MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND FACILITIES Sixty-eighth Session May 12, 1995 The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 12:30 p.m., on Friday, May 12, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary Chairman Rawson opened the meeting at 12:30 p.m., and advised that he has Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40-1837 for committee consideration. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 1837: Exempts convention halls from requirement of providing sufficient number of water closets and urinals to comply with Uniform Plumbing Code. The chairman advised that this BDR was requested by Minority Leader Titus to deal specifically with some convention centers in Las Vegas that have concern about the large number of water closets they have had to install in buildings that are not used most of the time, so they have asked for an exemption on that basis. Senator Augustine remarked that Senator Titus was the sponsor of the original bill, and she is now requesting this BDR, so there must be a problem. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-1837. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS LOWDEN, MATHEWS AND COFFIN VOTED NO.) * * * * * The hearing was opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 408. SENATE BILL 408: Revises provisions relating to abortions for minors. Chairman Rawson directed attention to the amendment to S.B. 408 in the work session document, page 8 (Exhibit C), and asked Senator Washington to speak to this amendment. Senator Washington advised that this amendment is in response to Senator Neal's questions when S.B. 408 was initially heard. The amendment will delete lines 12 and 13 of section 4, page 4, of the bill and replace it with "...court shall issue a decision within 5 judicial days after the record of appeal has been..." The chairman advised there is some concern that asking the Supreme Court for a new trial may be unconstitutional, although the legal staff felt that posture was defensible, but could lead to a challenge. This amendment essentially takes it from a de novo trial to an appeal to the Supreme Court within 5 judicial days. Senator Lowden said she has been informed that there is a request in for a fiscal note to the counties, particularly the rural counties, that are concerned that this is going to be more money than they can afford. She has also been informed that if this bill should pass out of committee, there will be a movement to amend this bill to alert people when they are voting that there is a cost attached. Senator Lowden commented that the committee can vote this bill out or wait until a determination is made if there is a large fiscal note. The chairman advised that the information he has received indicates there is not a large fiscal note on the bill. Senator Mathews asked what kind of a delay the committee is looking at for a fiscal note. Senator Lowden answered that it would probably be about 2 weeks. Senator Lowden said that the lobbyists from the counties and cities are deeply concerned because there is a fiscal note involved. Senator Washington asked if the fiscal note was regarding the judicial bypass, and said he endeavored to address that earlier. He said the fiscal note should be minimal, at best, in view of the number of minors who will be seeking this judicial bypass. Senator Mathews said it is always dangerous to guess about a fiscal note, especially with the amount of discussion the committee has had about it, and she feels the committee should find out the actual amount of the fiscal note. Chairman Rawson said S.B. 408 already has a fiscal note on it, and that note says there will be no effect on local government, state or industrial insurance. Senator Neal wondered if this bill will have an impact on those persons seeking training to handle these issues. He said if the committee is going to go forward with this issue and it is going to take effect after public vote, the voters should have at their disposal the same information the committee has in order to make an informed decision when voting. Chairman Rawson directed Senator Washington to contact fiscal staff on behalf of the chairman, and request a fiscal note be furnished to the committee addressing this issue. Senator Augustine pointed out that there is a fiscal note on this bill in the bill book. It says no local government fiscal effect, and that is from the deputy fiscal analyst. From the state controller, there is a fiscal 1995-1996 note of $205.96 and $211.00 for 1996-1997. The chairman recalled that he had requested a fiscal note, and the staff is saying this is not an issue. Senator Neal said he does not see the cost to the judicial system, and he feels the committee owes that information to the public, so they can be informed before voting. The fiscal note says the primary cost of this bill is not with the health division. The cost shown is to change the computer software program to include physician identification and to modify these report-generated packages. Chairman Rawson repeated that he is directing Senator Washington to approach fiscal staff for a fiscal note to be developed on this bill. Senator Neal said he is ready to refer the bill to the floor without recommendation. Senator Augustine asked about Senator Washington's proposed amendment. SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 408. