever it was and was not merely a regulatory crime. Ms. Giunchigliani asked for examples for a lay person. Sergeant Quering answered "moral turpitude" would be things such as theft, embezzlement, fraud, perhaps battery, depending upon which definition was used, and sexual offenses. She inquired about sealing of records and stated it was 15 years in Nevada. Sergeant Quering said, yes, on a felony with no intervening arrests aside from minor traffic. She wondered if the length of term was too long for a blanket felony. His personal opinion was that 15 years was about right. She asked, right in what terms? He said it was the correct length of time to make a person wait to seal a record. She requested some examples of felonies where a weapon would not be involved. He said burglary and various types of fraud. She asked if bad check writing would be one? He was unsure about the bad check law, but surmised unless it was a significant amount, bad check writing would not be a felony. In his jurisdiction bad checks were treated, initially, as a civil matter. She asked if a drug bust was considered a felony? He said, yes, drugs would be considered a felony. She asked if people were locked up for selling drugs? He said very rarely did one see mere possession go down as a felony, it usually was plead as a misdemeanor drug charge. He said some thefts would be felonies, depending upon the amount. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the bill came from the City of Las Vegas? Sergeant Quering believed it was introduced by the City of Las Vegas. She summarized their concern was work cards were currently being issued to individuals hired by private agencies to do security work, and the LVMPD did not want that to happen. The Sergeant agreed, in short form, that was correct. She clarified A.B. 556 would allow them to continue the practice they were doing at the present time and that was why they were opposed to it. He answered it would not continue to curb practice. After the work cards were issued the Attorney General's office was contacted. The A.G.'s office then sent the employer a letter informing him that state law precluded him from hiring the person to whom the work card had been issued. A.B. 556 would remove that stop. Ms. Buckley indicated there had been a good deal of publicity in Las Vegas regarding the issue. The City of Las Vegas was very concerned that some people who appeared to have turned their life around should be entitled to a work card and be able to get a job so they would not commit another crime. She asked, at the present time, was it possible to get a work card if a person had criminal convictions. Sergeant Quering responded the only preclusions were in the security field. Mr. Eric Cooper, representing the Washoe County Sheriff's Department, introduced Captain Lee Bergevin, one of whose duties was the overseeing of work card issuance for the Washoe County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Cooper indicated A.B. 556 was one of those short little bills that had very long teeth. It was an obvious attempt on the part of the City of Las Vegas to get around state statute which protected people from having a person with a criminal history guarding property, children and homes. He stated they were adamantly against it and thought it was entirely inappropriate. State law was very clear that people hired in the security field not be convicted of felonies or crimes involving moral turpitude or illegal use or possession of dangerous weapons. The City of Las Vegas was attempting, through section 2, to circumvent that legislative decision. The Washoe County Sheriff's Department thought it unconscionable. Captain Bergevin indicated in the past year his department had denied 33 cards in the security field. Thirteen of those were appealed to the Board of County Commissioners and only one was overturned. The Washoe County Sheriff's Department's work card ordinance was more restrictive than the LVMPD. Work cards were denied for violations of many criminal statutes, mostly felonies, gross misdemeanors and misdemeanors. However, there was a provision that a work card could be issued if the individual had been free of misdemeanors and/or gross misdemeanors for five years. The biggest problem was people who were denied, appealed to the Commission, were given work cards and then were proven to be unworthy. He gave an example of a man who, in 1994, was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI); in 1993 was convicted of assault; and convicted of battery on a police officer. He was given a work card to work in the security field where he was exposed to such things as crowd control, protecting people from others who were violent, from people out to steal property, and those types of things. Captain Bergevin indicated the Washoe County Sheriff's Department sent fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which was another difference from LVMPD. However, it took 60 to 120 days to get the results of the fingerprint check returned from the FBI. Unless the person was disqualified for something to which he admitted, he would be issued a temporary permit to work. Captain Bergervin gave an example of a person who listed only traffic offenses and a controlled substance offense that he claimed were dismissed. He was issued a temporary card. Before his "rap sheet" was returned he committed a rape while on duty as a security guard. The charges shown on his "rap sheet" would have disqualified him under present state statute. However, under the proposed law that would not happen. He mentioned other examples of disqualification, including possession of a switch blade knife and fighting in a public place. Those were examples of the type of individual they were attempting to keep out of the security field. Mr. Cooper added city councils and county commissions hired law enforcement to be their experts, yet on some occasions they overturned that expert opinion. A.B. 556 was designed to prevent that. In his opinion, state statute should rule that people