MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT Sixty-eighth Session March 14, 1995 The Committee on Labor and Management was called to order at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, March 14, 1995, Chairman Saundra Krenzer presiding in Room 321 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer, Chairman Mr. Dennis Nolan, Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Lynn Hettrick, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. Pete Ernaut Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. Brian Sandoval STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Vance A. Hughey, Senior Research Analyst Mr. Fred W. Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick McHenry, Nevada Classified School Employees Floyd Mundt, Nevada State Education Association Henry Etchemendy, Nevada Association of School Boards Ken White, Senior Boiler/Elevator Inspector Danny Evans, Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement Carolyne Edwards, Clark County School District ASSEMBLY BILL 56 - Requires licensure of operators of large boilers in schools. Chairman Krenzer opened the hearing on A.B. 56. Floyd Mundt with the Nevada State Education Association and the Education Support Employees Association testified in favor of A.B. 56. He showed a short excerpt from a training video describing a water heater explosion at a school in Spencer, Oklahoma, (Exhibit C.) The size of that water heater was about one tenth the size of the equipment he would like to require licensed operators for. There have been two recent narrow escapes in area schools, one at El Dorado High School in 1992, and one at Las Vegas High School in 1994. The state had an operator certification program but it was dropped and at that time Mr. Mundt's district stopped training boiler operators. His existing personnel are trained, but no new operators will be. Assemblyman Carpenter cited a letter he received from Dale Sanderson, Plant Facilities Administrator for the Washoe County School District, (Exhibit D,) which states all their custodians and high school building maintenance personnel have gone through their own boiler training class. He asked whether Clark County has a program like Washoe County's. Mr. Mundt replied there was not one at the present time and hedid not know why it was dropped. Assemblyman Nolan asked who currently provides routine inspection and maintenance of the boilers and what their schedule is. Mr. Mundt answered there is either an annual or bi-annual inspection, depending upon the type of boiler, required by state law. There is no routine schedule for looking at the boilers. Ms. Krenzer asked whether Mr. Mundt provides any in-service training for his employees. He responded he did not. Danny Evans, Chief Administrative Officer for Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement (OSHE), testified his department certified people in years past but when there was no legislative mandate, the program was dropped. His department supports A.B. 56 as it is written. He then introduced Ken White, who would make additional comments. Ken White, Senior Boiler/Elevator Inspector for the State of Nevada, handed out a series of pictures of boiler explosions, (Exhibit E), and commented people only react to statistics after tragedies have occurred. In the period 1984 through 1993, there have been 378 deaths; 1,709 injuries and 33,671 accidents reported in the boiler and pressure vessel industry. Forty-three percent of the accidents were attributable to operator error. During this same period, there were eight deaths and 59 injuries in the state of Nevada. Boilers can kill anytime. Everyone in a school comes within close proximity of a boiler or pressure vessel every day. All boilers, if not properly maintained and operated correctly, will explode like a bomb. Apathy or lack of concern for seemingly low profile safety issues has brought about a deadly sense of false security. Passage of A.B. 56 will help provide trained and qualified operators to protect our children. Mr. Carpenter asked why the certification program was dropped. Mr. Evans responded he did not know because the program was terminated before he took his current position. A previous administrator had gone to the Legislature in 1989 and asked for additional funding to support the licensing program. When the Legislature refused, he decided to do away with the certification program. It was a fine program. Courses were taught through the community colleges and the senior boiler inspector went out into the field and administered the testing for the course. If the Legislature approves A.B. 56, he would restore that training program. Mr. Carpenter questioned why people need certification; why not just train the boiler operators and asked if Mr. White, as he travels his district, has the authority to make certain anything he sees is unsafe gets repaired. Mr. White agreed he can do that. Mr. Carpenter stated operator training should be on-going and without a bureaucracy. Mr. Evans interjected part of the problem is the people involved in boiler and pressure vessel inspections must track and do inspections on about 8,000 objects. Insurance companies carrying insurance on boilers do inspections but his division reviews the paperwork to make certain they are done properly. His department does not have staff nor time to teach every one of the people who operate boilers. Mr. Carpenter noted