MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE Sixty-eighth Session June 5, 1995 The Committee on Commerce was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, June 5, 1995, by the presiding Chairman, Sandra Tiffany, 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. 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, Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General Carol Hanna, Executive Director, Private Investigators' Licensing Board Mike Hillerby, Nevada State Board of Pharmacy Keith Macdonald, Executive Secretary, State Board of Pharmacy Louis Ling, Deputy Attorney General Paula Berkley, Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects Ellis Antunez, Chairman of the State Board of Landscape Architects Bob Martin, Nevada Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners Ronda Moore, Deputy Attorney General Following roll call and announcements on what bills would be considered during the meeting, Chairman Tiffany opened the hearing on S.B. 2. SENATE BILL 2 - Revises provisions governing licensing of private investigators and related occupations. The sponsor of the bill, Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, introduced Carol Hanna, Executive Director of the Private Investigators' Licensing Board. Assistant Attorney General Nielsen indicated the letter sent to the committee on June 1, 1995 (Exhibit C), stated the intent of the bill and explained the three sections. Referring to Section 1, Assistant Attorney General Nielsen told the committee that currently, Ms. Hanna was the only Executive Director of a Board who was a classified employee. The position had not been intentionally placed in this category, as Ms. Hanna served at the will of the Board, as did every other Executive Director of a Board in state service. Additionally, as currently stated, it appeared that every employee of the Private Investigators' Board was considered a peace officer. Assistant Attorney General Nielsen said there also had been no intent to imply that the clerical staff, or even the Executive Director, served as peace officers. A full time investigator performed peace officer functions. Therefore, the bill would also serve to clarify that the only peace officer for the Board was the investigator. Discussing Section 3, Assistant Attorney General Nielsen explained that NRS 648.141 set forth the requirement which stated that Board licensees conducted 51 percent of their business in Nevada. For many years, Assistant Attorney General Nielsen said, the Attorney General's Office had advised the Private Investigators' Licensing Board that the provision was unconstitutional in that it violated the Commerce clause; and there was no practical way to enforce the provision. It should simply be repealed, she said. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 2. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY, PERKINS, HUMKE AND FETTIC WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 385 - Makes various changes relating to practice of pharmacy. Representing the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy, Mike Hillerby along with Keith Macdonald, Executive Secretary of the State Board of Pharmacy, and Louis Ling, Deputy Attorney General for the Board, reviewed S.B. 385, noting the bill contained no fee or fine increases, which, they believed, should make the bill relatively non- controversial. Beginning with Section 2, Mr. Hillerby made a section-by-section explanation of the bill. - Sections 2 through Section 9. Existing language which had been moved entirely from NRS Chapter 453, which, along with NRS 454, defined "controlled substances" and "dangerous drugs." It was discovered the word "dispense" had never been defined in the pharmacy statute, NRS 639. Therefore, this definition had been moved from "controlled substances" into the pharmacy statute in its entirety, with the exception of an amendment in Section 2, page 1, line 5. According to requests from the Medical Association, language now clarified that the prescribing had to be by a practitioner. - Section 10. Regulated computerized equipment in pharmacies. - Section 10.5 Added by amendments when the bill was heard in the Senate. This language addressed the definitions in Section 2, and clarified whether they were superseded by other definitions. It also clarified the role of the practitioner. - Section 11. Directly tied to Section 10. Language on page 5, line 9 allowed the Board to adopt regulations concerning the use of computerized mechanical equipment for the filling of prescriptions. Again, in response to technological changes in the profession. - Section 12. Language on line 23 added the word "practitioners" to the exchange of information. This language would allow a pharmacist to call a practitioner for clarification of a question, about a prescription or about a patient. Line 29 specified that the information remained confidential, and could not be shared under the "Doctor/Patient Privilege." - Section 13. Mainly Legislative Counsel Bureau changes to language with the exception of a subsection which was being deleted because it referred to alternative methods of continuing education. These had been defined on page 6, line 5, as home study courses, accredited by the American Council for Pharmaceutical Education and graded by that body. - Section 16. Referred to nuclear pharmacies. Current law stipulated the "managing" pharmacist had to be on duty at all times. The new language would state a "nuclear" pharmacist had to be on duty at all times. - Section 17, line 39. Dealt with mail order pharmacies. - Section 18. Legislative Counsel Bureau language changes. - Section 19, page 7, line 34. Stated a prescription had