The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Wednesday, February 10, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr., Excused

Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, Assembly District 20

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley asked the committee to take action on the following Bill Draft Requests (BDR):

• BDR 18-765 - specifies duties of administrator of rehabilitation division of department of employment, training and rehabilitation (A.B. 203).

• BDR 54-405 revises provisions relating to nursing (A.B. 204).

• BDR 54-642 provides for removal and perpetuation of certain monuments (A.B. 202).

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on A.B. 1.

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, explained Exhibit C was a consideration for an amendment to A.B. 1. A bill similar to A.B.1 was introduced, requested, and referred to the Committee on Commerce near the end of the Sixty-ninth Session, but due to insufficient time, the committee decided not to act on the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated A.B. 1 dealt with "fly-by-night" cash for car titles that proliferated throughout the State of Nevada. She continued to explain the state did not have usury laws, and as pawnbrokers had a cap on the amount they could charge, it seemed reasonable to place within the pawnbroker statutes language that dealt with persons who lent money secured by a certificate of title to a motor vehicle.

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified section 1 of A.B. 1 began with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 646.010, that dealt with pawnbrokers and then changed in section 3 to NRS 675.350. The language would have included every banking institution, credit union or other group that dealt with car titles, which was not her intent.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted her amendment (Exhibit C) would delete section 1, 2 and 3 of A.B. 1. She further pointed out NRS 675.120, section 3 specified a company post a $50,000 liquid assets bond and recommended in her amendment (Exhibit C) the bond be raised to $250,000. Ms. Giunchigliani stated the amount of the bond had not been changed since the inception of the statute. Therefore, it seemed reasonable for a company to have available at least $250,000 in cash.

Ms. Giunchigliani further noted her amendment (Exhibit C) would add the additional language "any other state" to NRS 675.040, and remarked the additional language was considered "housekeeping." In addition, she said the Financial Institutions Division pointed out installment lenders had to comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which applied to third party individuals. She explained language needed to be put into regulation whereby installment lenders would comply with the act as a first party, but noted not every restriction was necessary for third party lenders because they did not fall under the act.

Ms. Giunchigliani pointed out the language in the current statute was vague with regard to whether the cash liquidation asset applied to "per location or per licensee." It was necessary to bring consumer legislation forward, but she did not want an over-regulatory government.

Chairman Buckley asked Ms. Giunchigliani what chapter of the NRS regulated entities that loaned on automobile titles. Ms. Giunchigliani answered NRS 675. Chairman Buckley further sought clarification as to whether Ms. Giunchigliani was striking everything in A.B.1 and asked her to explain exactly what she proposed. Ms. Giunchigliani briefly explained Exhibit C.

Chairman Buckley sought further clarification as to the intent of the additional words "any other state," and noted the additional wording provided an exemption which meant NRS 675, the applicability section, would not apply to anyone listed under that section. Ms. Buckley asked if the State of Nevada would not want state jurisdiction over out-of-state companies.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained Douglas Walther, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Commerce Section, suggested amending "NRS 675.040 to exempt from regulation banks and similar financial institutions chartered by other states. These banks are currently exempt from our Mortgage Act NRS 645B, and it appears that the failure to include a similar exemption in NRS Chapter 675 may just be an oversight."

Assemblywoman Berman asked Ms. Giunchigliani to explain the cost difference in the $250,000 bond versus the $50,000 bond. Ms. Giunchigliani explained NRS 675 required a loan company have sufficient liquid assets in order to act as such because the companies regularly lent cash.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Vance Hughey to read for the committee NRS 675.120, subsection 3, which said, "If the commissioner finds: That the applicant, unless he will function solely as a loan broker, has available for the operation of the business at the specified location liquid assets of at least $50,000, he shall thereupon enter an order granting the application, and file his findings of fact together with the transcript of any hearing held under this chapter, and forthwith issue and deliver a license to the applicant."

Mr. Beers stated there were many areas within the law with fixed dollar amounts, but with the passage of time, the dollar amount was no longer germane. He asked if the dollar amount could be indexed so as to automatically adjust up or down with inflation or the cost of living.