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chairman Rawson said this essentially takes it from a de novo trial to an appeal to the Supreme Court within 5 judicial days. Senator Coffin said he had not seen the amendment before, and he asked Senator Washington if the legal division had prepared the amendment. Senator Washington replied in the affirmative. Senator Coffin asked if in other states where they have judicial bypasses, do they say de novo. Senator Washington replied in the affirmative. Senator Coffin asked if it was his decision to take it out, and Senator Washington replied yes, and the bill would still be in compliance with the law. Chairman Rawson advised that at the hearing, two attorneys spoke on this issue. One of the attorneys who is for the bill said it is completely constitutional; the attorney in opposition to the bill stated that there is case law in Nevada that specifically ties to the state's constitution that the Supreme Court cannot be forced to do a new trial, but just an appeal trial. The chairman continued by saying that this issue has been taken to the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The opinion of the bureau is that this position is defensible, that it is challengeable, and on that basis, Senator Washington has asked for an amendment that would remove it as a contentious issue. Senator Coffin said he thought the Nevada Supreme Court only dealt with technical issues, as opposed to issues of substance. The chairman advised that the official stance of the Legislative Counsel Bureau is they do not write unconstitutional bills. The chairman advised the committee that he was comfortable with it either way, and called for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator Washington said he had one more issue, and he has another possible amendment regarding ministers or clergy being substituted in the judicial bypass. Because there may be a conflict of interest, he asked Pastor Holloman to be here today to address this issue, if necessary. Chairman Rawson said that since that issue has not come up, has not been presented, there is probably no reason for the committee to go into that discussion at this time unless there is someone that wants to present that issue. Senator Washington deferred to the wishes of the chairman, who elected not to bring this matter up at this time. Senator Lowden added that this bill will go to the desk without the fiscal amount. The chairman reassured Senator Lowden that if the bill is voted out, the committee will wait for a fiscal note. What Senator Neal is proposing is that it go out without recommendation. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND S.B. 408 WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION AND THAT IT BE REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE UPON RECEIPT OF THE FISCAL NOTE. SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION. The chairman asked Senator Neal if he will accept that the bill not be reported out until the fiscal note is received to go with it. Senator Neal agreed. Senator Lowden asked for clarification, asking if this means the committee will vote on the motion, but not do anything until the fiscal note comes and it is voted on? Chairman Rawson said no, the committee will vote it out without recommendation when the fiscal note is delivered. That fiscal note will be put with the bill and delivered to the floor and at that point, the discussion or debate can go on. He further explained that in some committees, when the committee does not wish to offend someone and does not particularly want to support a bill, it can be voted out without recommendation; but that is not the only reason that a bill is voted out without recommendation. Senator Lowden said she was prepared to vote in favor of the amendment, but she wants to wait for the fiscal note before doing so. The chairman said that receipt of the fiscal note is now part of this motion, and called for a vote. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The chairman said it is now his understanding that the committee will report this bill to the floor as soon as the fiscal note is received. * * * * * Chairman Rawson opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 283. SENATE BILL 283: Revises provisions governing confidentiality of certain records of commission on mental health and mental retardation. Chairman Rawson said there was a specific request that the committee go to the full open meeting law on this bill, and there was a request by the agency that the committee try to pull back and have some reservation about that step. Kerry Carroll Davis, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, advised that the proposed amendment (Exhibit D) is on page 6 of the work session document. This amendment was submitted by Cindy Pyzel, Deputy Attorney General, who testified at the hearing, and it addresses some of the concerns that were expressed during the hearing about the bill opening up chapter 241 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which refers to the open meeting law. The proposed amendment narrows their exemption to the open meeting law, as shown on page 6. Ms. Pyzel's position on this amendment is shown on page 6 and her addition is underlined. The chairman read the underlined portion of subsection 4, which is the proposed wording for that subsection, and asked for comments. Ms. Davis said she wanted to clarify that Ms. Pyzel's amendment deletes subsection 4 as it now reads in the bill, and that text is replaced by the underlined section on page 6. Senator Mathews asked if the intent of this amendment is a personnel