of bad character should not be allowed a work card. If the bill was passed, section 2 would override law enforcement's ability to ensure the safety of the community. Ms. Carol Hanna, Executive Director for the Private Investigators Licensing Board, indicated everyone from the various law enforcement agencies in north and south Nevada had explained everything in detail. She submitted a letter faxed to her from Walter R. Tarantino, Attorney at Law (Exhibit G). Her organization was definitely opposed to the bill and by amending NRS 648 with A.B. 556, state and local law enforcement agencies would no longer have regulatory authority over ex-felons, or anyone else who fell under that chapter, to deny a work card. It would fall only to local governments. It would also have an effect upon all people regulated under NRS 648, not just private patrol. NRS 648 regulated private investigators, process servers, repossessors, canine handlers, polygraph examiners and private patrol security. Federal law stated it would be in violation of the equal protection clause by setting out just one entity of which there were many they regulated. One exception could not be carved out for only one class of licensee, it had to be applied uniformly to all persons subject to NRS 648. People in the industry had let it be known it was a profession and a privileged license. There were many background checks to ensure they could be granted that type of license. Those professionals underwent many hardships in order to obtain the privilege to protect the public. The citizens who hired them expected high standards and clean backgrounds. Citizens and industry let them know that! In summary, Ms. Hanna indicated a case upheld by the Supreme Court in 1989 that ruled in favor of NRS 648.1405. It was the Private Investigator's Licensing Board versus David Takata and Thomas O'Brien, who were unlicensed employees and convicted felons, that had been fired and removed from the licensee who had hired them. Mr. Lawrence G. Doull, II, a licensed private investigator for approximately 40 years and President of the Nevada Investigators Association (NIA) for 1993, 1994 and the remainder of 1995, indicated he had contacted as many members as possible as to their views on A.B. 556. He had not found one single person, licensed under NRS 648, who supported A.B. 556. The NIA felt it would be a detriment, not only to the profession, but also a danger to the public. Personal integrity in their profession, as in most others, was hard to find. When a building or home had burned and the occupants were residing elsewhere while repairs were being done, a security guard was usually hired to guard the premises at night. To place an ex- felon or a person of questionable integrity in a home containing guns, cash and personal gear was putting temptation in their path. This had been proven in studying the records of ex- felons. The NIA felt ex-felons should be given an opportunity to get their lives in order and they supported 100 percent those who turned their lives around. However, they felt the security, investigative, process serving, and repossessing fields were not places to rehabilitate ex-felons. When a car was repossessed there was often a confrontation and he could understand both sides. When a process was being serviced, although people would sometimes accept it with no problem, many times there was a confrontation. If an ex-felon was doing the service, what was his standing in court? How would he be accepted for his basic integrity and veracity in reciting what took place? He would be at a marked disadvantage. Mr. Doull felt A.B. 556 was a detriment to an ex-felon attempting to get his life in order. He had two or three handicaps against him if there was a confrontation with the public. When testifying in court he would be asked if he had ever been convicted of a felony. If he had, his testimony would be dismissed almost instantly as being questionable. Mr. Doull stated it was not a good bill. Everyone would like to regulate less, which was human nature. However, in this particular case his organization appreciated regulation that tried to keep those who did not belong in the security field out of it. They strongly requested that A.B. 556 not be approved. Mr. Peter L. Seebold, Sr., Branch Manager and Qualifying Agent for Allied Security's private patrol license in Nevada, submitted his testimony (Exhibit I). Mr. Steve Rybar, indicated he held licenses under the state of Nevada for private investigation, private patrol and process serving. The employment of ex-felons in the private security field would immediately erode a client's competence in the private patrol service. Down the road the "camel would get his nose inside the tent and before you know it the entire camel would be in there" resulting in ex-felons engaged in private investigation, possibly polygraph investigation, and the right to work under NRS 648. It could have dire effects in the future with inroads created by this legislation. Who had ultimate responsiblity when a client sought legal remedies over improper action of an ex-felon employee? Obviously the employer would be responsible because they had been mandated to hire the ex-felon to represent their company. The individuals at risk were the client and the employer, not the legislators or the politicians who had a hand in passing the law. These were points to be considered. He believed A.B. 556 would be an injustice to the general public at large and strongly recommended no action be taken and the bill die. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed frustration that in one area individuals were being locked out. Allied's letter (Exhibit I) said they did not want them --"period"! She felt if someone had paid their debt to society avenues should be opened to them. She understood the security issue and felt a decent case had been made regarding it. However, she was not sure she was "buying it" and had to think it through. She did not think every felony conviction necessarily led to an individual being more of a risk. She admitted she did not sit on the Judiciary Committee which was why she had asked those particular questions. She felt frustration with Allied who arbitrarily across-the-country would not hire a convicted felon. Mr. Doull responded by asking: would you put a pedophile in charge of a day nursery? Ms. Giunchigliani answered they were not talking about a day nursery. Mr. Doull replied they were because there was security in day nurseries -- but clarified he was not saying they had pedophiles in their profession. If a person had committed burglaries, broken into homes and stolen things -- was that an individual you would choose to be in possession of a key to your home? Ms. Giunchigliani asserted that was a decision she would have to make. Mr. Doull indicated she would not be aware of it if she was a tenant in a building. The manager of the building would not be aware of it either. A security guard was not sent out to work in an apartment complex with an announcement proclaiming him an ex-felon. She asked if the difference between the gaming industry and his example was because gaming knew exactly who they were hiring, but the people he was contracting with did not. He said that was a major issue. Mr. Seebold interjected that casinos hired in-house and if an employee did wrong they assumed full liability. His clients did not. Ms. Giunchigliani asked who did? He indicated they assumed liability as the contract company. She clarified they assumed liability and not the client. Mr. Doull indicated a recent article in the Las Vegas newspapers wherein a fast food outlet changed their standard rule of not hiring ex-felons and hired one. The ex-felon kicked the night manager to death, a young man who had been working his way through UNLV. Ms. Giunchigliani said she would not blame an entire group because of behavior of one individual. Mr. Arberry indicated the bill originated from his office in Las Vegas. The intent was not to force an industry to hire ex- felons, however, the bill was written to make it mandatory. The intent of the legislation was to make a determination that the felony would be judged based upon what it was. An ex-felon could fall into any category. In reading through some of the remarks of the testifiers, it stated an ex-felon burglarized, or an ex-felon was convicted of a controlled substance, or an ex- felon did other things that did not involve a firearm. He felt ex-felons had been placed in a category that no matter "how you had showered with ex-felons" when they came out of prison they were criminals. He took offense at the comments of the testifiers when they asked, "How would your employees feel working next to an ex-felon?" He indicated he worked every day next to an ex-felon. This person had keys to the building which contained $80,000 to $100,000 worth of computer equipment. He had been working there for over a year, had turned his life around and recently was married. Mr. Arberry exclaimed, "Now you are trying to tell me that your people would not want to work next to him. I be damned, I would not want to work next to your people. This young man has turned his life around. He was convicted of a felony, armed robbery, he didn't kill anyone, but he's trying to turn his life around. I know this piece of legislation is going to die, but what happens every day is that I see people come in my office who want to work. These guys sometime only have the heart to harm. I read here where it says one of the operation managers came in on one of the guy's behalf because the operations manager has learned that the person has some character. Because he was busted for something or created a crime doesn't mean that for the rest of his life he has to be penalized. And then you turn right around and push these guys back on the street, and then you don't want them burglarizing your house. That's the next thing they want to do. They tryin' to take care of they families just like you tryin' to take of yours and just like I'm tryin' to take care of mine. They come in my office and say, "Moose, you know I want to take care of my family but I can't get hired. Everywhere I go they throw my application in the trash can because they said I'm an ex-felon. So I lie!" And you guys harm! And when you guys harm you find out six weeks later that this one gentleman back here have the act of God where he sits with his pen and denies 107 cases. All those 107 cases, I wonder how many probably back in prison now because they could not provide for they family. So I really take offense to this! You guys need to come up with some better language!" With that Mr. Arberry absented himself from the meeting. Mr. Doull said perhaps they were stressing too much on the ex- felon. In his particular profession, if you served a process, your integrity in saying, "I served that process", was at issue. Licensees had lost their license because they had billed a client for surveillance when they had not been there. It was a question of integrity. If a person was dishonest he did not belong in that profession. Mr. Doull expected to lose his license if he did not behave with integrity. NRS 648 held people to a very high degree of care. If he filed an incorrect report or billed a client for something he did not do, the AG's office would either suspend or remove his license. If they did not, then he should not be in the profession and neither should they. There being no more testimony, the hearing was closed on A.B. 556. The hearing was opened on A.B. 547. ASSEMBLY BILL 547 - Revises provisions governing discrimination against certain persons in sale or rental of dwelling. Mr. Fettic, sponsor of the bill, indicated it was a relatively simple change in the law and provided in sub-section 1 to not prohibit any act that was not prohibited by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 as amended. Under current law the Equal Rights Commission may incorporate rules and regulations pursuant to the Fair Housing Acts of 1968. They had never done it and he had spoken to the Commissioner