Ms. Giunchigliani agreed the issue presented by Mr. Beers was a problem, as often changes were not recognized. She continued, A.B.1 was a safeguard issue on a consumer piece. The concern was companies who thought they had sufficient liquid assets in their business but did not, thus creating problems for consumers. The dollar amount must adequately cover industry expenses.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted individuals within the industry thought the $250,000 amount was reasonable but there was concern about the issue of location versus corporation.

Mr. Hettrick explained he considered $50,000 a lot of money and noted if automobile pawnbrokers were included in A.B.1, then liquid assets needed a definition. He explained a vehicle was considered a liquid asset if it was on a 30-day loan. If an individual did not pay off the loan, the broker owned the car, and the car was generally worth more than the amount the broker loaned. The broker could make a $1,000 loan on a $5,000 car, and his liquid assets went up significantly when the loan was made.

Mr. Hettrick was concerned about the $250,000 liquid asset amount, and noted it was an onerous level of requirement for a small businessperson who might be operating a business from a rented location. He noted that a bond made sense to him.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained A.B. 1 no longer dealt with pawnbrokers, as the amendment (Exhibit C) removed such language. She offered language that provided the least governmental regulation in a manner similar to current law but still offered protection for the consumer.

Ms. Giunchigliani was concerned about small corner stores who took advantage of low-income individuals whose only asset may be an old car. She said a huge social problem was compounded when such an individual lost his/her car and was unable to go to work. Ms. Giunchigliani did not object to a bond but noted the statute did not call for one as did statutes that affected mortgage companies.

Mr. Robert Barengo, Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Nevada Consumer Finance Association, testified against A.B. 1. Mr. Barengo noted the association consisted of such entities as Beneficial Finance, Household Finance, Associates Corporation, Avco Financial Services, Pioneer Military Lending, Norwest, Nations Credit, and American General. He pointed out the companies were long standing in the State of Nevada.

Mr. Barengo explained there were a number of licensed entities in the State of Nevada that made loans on personal property. He pointed out personal property included automobiles and the entities that made the loans were comprised of banks, savings and loans, thrift companies, pawn companies and installment loan companies. The installment loan companies were once referred to as small loan companies because the amount of the loans they made capped at $10,000. At a later time, the $10,000 cap was increased and the name of the entity changed to installment loan companies. The amendment proposed by Ms. Giunchigliani (Exhibit C) removed from consideration the prohibition against title companies and pawn companies; and the entities under consideration were NRS chapter 675 licensees, which were installment loan companies.

Mr. Barengo noted subsection 1 of NRS 675.040 was the applicability section of the NRS chapter. He stated the industry would object to the addition of the words "any other state" because the language addition allowed for those licensed in another state to operate in the State of Nevada without a Nevada license. He said that was never the policy for the licensees noted in NRS 675.040

Mr. Barengo again referenced NRS 675.040 which said, "A person doing business under the authority of any law of this state or of the United States relating to banks, savings banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations, credit unions, development corporations, mortgage companies." He explained it was not in the state’s best interest to have mortgage companies entering the state and making personal property loans. He further noted if the language "any other state" were added to the statute, it would suggest that if such businesses were licensed in another state under those chapters, they could make installment loans in the State of Nevada.

Mr. Barengo explained Ms. Giunchigliani was attempting to stop the proliferation of lending institutions, which were regulated in some instances and not regulated in others and agreed there were problems. He referenced Exhibit C and noted his clients would not object to the $250,000 liquid assets amount if it applied to a corporate licensee. If the $250,000 applied to each individual location owned by a company, the $250,000 would be of concern. In addition,

Mr. Barengo noted the $250,000 amount would be the highest required by any state in the union.

Mr. Barengo again referenced Exhibit C and noted the language sought to "Amend NRS 675 to require installment lenders to comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. & 1692 et. Seq . . ." He explained his clients were not adverse to compliance with items in the act that applied to collections for first party collectors, but noted if the act were put into statute, the state would totally adopt the federal chapter. Mr. Barengo said there were items within the federal act with which his clients should not have to comply, as they concerned third party collectors.

Mr. Barengo suggested the committee consider language stating the Commissioner of Financial Institutions could adopt portions of the federal act he/she deemed relevant by regulation. Additionally, he noted the law for collection agencies in Nevada, NRS 649.375, provided a list of prohibited acts, which where applicable, the Commissioner of Financial Institutions could adopt. He noted there were items on the list which would not apply to first party collectors.