matter. Ms. Davis said it has to do with denial of client rights. Senator Mathews said it seems to her that it is being treated as a personnel matter. Chairman Rawson said yes, that is right, the division is trying to protect the client. The chairman asked the committee to look at the existing bill and the wording of subsection 4, which reads: "Any report: (a) Regarding the denial of the rights of a client; or (b) Requested by the commission to review the care and treatment of a client, is confidential and must be discussed in executive session unless the commission determines that disclosure of the report is necessary to accomplish the provisions of subsection 3. The provisions of chapter 241 of NRS do not apply to any portion of a meeting in which the commission discusses a report that is declared confidential pursuant to this subsection." The chairman advised the amendment would substitute the underlined wording on page 6 of Exhibit D, for the existing wording. Chairman Rawson asked what the wording "any report" means. Ms. Davis explained that essentially the offensive part of the wording was on page 2 of the existing bill which reads: "3. The provisions of chapter 241 of NRS do not apply to any portion of a meeting in which the commission discusses a report that is declared confidential pursuant to this subsection." The phrase "do not apply" was a problem, as brought out in testimony, and this amendment is to address that problem. The chairman pointed out the amendment says the phrase does apply, but there are conditions under which you can close a meeting. The committee had talked about a letter of intent, asking the agency to report to interim finance once a year. The committee wanted to ascertain how many meetings were closed and under what circumstances the meetings were being closed, to be sure there is an oversight on the activities of the commission in this respect. Senator Coffin said the amendment seems acceptable to him in that it removes the more extreme position but still gives the commission some protection. SENATOR COFFIN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 283. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * The work session was opened by a discussion on Senate Concurrent Resolution (S.C.R.) 16. SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 16: Urges Congress to amend the Social Security Act to allow states to pay recipient of Medicaid who has a disability directly for certain services provided in the home of the recipient. Ms. Davis referred the committee to pages 9 and 10 of the Work Session Document, and reminded the committee that when this was briefly brought up at the last work session, and there was not sufficient time to look at it. The amendment to S.C.R. 16 on page 10 (Exhibit E) was prepared by the Rehabilitation Division of the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation. A representative of that department testified at the first hearing and, essentially, what was added to the resolution was based on recommendations of the American Bar Association and allows, through an amendment of the federal tax code, something called the supportive intermediary option. This would allow the state or another agency to provide those types of services, and yet the state and the agency would not be deemed an employer. This would address some of the liability issues of paying a Medicaid recipient directly, targeting those individuals who are not quite ready to take on the full responsibilities of recruiting their own personal care workers, such as doing background checks. Chairman Rawson said this seems to be a reasonable approach. Senator Augustine referred to line 23 on the first amendment, indicating it should be line 22. Ms. Davis said yes, that is correct, and line 22 should read: ...the recipients of such services when such payment is appropriate;..." Chairman Rawson asked for a vote if the committee found the amendment acceptable. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.C.R. 16. SENATOR MATHEWS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * A work session discussion was then opened on Senate Bill (S.B.) 35. SENATE BILL 35: Revises requirements concerning immunization of children attending schools and child care facilities. Chairman Rawson submitted Amendment No. 279 (Exhibit F) from Senator O'Donnell for the committee's consideration. Chairman Rawson advised that this bill went to the floor, and he put it on the secretary's desk because of concerns that were expressed on the floor. As a consequence, Senator O'Donnell has drafted this amendment for the committee's consideration. Part of this amendment puts the bill back to the original language. It does leave in it the ability for a nurse or personnel other than the doctor to be able to sign the immunization form once the immunization has been given, and a physician no longer has to sign the form. The rest of the amendment does not put it back to exactly the same language. It says that a child is exempt from the provisions if that child has a medical condition or if that child expresses a religious exemption. The chairman then asked Ms. Davis if she would explain the amendment. Ms. Davis said in those cases where the bill addresses the medical and the religious exemptions, the main change is upon submission of such a statement, the child is exempt from the provisions. Thereafter, the board of trustees or any persons acting on behalf of the board may not require the parents or guardian to answer any questions concerning