to be written in a manner easily understood and clear to the pharmacist, in either English or Latin. - Section 20, page 8. Access to records by authorized investigators and members of other Boards. - Section 21. Dealt with how records were handled, stipulated the form, and set a time limit of 15 days for state investigators to have copies of records back to the pharmacists. - Section 22. Request for information regarding a patient. Per Board request, if a request or a subpoena for information was received, the patient, or the person for whom the information was requested, would be so informed. If the release of information was refused, the party requesting the information would have to obtain a court order. This provided the Board a certain amount of protection, especially from divorce and child custody cases. - Section 23. Deleted by amendment. Dealt with generic substitution of drugs, and the way patients were notified of the substitutions when made. This had been deleted because of certain concerns which could be addressed during the next Session of the Legislature. - Section 24. Dealt with home health care. On line 37 the word "and" had been added, and the word "or" was deleted. This changed the language to provide, "... The practitioner, registered pharmacist, and the nurse needs to be immediately available at all times ...". Doctors, nurses and home health care officials had all agreed with this change. - Section 25. Dealt with education of patients, practitioners and staff members on how to properly handle solutions, and proper application of safety considerations. - Section 26. Dealt with immediate precursors, a compound which could be used in combination with other compounds to produce an illegal drug. Albeit, there were some legal reasons to be able to combine these compounds, the Board wanted to be able to deal with immediate precursors. This provision would protect those people using a single compound for legitimate reasons from running afoul of the law. Beginning at Section 27, Mr. Hillerby noted there were a number of changes throughout the rest of the bill. References to "manufacture or distribute" had been deleted because language had been moved from NRS Chapter 453 and NRS 454. Manufacturing and distribution of controlled substances and dangerous drugs was still regulated in those chapters, but was not regulated under the practice of pharmacy. Language on page 11, line 10, allowed a physician with a locum tenens (temporarily local) license or a duly licensed out-of-state physician to subscribe medications as long as the pharmacist felt comfortable; however, it also allowed the pharmacist to adequately check if this was a legitimate prescription. - Beginning at Section 29. Legislative Counsel Bureau language changes and the deletion of "manufacture and distribute." - Section 33. Dealt with controlled substance prescriptions and the ability of a doctor to write those prescriptions or give them orally in emergencies. Also addressed some federal law, and facsimile transmissions. In response to Ms. Giunchigliani's question regarding immediate precursors, Mr. Macdonald explained that hydriodic acid was an immediate precursor to methamphetamine; and was used in the agriculture and dairy industry as a wash for cows, as well as being used in aircraft and diesel cleaning. Chairman Tiffany noted most changes appeared to be simply housekeeping matters. Mr. Macdonald agreed, but added that with the deletion of Section 23, dealing with notification of generic drug substitution, there were no other controversial items. The remaining items were housekeeping changes, bringing regulations into federal compliance, and addressing the normal Legislative Counsel Bureau changes of "shall" and "must," etc. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 385. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY, HUMKE AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 422 - Makes various changes relating to landscape architects. Paula Berkley, representing the Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects, introduced Ellis Antunez, Chairman of the State Board of Landscape Architecture, and submitted a memorandum describing the proposed statute changes, dated June 5, 1995 (Exhibit D). Mr. Antunez explained for the committee, the goal of the bill was to clarify the scope of work and to produce the "Blue Book," a reference manual for Nevada law governing design for the construction industry, and revising the appropriate regulations. Ms. Berkley and Mr. Antunez then went on to review the information shown on Exhibit D. Referring to Section 16, the fees and charts, Mr. Antunez brought attention to the penultimate page of Exhibit D, which delineated and clarified the structure fees. Also, Mr. Antunez called attention to the examination fee, and explained the desire to raise this fee $100 over the cost of the examination. In the past few years, the cost of this national examination had increased every year, and the current examination fee did not keep pace with the increases. In fact, the license fees were subsidizing the people taking the examinations. The examination cost to the Board, he said, was $440, and the Board charged only $250. To meet the actual cost of the examination, plus $100, would bring this fee to $530 [sic]. He stressed the chart reflected the maximum fee being requested, not what would necessarily be charged as soon as the legislation became effective. In this way, the Board would not have to return to the Legislature to request an increase during the next two Sessions. Mr. Hettrick questioned the language in Section 10, line 26 and Section 10, lines 42 and 43, which indicated, "All money coming into possession of the Board must be kept or deposited in banks or savings and loans." He wondered if the Board wished to imply there had to be multiple bank accounts. Ms. Berkley did not believe it was the intent to make the word "bank" plural. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the Board's interpretation of the difference between "licenses" and "certificates." Mr. Antunez indicated most Boards referred to certificates, and they wished to be as correct and specific as possible. Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if this implied a different standard, but Ms. Berkley did not believe that was the implication. Mr. Antunez assured Ms. Giunchigliani that a certificate number should be included by regulation, and all advertising should reflect this certificate number. This was further discussed, with Ms. Giunchigliani asking the representatives to investigate whether there was any way to enforce this, and why the inclusion of the certificate number was required under regulation but not in statute. Additionally, Ms. Giunchigliani opined, the fee increases were very high. She noted the application fee had gone from nothing to $100, and asked what this covered. Mr. Antunez said this covered the cost of mailing the application forms, talking to the applicant, and photocopying the necessary information. Ms. Giunchigliani was not totally convinced such extreme increases were necessary. She noted, "... So they could pay $500 a year to get a certificate that nobody knows they even have to have." Again, Paula Berkley explained the Board simply wanted to make allowance for future increases. Referring to Section 23, dealing with the practice of engaging in landscape architecture without holding a certificate issued by the Board, Chairman Tiffany objected, saying this was a mandate to join the Board which over-stepped the Board's authority. Mr. Antunez said the Architects' Board and Engineers' Board mandated that an individual could not practice their profession without being certificated by their respective Board, and this was merely an attempt to be consistent. Chairman Tiffany also disputed the language on page 7, line 24, regarding "guilty of a misdemeanor." She believed the Board was attempting to give themselves the same judgment powers of a court. Ms. Berkley answered this language just said if the Board fined someone, and that person did not accept the judgment, the matter could be turned over to the court to enforce the decision. Ronda Moore, Deputy Attorney General for the Board, came forward to clarify the point. She explained that every Board that issued licenses or certificates, had the power to require a person practicing under the authority of that Board, to be either licensed or certificated, and without the license or certificate it was a misdemeanor offense, which was enforceable only by the courts. Discussion followed. Mr. Allard asked Mr. Antunez to describe in what way an unlicensed landscape architect could jeopardize the health and welfare of the public. Mr. Antunez said this might involve the building of a deck or a retaining wall, for instance, that would fail for the person's lack of design and construction knowledge. Building either a deck or a retaining wall, Mr. Allard pointed out, required a building permit which had to be inspected by the city or governmental entity to assure code. Ms. Berkley interjected that if an individual was not licensed, that person could not submit plans to get a building permit. Mr. Allard was not convinced. Mr. Fettic noted he was in the real estate industry, and as such, there were statutes from which could be determined the requirements governing his occupation. This bill would not do that for the landscape architects; nor did the bill delineate the criteria or the educational requirements. There was no further testimony offered on S.B. 422. ASSEMBLY BILL 399 - Revises provisions relating to state contractors' board. Ms. Giunchigliani explained that basically, it was the recommendation of the subcommittee to amend the present A.B. 399 and to insert the language proposed in the handout she had distributed (Exhibit E). This would address the conflict notice which had been sent from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, because there would only be a focus on unlicensed contractors. As amended, A.B. 399 was simply enabling legislation. She said she was convinced to not insert the word "shall," but believed the next two years would show whether the Board used the additional responsibilities offered by the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani then went on to provide a section-by-section review of the language shown in Exhibit E. Mr. Allard asked Ms. Giunchigliani if the Attorney General's Office intended to give the Contractors' Board a yearly assessment, or whether this would simply be on a case-by-case basis as they were used. Ms. Giunchigliani answered that originally it would have required an assessment, but because the language had been changed from "shall" to "may," some agreement would probably have to be worked out to pay for those services on a case-by-case basis. In response to Chairman Tiffany's question whether the Contractors' Board had agreed with the proposed changes, Ms. Giunchigliani said although Margi Green had met with them that day, Ms. Green had indicated she did not have the authority to speak for the Board; and the Board was not scheduled to meet again until the next day to sign off on the legislation. Ms. Giunchigliani said, in fact, she was not certain what the position of the Contractors' Board would be. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 399. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 438 - Prohibits optometrist from administering or prescribing therapeutic pharmaceutical agents without certificate issued by Nevada state board of optometry. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE OPTHOMOLOGISTS (EXHIBIT F). ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. **************** ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION. Mr. Humke clarified that he proposed to amend the motion, with the amendment being to take the Optometrists' amendments (Exhibit G), delete Section 6, renumber Sections as appropriate, and amend the language in what would become the new Section 7 to "... Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as allowing any practice which includes the incision or suturing of the eye or its appendages, [or] the use of lasers for surgical purposes[.], or the treatment of glaucoma. ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI'S MOTION. The Chairman indicated she had done some further research on the question of antibiotics. In a discussion with her husband, an internist, he had said that rather than having a problem with topical antibiotics, it was oral antibiotics which caused problems in reactions, particularly if an individual was on antidepressants, blood pressure medication, allergy medication or other antibiotics. Thus, she said she would have to oppose Mr. Humke's amendments. Ms. Giunchigliani also indicated she would oppose the amendment. When the scope of practice was being expanded, caution should be exercised, and this was why she had moved to accept the opthomologists' suggestions. She believed it finally granted some opportunity to recognize that if something was lightly imbedded in a person's eye they could go to an optometrist for aid. Clarifying, Chairman Tiffany restated the proposed amendment as being to amend the first part of the optometrists' bill into the opthomologists' bill. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER, TIFFANY, GIUNCHIGLIANI AND ALLARD VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.) Action was then taken on Ms. Giunchigliani's previous motion dealing with amendments put forward by the opthomologists. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER, TIFFANY, SCHNEIDER, ALLARD AND GIUNCHIGLIANI VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.) ASSEMBLY BILL 439 - Revises various provisions relating to mobile home parks. Mr. Allard reviewed the proposed changes shown in a memorandum to him and Ms. Buckley from the Administrator of the Manufactured Housing Division, Renee Diamond, dated May 30, 1995 (Exhibit H). Mr. Allard told the committee the subcommittee recommended amend and do pass on this bill. Mr. Hettrick recalled during earlier discussion there had been some concern expressed regarding the language on page 3, lines 16 through 18. Ms. Buckley and Mr. Allard agreed with Mr. Hettrick's recollection. This had come up in subcommittee meetings, and a complex formula would be needed to deal with these questions, Mr. Allard said. He said he did not want the Administration to be able to, at their own whim, decide on who could and who could not be aided, and/or how much each would receive. He believed the only fair way to deal with the issue of who received assistance from the trust fund would be to consider anyone who qualified, and to place that individual on a first-come, first-served list. According to Joe Guild (who represented the Nevada Mobile Home Park Owners' Association) this was the original intent of the legislation, Mr. Allard maintained. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 439. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ASSEMBLY BILL 473 - Revises provisions relating to habitability of mobile homes and manufactured homes. Reporting on A.B. 473, Ms. Buckley said this had been requested by someone who later decided to withdraw the bill. However, she requested that this bill not be Indefinitely Postponed, but rather, to delete all provisions now contained in A.B. 473 and to insert Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 of A.B. 484, which created an emergency rent fund for mobile home owners, she reminded everyone. Ms. Buckley indicated the bill would then have to go to Ways and Means Committee. The first fiscal note had been for $55,000, and the revised fiscal note would be for $6,000. Reclarifying, Ms. Buckley said everything in A.B. 473 was deleted, and sections of A.B. 484 would be inserted in A.B. 473. Additionally, one amendment was proposed to Section 4 (now in A.B. 484) to add, "...The Administrator may issue regulations to implement this fund, and the Administrator shall be authorized to distribute these funds through qualified non-profit organizations having a 501-C-3 Tax-Exempt status, to qualified individuals." ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 473, AND TO REREFER A.B. 473 TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Brower asked if it was the intent to establish two bills. Ms. Buckley noted that A.B. 484 had already been passed with the proviso that the deleted sections would be inserted in A.B. 473. Mr. Humke questioned whether it was the intent to place Section 4 of A.B. 484 into A.B. 473. Ms. Buckley acknowledged Section 4 was deleted altogether and should not be placed in A.B. 473. A.B. 473 was only to include language regarding the emergency fund, not the long-term lease. Mr. Arberry questioned the amount of the fiscal note, but neither the Chairman nor the Principal Research Analyst, Paul Mouritsen, could answer the question. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN TIFFANY, ALLARD, FETTIC AND HETTRICK VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.) The Chairman then asked the committee to take action on introducing the following bill drafts: ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-1973, RELATING TO PUBLIC WORKS. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***************** ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-2094 RELATING TO PODIATRY. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN ALLARD AND BUCKLEY VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.) Chairman Tiffany asked for committee action on Bill Draft Request 57-2104, relating to No-Fault Auto Insurance (Exhibit I). She recalled while driving in the state of Michigan she had been covered by No-Fault Auto Insurance for three years; and from her personal experience, she wished to hear the bill which proposed a 20 percent average statewide rate reduction in auto liability premiums. Ms. Giunchigliani said she could not support the introduction. Reflecting on the lateness of the Session, Ms. Giunchigliani noted there had been a great deal of opposition to the time taken by the committee to ponder policy issues, and at this point in the Session, it was too late to consider legislation of such magnitude. Also, she pointed out, there had been an identical bill requested and introduced on the Senate side, and she objected to identical bills being introduced in both the Assembly and Senate. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 57-2104. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN GIUNCHIGLIANI AND BUCKLEY VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES.) ASSEMBLY BILL 599 - Revises provisions relating to placement of mobile homes and other structures on mobile home lots. Mr. Spitler asked if the provisions set forth in A.B. 599 were, in fact, covered by local ordinances, and whether the testimony indicated the bill was unnecessary. Ms. Giunchigliani said this was so, and if there was a problem regarding mobile home location, it was within the purview of zoning ordinances and regulations to deal with matters of this nature. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 599. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ASSEMBLY BILL 614 - Requires information concerning payment or restructuring of delinquent debts to be included in consumer report. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 614. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 125 - Eliminates prohibition against certain members of state board of architecture from voting or acting on matters relating solely to architects. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 125. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 447 - Provides for confidentiality of certain records or information obtained by board of homeopathic medical examiners during investigation. Representing the Nevada Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners, Bob Martin, Executive Director, came forward to explain the bill would provide a means whereby investigative reports undertaken by the Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners could be heard in closed session. In so doing, if it was determined that the issue under consideration was frivolous and no action was warranted the results of that investigation could be kept confidential. Current statute required that everything considered by the Board had to be considered in open meeting. Under those circumstances, it was impossible to keep frivolous matters confidential. The bill, however, did make provision for this information to be disseminated to any other Board or agency which might be investigating one of the physicians licensed by the Homeopathic Board. Ms. Brower questioned whether other medical boards allowed closed hearings of this nature. Mr. Martin said, "yes," that this was almost identical to the statutes regulating NRS 630, the medical board, and 633, the osteopathic board. As to why the statute regulating the homeopathic medical examiners did not so state, Mr. Martin believed this was an oversight at the time of the original act in 1983; and was not the only oversight which had shown up. Ms. Giunchigliani ascertained it would still be open after an investigation was completed as long as there was a finding, and the Board would not be able to find someone guilty of a practice and simply accept a resignation without the information being revealed. Mr. Martin said, "Anytime anything of this nature is involved, if there's any kind of action on the part of the Board, it becomes immediately a public record." Mr. Spitler questioned whether during the 13 years the act had been in practice, there had been any problems with this not being part of the statute. Mr. Martin said there had been some difficulties, which generally had been handled by having a subcommittee consider complaints. This subcommittee then would make a recommendation to the Board who, under those circumstances, only received the details of the complaint if there was a recommendation to go forward with formal action. When, and if, the subcommittee (which was allowed to meet in closed session) made a recommendation that something was frivolous, the matter was simply dismissed. There was no further testimony offered on S.B. 447, and the hearing was closed. SENATE BILL 355 - Makes various changes to provisions relating to disposition of dead human bodies. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 355. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN BUCKLEY, HETTRICK, ARBERRY, PERKINS AND HUMKE WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) With no further testimony forthcoming, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _____________________________ Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Commerce June 5, 1995 Page