Mr. Barengo did not oppose Ms. Giunchigliani ‘s concepts or goal, but would like to see them accomplished without being overly burdensome to legitimate companies who had been doing business in the state for a long period of time.

Mr. William E. Marion, Nevada Title Loans, agreed with most everything offered in testimony by Mr. Barengo. He pointed out his company had been doing business in the state for over 5 years and was also concerned with "fly-by-night" companies.

Mr. Marion addressed Mr. Hettrick’s comments and explained a pawnbroker took automatic license to an automobile no matter how much was owed or what the value of the vehicle. He noted, if an individual had a $2,000 loan on a vehicle with an installment lender and owed $400 on the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle received the difference between the collected amount and what was owed to the title loan company if the vehicle were auctioned off. At that point, there was no automatic forfeiture of the vehicle.

Mr. Marion stated the $250,000 amount was acceptable to his client. He explained when the statute was first enacted, the dollar amount in the statute compared to current dollars was about 19 or 20 percent. If the original figure of $50,000 was multiplied by 5, the amount was $250,000. Mr. Marion explained to operate as a legitimate lending institution, the company must have a significant asset base in order to distribute loans. "Fly-by-night" organizations could start with a very small dollar amount, lend the money out, charge an exorbitant interest, and then disappear. Having a $250,000 base ensured the company was of substance, intended to remain, and comply with the law because the company had a significant investment at stake.

Mr. Marion agreed with Mr. Barengo with regard to using the applicable standard in NRS 649.375. He said the language needed to be refined. He then highlighted section 2(a) that said, "any such interest, charge, free or expense as authorized by law or as agreed to by the parties has been added to the principal of the debt by the creditor before receipt of the item of collection." Mr. Marion noted the language needed to be changed because of repossession charges, and the lender would never know exactly what those repossession charges were until after the vehicle was collected.

Mr. Goldwater asked Mr. Barengo if he understood what Ms. Giunchigliani was attempting to accomplish with A.B. 1, and asked if it was possible to address a type of usury law with a high rate, such as 50 percent. He asked if a usury law would accomplish Ms. Giunchigliani’s goal.

Mr. Barengo explained usury interest rate ceilings were removed from the statutes in the 1970’s. He noted if interest rate ceilings were put back in specific sections of the law, other individuals would oppose such an act because it could be viewed as a precursor to interest rate ceilings in sections of the law that affected them. He further noted his client would probably oppose such ceilings, as they would be unaware of the future of the marketplace.

Chairman Buckley noted she did not believe the amendment dealing with the asset level covered Ms. Giunchigliani’s concerns with abusers. She further noted a business could be small and not abuse the system. Chairman Buckley said Ms. Giunchigliani’s concerns were valid, as there were "fly-by-night" loan businesses that charged 1000 percent interest for 2 weeks. An individual who was loaned money might not be able to pay it off, thus causing the business to roll the loan over until the loan became unpayable. Some of those loans were set up with terms so as to not allow the payer to repay the loan. Companies who ran such operations were the entities of concern, not small businesses or retail establishments which had not caused problems.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted she would not want to restrict applicability. There should be a means of assuring consumer safety without harming legitimate small businesses. She said when the amendments were brought forth, the intent was to use current law rather than develop a new regulatory scheme.

Mr. Harvey Whittemore of Lionel Sawyer & Collins, spoke on behalf of Citibank and SuperPawn. He noted from the amendments to A.B. 1, it was clear the bill was not intended to oppose the NRS 646 licensee nor was it designed to oppose traditional banking institutions. Mr. Whittemore offered his assistance to the committee.

Mr. Douglas E. Walther, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Commerce Section offered explanation to the proposed amendment to NRS 675.040. He noted the policy behind the exemption was the assumption the entities listed; banks, savings banks, savings and loans, and credit unions, who were regulated by other jurisdictions, were not in need of regulation in the State of Nevada, if their instate activities were regulated by those other jurisdictions. Mr. Walther explained with an interstate banking and branching environment, the State of Nevada could have other states’ banks and financial institutions operating in the State of Nevada, under interstate banking. Such activities were normally conducted under their license and were regulated by the state of their origin. The intent of the exemption was not to allow another state’s installment lender or mortgage company the ability to enter into the State of Nevada and conduct business without a license or supervision.