their religious belief or medical conditions. Chairman Rawson said his understanding of the amendment is that it returns the bill to what is existing in the law book now; that is, there is a medical exemption and there is a religious exemption. It clarifies the bill with one line that simply says a person cannot be questioned about religious preference. In other words, if they express that they have a medical condition, that should be sufficient. If they say that they have a religious exemption, it should be enough. He said further that he understands this can be controversial, and called for committee discussion. Senator Mathews said that is what brought the bill before the committee in the first place because some people, particularly in Washoe County, were badgered about what their religions were and so forth. The chairman said the reason for the bill in the first place was because it was necessary to have the physician sign the form, and the health department wanted to allow nurses or other personnel at the health department to be able to sign off on the forms. Senator Coffin said the amendment conflicts with his Amendment No. 158 (Exhibit G) that is sitting on the floor waiting for this bill to move. The chairman said Senator Coffin had just reminded him that he also had an amendment to this bill. Therefore, he asked the staff to submit the proposed amendment to the agency and Senator Coffin's amendment will be brought back from the floor and will be considered along with Senator O'Donnell's amendment when it comes before the committee again. He asked staff to also get the agency's opinion on Senator Coffin's amendment, even though he has had an approval from the agency. Senator Augustine said she sees a real problem with this, especially in section 5. Private schools are allowed to do what they want in regard to immunization. She said the schools she teaches in will not enroll a child unless the child has been immunized. She believes private schools should be allowed that discretion. Senator Coffin said technically the problem is that his Amendment No. 158 will be considered on the floor, no matter what Senator O'Donnell proposed. The chairman said the reason he was considering this amendment was not to have it become a committee amendment, but he wanted the committee to get back into a discussion of the amendment. The chairman apologized for the oversight of Senator Coffin's amendment. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Coffin what his amendment did, and he said it put the bill back to its original wording. Senator Augustine said she would vote for Senator Coffin's amendment. The chairman asked for a consensus reading from the committee regarding the original bill. That would be with Senator Coffin's amendment. He asked if it should be taken off the secretary's desk so the committee can deal with it. Senator Washington asked if the original bill stated that immunizations could be waived for medical or religious reasons. The chairman said all the original bill did was allow a nonphysician to sign the form. There does not seem to be any concern about bringing that issue up with Senator Coffin's amendment. He asked that the committee wait to see what the agency has to say about Senator O'Donnell's amendment, and then the committee will take Senator Coffin's amendment off the secretary's desk. A work session discussion was then held on Senate Bill (S.B.) 88. SENATE BILL 88: Requires school districts to establish programs providing bilingual education. Senator Lowden said she had received several documents from Mr. de la Torre of the State Department of Education. He furnished her with more information on this bill, but she just has not had time to look at it and would like the opportunity to look at that information over the weekend. Chairman Rawson said S.B. 88 would then remain on the work list. Chairman Rawson then asked about Assembly Bill (A.B.) 366, the bill that was brought up in session this day, and wondered if there is anything the committee should do on that bill. ASSEMBLY BILL 366: Requires creation of policies and procedures on teaching of American sign language. Senator Lowden said she has an appointment with someone from the sign language group to go over the bill. She would like to keep that appointment before discussion on this bill. Chairman Rawson said there is a report from the task force on that bill, and he requested staff to get a copy of that report for the committee. The chairman said the testimony is that American Sign Language (ASL) was discussed by the task force, and the decision was to go ahead with ASL. If the committee feels something further needs to be done, he suggests that the committee handle this bill and authorize a bill draft. Chairman Rawson asked Senator Lowden to sort that out during her appointment with the representative. Senator Washington said he has a problem differentiating between ASL and Sign Exact English (SEE), and his understanding is that the bill would consider ASL a foreign language and credit would be given for taking ASL, but credit would not be given for SEE. The chairman said that is correct, and Senator Lowden will be given time to meet with the representative and report back to the committee. The work session adjourned at 1:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________ _____ Mary Gavin, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: _____________________________________ Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities May 12, 1995 Page