the department is only requesting funding for one position. Insurance inspectors are supposed to be experts and he asked why the government is wasting its manpower checking up on experts. It would make more sense to follow one of the insurance experts around and, if he knows his job, move on to something else. The agency should be out in the field teaching boiler operators and not creating paper trails. Mr. Nolan asked whether annual boiler inspections by insurance companies are routine. Mr. White replied it depended on the size or type of object and inspections could range from every six months to every two years. Between inspections, it is up to the boiler operator to maintain his equipment properly. He has to have the knowledge to operate those things and has to have the knowledge to know what to do when something goes wrong. Mr. Nolan asked if the school districts have their own inspectors. Mr. White replied the districts' own insurance inspector performs those inspections. Assemblyman Ernaut asked whether the people most likely to be licensed as boiler operators are school district employees. Mr. White replied they are. Mr. Ernaut asked who would be paying the licensure fees, the employee or the school district. Mr. White did not know that answer. Mr. Ernaut asked whether the expenses involved in licensing fees and travel for training might be too expensive for the rural school districts. Mr. White felt the monetary value was unimportant compared with what might happen in the event a boiler blew up. He stated licensure costs pay for the costs of program promotion. Mr. Ernaut contended a reality is the little tiny school districts throughout the state that this would be a hardship for. Mr. White said before the original program was discontinued, the outlying towns could send a group to a close, central location such as Elko or Winnemucca, to attend a program set up by the state. Mr. Ernaut inquired how realistic administration of this program would be in the rural counties. Although he agrees with the importance of the program he is tired of dealing with bills that have no regard for the rest of the state. Mr. White replied 17 people came to Winnemucca High School, when the program was still functioning, to get licensed. Both men agreed safety is what they are interested in, but the reality of how this program would be administered is bothering Mr. Ernaut. He worries it could create a hardship for the rural counties. Mr. Evans mentioned the smaller counties may not have boilers that fit into the 2.5 million BTU category, so no requirements would have to be met. For the counties that would have to comply, arrangements could be made for training and licensing classes at a central location. All the counties complied five years ago when the program was in existence. Mr. Ernaut asked who would pay the licensing fees, assuming these were school district employees. Mr. Evans expected the school district would pay. Mr. Nolan asked whether the manufacturers provide training. Mr. Evans responded when a new boiler is installed, the manufacturer does come out and show the maintenance people how it operates. "How it operates" and "how to operate a boiler" are two different things. His belief is the manufacturer hands a maintenance book to the operator and leaves. Ms. Krenzer asked if any other inspections cover these boilers like Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) or regular site visits OSHE makes. Mr. Evans replied if a complaint is called in they might do a comprehensive inspection, but normally schools are not on their targeted list. Assemblyman Hettrick asked if insurance companies offer a discounted premium in situations where boiler operators are trained. Mr. Evans said he does not know. Mr. Hettrick repeated he would really like to know because if an insurance company, which has all the risks, does not offer a discount on the premium for a licensed operator, they must not think the risks are very great. The Committee members should know this in evaluating whether A.B. 56 is a worthwhile effort. The intent of the bill sponsors is laudable, but if one looks at the total number of people injured in Nevada, far more are injured with lawnmowers than with boilers. Licensing regulation could go on forever and every time a cost is added. Mr. Hettrick requested a fiscal note that would address the various school districts' costs to license their personnel and also the fiscal note for administration of the program and the costs for licensing and re-licensing. Ms. Krenzer stated she has requested local and state government fiscal notes for the Committee. Assemblyman Sandoval asked whether Messrs. White and Evans had reviewed the letter the Committee received from the Washoe County School District. Mr. White replied they had not. Mr. Sandoval quoted from the letter, "We currently provide in-house training to custodial personnel on boiler operation. This training is performed by a district boiler technician who has previously been licensed as a boiler operator by the state. At the completion of the training a fundamental test on boiler operation is given to the custodial employee. The test was developed by the district and is not based on any state or national standards." The letter also contains suggestions about state provided training classes. Mr. Sandoval requested the gentlemen comment on the letter and whether Washoe County is substandard. Mr. White