Mr. Walther noted a similar provision existed in the Mortgage Act that qualified the exemption which said, "unless the activities in this state are not regulated by that other jurisdiction in which case licensing in this state is required," If the language from the Mortgage Act were added to A.B. 1, it would be clear the condition of the exemption was to supervise the activities of an entity by some other jurisdiction. He further noted complaints regarding such activities would be referred to such jurisdiction who would handle them.

Mr. Walther explained when an individual claimed an exemption under NRS 675.040, the Commissioner of Financial Institutions required a letter from the other jurisdiction’s agency head, which confirmed the agency would supervise the activities of the company in the State of Nevada. In addition, the letter must contain confirmation the company was properly authorized to do business in the State of Nevada.

Mr. Walther noted the amendment was considered a "housekeeping" amendment and if it was controversial, there was no objection to removing it.

Mr. Perkins sought clarification as to whether Mr. Walther suggested when an entity from another state conducted business in the State of Nevada, the State of Nevada allow the other state to deal with difficulties that arose instead of a local jurisdiction.

Mr. Walther clarified that was the policy as it existed in the Mortgage Act and other acts where a similar type of exemption existed.

Mr. Perkins expressed concern about a state agency, with a recent history of difficulties, who came before the committee and suggested the state exempt companies consistent with other chapters, instead of coming before the committee suggesting the exemptions be removed so as to allow for issues to be handled within the state.

Mr. Hettrick referenced Mr. Walther’s remark on the confirmation letter request and asked how it was made known to request a letter of confirmation. He asked if the licensee from the other state came before the commissioner or would the commissioner’s office have to find the business entity.

Mr. Walther stated at times, a business entity wrote the division a letter seeking exemption confirmation. At which time, the commissioner would write the business back stating what was necessary to become exempt. Furthermore, when the division became aware of unauthorized business activity and issued a cease and desist letter, such action initiated dialogue between the two parties.

Mr. Hettrick noted an individual who went into business in the State of Nevada was required to obtain a local business license, which would perhaps initiate dialogue about the licensing of other business activity. Whereas, an individual with a license from another state could use their out-of-state license to obtain necessary permits. He was unsure if that was a positive direction.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out that in addition to the points made by Mr. Walther on how the division became aware of an out-of-state licensee doing business in the State of Nevada, there was the possibility no one in the state would be aware of the out-of-state entity. He agreed with Mr. Perkins that the business entities should be regulated by the state.

There being no further testimony on A.B. 1, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing and informed Ms. Giunchigliani that instead of forming a subcommittee on A.B. 1, she desired Ms. Giunchigliani work with interested parties. She further noted if Ms. Giunchigliani felt she needed further testimony before the bill was brought back to the full committee, a subcommittee could be formed. Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on A.B. 54.

Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, Assembly District 20, explained the genesis of A.B. 54 was in the 69^th Session of the Nevada Legislature as a BDR of Senator Randolph Townsend. Due to the lateness of the session, the BDR was never heard. Shortly after the 69^th session, Ms. Von Tobel was approached by a speech pathologist who asked if she would submit the bill during the 70^th Session. She noted the language of A.B. 54 was in its entirety the language of Senator Townsend's BDR of the 69^th Session.

Ms. Von Tobel referenced Exhibit D, information from Mr. G. Randall Figurski, M.S., CCC-SLP, President, Nevada Speech and Hearing Association, and noted he was an expert in speech pathology.

Mr. Figurski presented letters in support of A.B. 54 from himself, Barbara Forney-Misuraca, Dan T. Shaw, Chris Rahunzadeyh, Diane Branson, Catherine Armstrong, Kim Finnerty, Debra Richardson, Teresa Mackey, Kim Leaf, Bob Hogan, Cheryl Colang, Judy Gilman, Stephanie Hartstrom, Leif Leaf, Nancy Norris, Shelley MaupinTera Bertone, Bonnie Deach, Jennifer Chaffee, Faith K. Smith, W. Phil Christensen, Amy Yacobausky, and Leo SooHoo (Exhibit E). The letters noted with the aide of an assistant, a licensed speech pathologist would be able to utilize his/her time more effectively to diagnose and design comprehensive treatment programs. Routine therapy tasks and clerical duties would be delegated to the assistant thus increasing the productivity of the supervising speech pathologist while lowering the cost of speech language therapy to the consumer.