of the Equal Rights Commission informing him about the provision. The Commissioner had indicated no problem with it. It had come to Mr. Fettic's attention through Scott Heaton, a local Carson City attorney. Mr. Heaton felt it was in the best interest of the state, as well as the business industry, to put in the provision. It did nothing to effect the Equal Rights Commission and they could still formulate their own rules and regulations. Mr. Fettic then deferred to Mr. Heaton for any technical questions. Mr. Heaton indicated they were trying to bring the Nevada law into conformance with federal law. He said federal law preempted state law but the bill clarified existing law. Ms. Buckley stated she had a bill, A.B. 502, that proposed the same thing. It was in the Judiciary Committee because of different provisions in the front part of the bill. She wished to make sure the two bills reconciled. Mr. Charlie Joerg, representing Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, also supported the bill. He indicated the bill was meritorious and particularly beneficial to senior citizens and particular developments on their behalf. He reiterated it did not change anything, just made it more convenient. Chairman Spitler asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against A.B. 547. There being none the hearing was closed on A.B. 547. The Chair asked what was the pleasure of the Committee? ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MADE A MOTION TO DO PASS A.B. 547. ASSEMBLYMAN TIFFANY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler opened A.B. 476. ASSEMBLY BILL 476 - Requires seller of certain residential property to disclose condition of property. Ms. Patsy Redmond, representing the Nevada Association of Realtors (NAR), distributed an amendment put together at the request of the Committee, an amendment proposed by the NAR, and an amendment proposed by the home builders during the hearing (Exhibit J). She proceeded to explain the bill. - Section 3, subsection 1 - Mr. Hettrick had concerns about the language that said "which the Real Estate Division deems appropriate". They suggested the language be deleted and instead add the language "effects the use or value of the property". - Section 3, subsection 2(c) - Mr. Fettic had concerns that the language was confusing. In the amendment they suggested, "that the seller and his" be deleted, and instead say "that the seller's agent", for clarification. - Section 4 - 1(a), line 12 - An amendment they proposed at the hearing which said no later than ten days before residential property was conveyed. - Section 4, subsection 2(d) - The home builder's suggestion to delete "and never before occupied". - Section 6, subsection 2, line 9 - They had removed "otherwise" which had concerned Mr. Hettrick and added "other written notice", and it would now read, "through the disclosure form or other written notice of a defect in the property". - Section 6, Line 23 - Their recommendation was to add: "or provides a notice that fails to reveal a defect". - Section 6, line 21 - After "if a seller", delete "or his agent". - Section 6, subsection 5(b), line 39 - Ms. Giunchigliani suggested to add "or licensed" so it would be "who was authorized or licensed to practice the profession". - Section 9 - Change the effective date from October to January responding to Ms. Tiffany's suggestion there should be time to educate the public and the licensees. Ms. Giunchigliani asked in regard to section 6, line 23, how would a person prove they were not aware of a defect in the residential property? Ms. Redmond indicated the Seller's Real Property Information Statement (Exhibit K) which had "unknown" or "not applicable (N/A)" on it. Earlier in the bill it spoke to the fact the disclosure form was not a warranty. The buyer would have to prove in a court of law that the seller or agent knew about the defect. Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the burden of proof was on the buyer. Mr. Coward interjected stating a complete disclosure did not constitute an expression or implied warranty regarding any condition of residential property. Mr. Hettrick asked for a reiteration of line 23 on page 3. Ms. Redmond reiterated the information. Mr. Hettrick asked about the person who purposely provided false information at that point. Ms. Redmond said line 24 said "was aware". Mr. Humke indicated page 2, line 7, where it had been changed to "seller's agent", and asked if they wished to hold to a standard, both the seller and his agent, to do what was required in that section. Ms. Redmond said they had to go back to the form itself and what was required therein. Mr. Humke saw subsection (c) as creating a duty that the person reveal the complete form to a potential purchaser. Ms. Redmond said it basically allowed the seller's agent to provide the form. The seller's agent filled out the form and signed it. That section allowed the seller's agent to present the form to a potential buyer. Mr. Humke stated the seller would not be held to the standard as well. Ms. Redmond indicated the seller could give the form to anybody they chose. It was the agent they wanted to give permission, otherwise the agent would not be able to share the form with potential buyers. Mr. Coward said when an agent listed a piece of property, the disclosure form was normally completed when they accepted the listing. The bill allowed the agent to use the disclosure form when showing the property to potential buyers. Chairman Spitler asked what was the pleasure of the Committee? ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 476. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC SECONDED THE MOTION THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Spitler assigned A.B. 531 to Ms. Brower, A.B. 440 to Mr. Humke and A.B. 476 to Ms. Buckley. There being no further business, the hearing was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Larry L. Spitler, Chairman Assemblyman Sandra Tiffany, Chairman Assembly Committee on Commerce May 22, 1995 Page