stated he could not comment on Washoe County's standards other than to say last year there was a boiler explosion at McQueen High School caused by a faulty gas valve. He added his agency has found violations on the machinery. The people who inspect Washoe County School District are the insurance inspectors. The only time the state becomes involved with an insured location is during installation of new equipment or if there is an accident. Mr. Carpenter asked if the state inspects the insurance inspectors to see if they are qualified. Mr. Evans replied there had been problems with some inspectors but the state does not have the work force to re-check every boiler insurance inspectors' check. The seven or eight insurance companies operating in the state inspect 5,500 objects. Mr. Carpenter inquired whether, if the state inspects a boiler and it blows up, the state is liable. Mr. Evans is not aware of any responsibility by the state and responded they check a boiler based on what it looks like that day, they have no idea what may happen tomorrow or the next day. Mr. Carpenter asked what the real reason for a state program is if the state cannot be held liable. Responsibility should be transferred back to the insurance companies and they should be sponsoring safety programs if there is a need for them. Mr. Evans replied inspection of the boilers is not in the proposed bill which applies just to the licensing, certification and education of boiler operators. There is presently no problem with inspection. Mr. Carpenter asked whether the cause of most accidents is in the operation of the boilers or something missed during an inspection. Mr. Evans responded if a boiler operator knows the equipment, he would have the expertise to find a problem. Mr. Carpenter asked if, when a problem is spotted, his agency calls it to someone's attention. Mr. Evans responded the agency would write up a citation. Mr. Carpenter feels this is the sort of program needed but Mr. Evans said his people are only in a location once every six months to two years. Mr. Anderson mentioned when Washoe County recently built several new schools about half the boilers had been improperly installed and wondered what reliance could be placed upon the district programs. He stated the letter from Washoe County said OSHE should dictate curriculum and asked if that could be done and whether Mr. Evans would feel more secure if some levels of compliance were being followed. Quoting again from the letter from Washoe County that, "Standards will be set by the state as to content of any boiler operator training classes," Mr. Anderson inquired if it sounded like a good idea. Mr. White replied it is hard to tell what type of training program Washoe County has and what the contents are. Mr. Anderson asked whether the boiler needs a certified operator 24 hours a day. Mr. White said it did not, provided it meets the requirements of Nevada Administrative Code 618.291 which specifies the safety devices required on the equipment in order to leave the boiler unattended but boilers need to be checked every day. Mr. Ernaut asked why the bill died last session and Mr. Evans responded it passed the Assembly but never came out of the Senate committee. Ms. Krenzer mentioned the question has been raised whether this bill is within OSHE's purlieu. She noted the implication had been made that the agency's intent is to over-regulate or oversee and requested a comment. Mr. Evans asked whether a bunch of children must die before the Legislature finally does something. Ms. Krenzer asked whether he sees an imminent threat and Mr. Evans said, "Definitely." He added there has been an increase in boiler accidents and that it is just a matter of time. Mr. Anderson asked why there has been an increase in boiler accidents. Mr. White replied there has been a tremendous influx of people into the state so there are more boilers. In addition, people's attitudes have become very complacent. Mr. White has been in his position five years and overseen insured locations from the start. He has seen an increase in the incident rate as well as an increase in the malfunction of automatic equipment. Mr. Nolan, referring to Mr. White's mention about malfunctioning automatic equipment, asked if the failures he had inspected were equipment failures, failures of things that should have been noted in routine inspections, insurance inspections and annual inspections or if they were not predictable. Mr. White believed sometimes things are overlooked, which is why a second check by a trained operator helps, and sometimes problems are missed. In Las Vegas, the water is so hard a three year old boiler will look like it is ten years old. The erosion of a piece of equipment has a bearing on this and that is pretty hard to predict. The operator should constantly watch his equipment. Mr. Ernaut asked why this legislation is limited to schools. Mr. Evans responded two years ago the bill was expanded to include all boiler operations. The problem comes in administering a larger program with their limited number of people. Mr. Goldwater asked if there were licensing programs in Oklahoma when that explosion occurred. Mr. White replied he surveyed all the states and could get that answer. Mr. Goldwater also inquired whether, during his survey, Mr. White had found any relationship between more accidents and states with no licensing programs. Mr. White responded he did