Mr. Figurski explained speech pathology was a learned profession that encompassed intensive training in anatomy and physiology of the speech mechanism, linguistics, normal and abnormal development of communication, the assessment and treatment of speech, hearing and language disorders, medical conditions, traumatic events, or disease processes which affected human communication, stuttering voice and resonance disorders, sensory and motor disorders that affected communication, alternative and augmentative communication systems for non-speaking individuals, cognitive linguistic systems affecting orientation, motivation, and the content form and use of language, and swallowing and feeding disorders in children and adults.

Mr. Figurski further explained the educational entry level for the practice of speech pathology in the State of Nevada was a Masters degree. In Nevada, speech language pathologists worked in schools, school districts, hospitals, state and nonprofit agencies, outpatient rehabilitation facilities, nursing homes, residential treatment facilities, colleges, universities, and research institutions. Furthermore, in the State of Nevada, other related medical or educational professions, especially occupational therapists or physical therapists, were permitted to have certified or licensed assistants or aides to carry out routine therapy tasks under the supervision of a fully licensed professional. A.B. 54 provided parity for speech pathologists to have access to a licensed speech assistant.

Mr. Figurski said A.B. 54 arose from complaints within the association due to unregulated, unlicensed, and untrained individuals who operated as speech assistants without any supervision. He stated speech pathology was a learned profession which took a great deal of background, education, and experience to adequately provide services to the consumer.

A.B. 54 provided for the use of a speech assistant to be regulated by the Board of Examiners in Audiology and Speech Pathology after payment of a fee. Under A.B. 54, a 4 year Bachelors degree in speech language pathology, specific training in communication disorders, and treatment under the supervision of a licensed speech pathologist were required for speech assistants. The exact details would be worked out by the Board of Examiners.

In general, Nevada speech pathologists believed a Bachelors degree for an entry level speech assistant was necessary. In other states, speech assistants could be licensed with only an Associate degree. Because of the complexity of human communication, an adequately trained assistant was necessary to carry out treatment plans provided by the speech pathologist.

Mr. Figurski explained licensed speech pathologists under A.B. 54, not assistants, would interpret, screen, diagnose, and write detailed treatment plans for patients. The speech assistant would then carry out the treatment plans and perform other routine clerical tasks freeing the pathologist to advocate for their clients.

Mr. Figurski referenced section 10, subsection 3 of A.B. 54, and noted during the first 90 days, the speech pathologist directly supervised the assistant at least 20 percent of the time. In addition, the speech pathologist indirectly supervised the assistant at least 10 percent of the time. After the probationary period, direct supervision dropped to 10 percent of the time and indirect supervision remained at 10 percent. Mr. Figurski believed the long-term-affect of the legislation would reduce the cost of providing services to the public and eliminate the use of unsupervised and untrained aides. Without the protections provided in A.B. 54, Mr. Figurski believed there could be disastrous consequences for the public.

In addition, Mr. Figurski offered an amendment to A.B. 54, (Exhibit F). He explained an additional reason for excluding licensing requirements for speech pathologists in the Department of Human Resources was related to concern about being unable to obtain sufficient personnel to staff speech pathology positions in the department. The only place he was aware that speech pathologists were under the department was in Special Children’s Clinics in northern and southern Nevada and a rural outreach clinic. In addition, speech pathologists were employed at the Sierra Regional Center in Reno, Nevada as well as a similar facility in southern Nevada.

Mr. Figurski referenced the most recent occupational study for speech pathologists in such settings and noted there had been an upgrading of the requirement for speech pathology to include a Masters degree and a Certificate of Clinical Competence from the American Speech Language and Hearing Association. In order to be hired, an individual must meet the same educational and clinical experiential background of any other licensed speech pathologist. The current exclusion of the licensing requirement for speech pathologists in the Department of Human Resources no longer had a justifiable reason to exist. It only allowed for speech pathologists, who were interested in working in such a setting, to do so without a license. In such a case, the speech pathologists were not licensed by another agency and were not subject to the code-of-ethics that existed under current statute nor were they subject to disciplinary action due to the exclusion under the law.