not. Ms. Krenzer asked if Mr. White would consider a program, as suggested by Washoe County, where the state certified operators rather than the formal procedure involved in licensing. Mr. Evans asked who would administer the certification and Ms. Krenzer answered probably the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Mr. Evans said he does not care what it is called as long as the people are trained and his agency is able to verify the training and its quality. Ms. Krenzer asked if the school district could provide the training. Mr. Evans agreed as long as OSHE had some input into it and were able to be involved with writing the test. Mr. Goldwater commented his concern with asking the school districts to do this is the "unfunded mandate" and that DIR should do it. Ms. Krenzer called upon those speaking in opposition of A.B. 56. Carolyne Edwards, Legislative Representative for the Clark County School District, opened her testimony stating she is in a terrible position. She stated this issue involves philosophical differences. The school district does not want anyone hurt, nor does it want untrained people operating major pieces of equipment, but they do believe their in-house training is sufficient. Mr. Mundt is a Clark County School District employee and there are local channels he could have used if he felt this strongly. He could have gone to the people above him and the school board, shown this video, given the same testimony and had Clark County look at their training procedures. After hearing today's testimony she is very willing to invite experts to Clark County and if their training is not sufficient, Clark County should be open to working with DIR to improve their training situation. The school board of Trustees would be extremely open to upgrading their training and receiving information and input as suggested by the Committee if they had seen the same presentation made today. The Board of School Trustees would support any safety training and safety measures that would assist them in this area. The issue has always been a philosophical one concerning licensure and regulation. The safety of all students is the Board of School Trustees' first and foremost consideration. If there is a way Mr. Mundt sees the Trustees are not doing this in Clark County, it is beholden upon him to go through their procedures to the Board of Trustees and tell them this is an issue in Clark County that needs to be solved. Mr. Henry Etchemendy, representing the Nevada Association of School Boards, spoke next, mentioning he had been doing research around the school districts and the situation has not changed from two years ago. In some of the districts there is not that much turnover and the folks operating boilers are folks who were certified under the former state program. By and large they are the same people with the same training and knowledge. Mentioning comments made earlier about several incidents in Clark County, Washoe County and Humboldt County, Mr. Etchemendy was not familiar with any of those. He did relate an incident in Humboldt County which occurred about five years ago, but certification or non- certification had nothing to do with it. During the night the automatic controls on one boiler malfunctioned, insulation ignited and started a fire that burned up two classrooms. There was not a boiler explosion and the folks operating the boilers were certified. A number of school districts do operate boilers with at least 2.5 million BTU output and they would be impacted by the effects of this bill. If the Committee wishes to process A.B. 56, he requested it go to Ways and Means for their consideration. Mr. Anderson asked Ms. Edwards if the Clark County School District changed its boiler operation and training practices as a result of hearing testimony two years ago and noting the concern registered in the Assembly when this bill came out of committee. Ms. Edwards responded they had not. Mr. Anderson, mentioning the enormous growth in both Clark and Washoe Counties, noted there must be many new personnel in those areas who were not licensed under the old program. He asked how these people are trained and if it varies based on the type of facility. Mr. Etchemendy responded the insurance companies do review some of the qualifications of the operators and that it is in the school district's interest to give their personnel as much training as possible, just for insurance reasons if no others. Mr. Anderson asked whether the school districts would qualify for a lower insurance rate if their people were licensed by the state of Nevada and met the state's certification requirements. Mr. Etchemendy said he did not have that answer and would not care to speculate. Mr. Anderson stated it would be very helpful for him to have that information. Mr. Carpenter asked whether Ms. Edwards knew what Clark County's training program consisted of and if the Committee could get a copy of it. Ms. Edwards replied she would supply that for him and added their circumstances are very similar to Washoe County's. Their current in-house training is done by experienced people already on the job. Clark County has been very fortunate because growth has brought an influx of skilled, knowledgeable people, and they have been very fortunate in their hiring. They have been able to hire experienced boiler operators who are able to instruct others. Mr. Carpenter asked if there were any schools available for training of district personnel Clark County could take advantage of. He also requested actual records of what the insurance companies are really doing when they come in to make inspections. Mr. Etchemendy agreed to get the information requested. Mr. Nolan, reviewing last Session's testimony, said Mr. Patrick McHenry indicated the Clark County School District had a safety program, not just a training program, in place and requested Mr. Etchemendy include information about that in what he brings back. Mr. McHenry's comment last Session was he did not understand other school districts not having the same type of training and safety programs in place. Patrick McHenry, Maintenance Coordinator for the Washoe County School District, spoke on behalf of the Nevada Classified School Employees Association. He stated he testified against this bill two years ago and his testimony today is much the same. See (Exhibit F). Several things bothered him about the bill, among them the fact that it is not inclusive of other boilers within the state. Also the bill is very vague and he agreed with Mr. Hettrick that there are more lawnmower accidents than boiler accidents. Boilers are dangerous, but so are automobiles and airplanes. In Washoe County there have been some breakdowns but no life-threatening incidents. Washoe County does everything it can to successfully train a person to operate a boiler. Washoe County's boilers are low pressure, hot water and low pressure steam, with the steam being replaced by rooftop units, eliminating boilers in many instances. Mr. McHenry, addressing the issue of who pays, stated the financial burden would fall on the lowest paid person in the school district if the employee pays. If the school district pays the bill, it would come from general funds and would probably be taken from the maintenance budget. It would not be difficult for a school district's plant facilities department to put in a mandatory training program for their employees. Washoe County conducts a 24 hour program every summer. The maintenance personnel are not boiler experts but they are trained operators. These same people, under the direction of mechanical and maintenance technicians within the district, tear down and disassemble the boilers each summer then the state inspector comes along and inspects. A prudent person would do this but licensing does not make a person more prudent and sometimes creates a burden. Mr. McHenry was licensed under the old program and feels passing an oral or written test will not accomplish anything if the person can be licensed but is not prudent and does not inspect his boiler on a daily basis. Let us not put the burden on the custodian to pay the bill, instead let us provide for a training program in the school districts. Mr. Hettrick asked if the boilers in Washoe County had redundant backup systems, pressure pop-off valves and other safety devices built into the boilers. Mr. McHenry testified all of them do. Mr. Hettrick queried whether the procedure for inspection was written. Mr. McHenry replied each boiler operator or custodian maintains a daily boiler log. There are certain things he checks, among them the emergency controls alluded to by Mr. Hettrick earlier, the water pressure, the stack temperature, and the temperature so each day he can check for repetition of the same figures. Mr. Hettrick asked if Mr. McHenry would be willing to share his procedures with the other school districts. Mr. McHenry said he would be delighted to. Mr. Carpenter asked if the technicians go to special training schools to keep up with the latest technology. Mr. McHenry responded that, as programs are offered, they do. Ms. Krenzer, seeing no further questions, placed A.B. 56 in a subcommittee composed of herself and Assemblymen Nolan, Anderson and Carpenter to try to work through an amendment or other language. Ms. Krenzer opened a Work Session, (Exhibit G), with a request by Mr. Hettrick on behalf of Don Hellwinkle of the C.O.D. Garage in Minden to include Mr. Hellwinkle's package in the record. See (Exhibit H). ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 57 - Broadens application of provisions governing eligibility for workers' compensation for diseases of heart or lungs. Vance Hughey, Senior Research Analyst, stated A.B. 57 was requested by the State of Nevada Employees Association. Testimony on this bill was heard March 2, 1995 and no action was taken but Bob Gagnier had proposed several changes in the current wording of the bill as stated in the exhibit. Mr. Nolan asked if Mr. Hughey was comfortable with the statute this refers to and whether the statute specifically addresses just correction and forensic specialists. Mr. Hughey agreed it essentially does say forensic specialists and correctional officers have police powers under certain circumstances. Ms. Krenzer, referring to line 16, wishes to leave "uniformed" employee in. She does not want to include every prison employee and does not think that was the intent. Mr. Hettrick also wishes to leave "a uniformed employee" in line 16 and add the words "or forensic specialist of the Department of Prisons whose position requires . . . ". Mr. Gagnier suspects the preceding wording would work. Mr. Sandoval requested further information on fiscal impact. Mr. Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Director, stated in the original version of the bill, removing all the specially defined people and giving a general category, might lead some of the local governments to feel it covers them as well, so there was a large fiscal note. It appears if one goes back to the specific outline the Committee members have been discussing, the only additional people would be the ones Mr. Gagnier spoke of and, in previous testimony by Mr. Gagnier, the increase for those people was minimal. Mr. Gagnier responded because of the current wording in NRS 281 regarding who has peace officer powers at the prison, it is anyone the Director of Prisons says is a peace officer. Because of that they currently have all their employees so designated, the forensic people among those, take the annual physical as if they were covered by this law. As a result, there is no increased cost to the prisons because they are doing it now. The Department of Prisons has felt all of their employees were under this law. Obviously, the Committee members think they are not. The language suggested by Mr. Welden would probably accomplish the direction the Committee wants to go. Mr. Bache has been doing research on how this coordinates with police/fire retirement and those who are eligible for police/fire retirement under NRS 286 would also, more than likely, fall under heart and lung. The people mentioned in the proposed new section 9, do come under the police/fire retirement system. That is definitely a legitimate area for addition. In line 16, if you remove the word "uniformed" it would open the definition up to everyone with peace officer power, and plumbers and cooks have peace officer powers but do not fall under the early retirement section of police/fire. On line 16 the Committee might want to enumerate those non-uniformed positions that fall under the police/fire retirement as a way of identifying them. Ms. Krenzer requested Mr. Hughey enumerate the above mentioned positions. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 59 - Makes various changes to provisions governing investigation, prosecution and punishment of crimes related to industrial insurance. Mr. Hughey stated A.B. 59 changed some of the provisions giving the Office of the Attorney General, particularly the Worker's Compensation Fraud Unit, greater discretion in determining when to prosecute an employer under certain circumstances. An amendment was proposed that would change the wording of subsection 3 of Section 1 of the bill, also in Exhibit G. Mr. Hettrick remarked he is comfortable with the new wording but on the second page he does not like the mandated penalties. Recently he has run into a situation with SIIS where the Legislature mandated penalties. There was no room at all for flexibility and well-intended people got hit with very stiff penalties. He would like a little more flexibility in subsection 2. They may want to go after someone for more than $250 in fraud but not want to see the individual in jail for a year in addition to the fine. We should give them a little flexibility. Mr. Ernaut, agreeing with Mr. Hettrick, does not want to see the term and the fine delineated. Instead he would like the offense delineated, i.e., one is guilty of a gross misdemeanor or one is guilty of a misdemeanor. That would allow judicial review and flexibility rather than a mandatory minimum. Mr. Hettrick agreed with placing "willfully" or "knowingly" in the language of the bill. Leaving the penalty one to ten and not more than a $10,000 fine will force someone to be taken to court and to trial. Clearly, no employer would ever say, "Yes, I did it. It was more than $250." He is going to go to jail for a year if he admits that so what you have done is make every single court case go to trail. Leave some room for the Attorney General to decide what the penalty ought to be. Ms. Krenzer agreed and stated the intent is exactly what Mr. Hettrick outlined. Mr. Anderson would like the opportunity for judicial discretion retained. Mr. Hettrick mentioned that Mr. Welden just pointed out the middle of line 5 states, ". . . by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment." He believes there is enough flexibility already and the language is all right the way it is written. Mr. Sandoval commented the judge has discretion and the person would not automatically go to prison. Ms. Krenzer concluded the language is satisfactory. Mr. Sandoval, referring again to the amendment wording which states "submits proper and substantial" believes it is a standard he is not used to and wonders if "and substantial" is unnecessary. "Substantial" adds another layer and might create potential for some kind of confusion, which he would like to avoid. "Substantial" is redundant. The Attorney General has to determine what is proper evidence and then make the charges. Ms. Krenzer stated the wording was at the Attorney General's request. Mr. Ernaut stated if everyone is happy with removing "and substantial" he will move amend and do pass. ASSEMBLYMAN ERNAUT MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS ON A.B.59. ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Krenzer adjourned the meeting at 5:28 p.m. being there was no further business before the committee. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Jennifer Carnahan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Saundra Krenzer, Chairman Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, Chairman Assembly Committee on Labor and Management March 14, 1995 Page