Mr. Figurski concluded by saying the proposed change did not increase the cost of providing services within the Department of Human Resources or elsewhere in the state, and the long-range impact was to reduce the cost of providing services to the public.

Ms. Lorraine Pokorski, Administrator, State Board of Audiology and Speech Pathology, offered testimony in favor of A.B. 54, (Exhibit G).

Ms. Evans asked if there was a requirement for continuing education for the licensed assistant position; and if so, would classes be set up especially for the assistants or would the assistants attend classes with speech pathologists. She explained she was interested in the level of training for the assistants.

Ms. Pokorski answered there was a continuing education requirement, which would be the same as a licensed speech pathologist of 15 contact hours each year. Continuing education was provided by outside companies that awarded attendants contact hours. The documents were then submitted to the board at renewal time where they were reviewed and entered into the record. If the classes were not applicable to audiology or speech pathology, the attendant was asked by the board to take additional classes.

Ms. Evans noted Ms. Pokorski’s comment on outside companies and asked if instate companies were utilized for continuing education of speech pathologists.

Ms. Pokorski explained that companies from out-of-state provided continuing education. In addition, therapists went out-of-state to attend classes. The board did not regulate where the therapist continued their education.

Ms. Evans mentioned there was a university program in the State of Nevada that offered Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.D. programs and asked if the university was qualified to offer a continuing education program.

Ms. Pokorski said the university could offer the program. Mr. Figurski further noted the university did offer continuing education courses. He explained most of the classes addressed the needs of school district speech language pathologists, but there was nothing to preclude the university from providing specific coursework for speech assistants. In addition, he noted his professional association had a yearly convention that offered a minimum requirement of 15 continuing education hours for speech language pathologists, which would include speech language assistants.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted A.B. 54 doubled licensure and reinstatement fees and she assumed the reason was because the board was self funded and received no general fund monies.

Ms. Pokorski said the fee would not be doubled; the increase provided a maximum amount. The fee would remain at $100 for the application fee and $50 for the license. The additional amounts allowed for future increases if necessary. The new rates were maximum rates.

Ms. Buckley noted the general license for a speech pathologist would be raised from the current $100 to $200.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced section 16 of A.B. 54, and noted it said, "the board shall charge and collect only the following fees . . . and may not exceed." She asked what the justification for the increase was.

Ms. Pokorski explained there were more licensees in the state and the cost of running the board had increased and would continue to increase.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how the members of the board viewed the increase.

Mr. Figurski stated some members of the association initially were concerned about the increase until they realized the increase was a ceiling and there was no intent to raise the rates or licensing fees at the current time. Over time, rate increases could become necessary.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what was the salary level for a speech pathologist’s assistant.

Mr. Figurski explained that salaries would be set at individual locations where a speech pathologist’s assistant worked. The amount would vary according to the industry. He thought the amount would be between $29,000 to the mid $30,000 range.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the main educational difference between a speech assistant and a speech pathologist was a Bachelors degree versus a Masters degree.

Mr. Figurski pointed out a licensed speech pathologist who sought to supervise would additionally need 2 years of clinical experience and specific background in supervision or coursework in supervision. The amount of education, a clinical fellowship year, and 2 years of practice meant a supervising speech pathologist would be very experienced.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced the duties noted in section 11 of A.B. 54 and asked what was to prevent the supervising speech pathologist from turning the position of pathologist’s assistant into a "clerk’s" position. The duties sounded like those of a clerk rather than someone who was a professional with a Bachelors degree. She asked if the assistant was "stuck" in such a situation, when would they have time to obtain a Masters degree in order to become a full-fledged audiologist. She was concerned about the creation of an indentured servant.

Mr. Figurski stated they would not want to create an indentured servant because they would not keep an employee long under such conditions. He noted the kind of clerical duties associated with the position were onerous but not simple. They required a background and understanding of the audiology professional. The work was not considered secretarial and required a high level of professional knowledge. In addition, it was necessary to understand the insurance industry.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked Mr. Figurski to clarify his statement about school speech pathologists.

Mr. Figurski explained school speech pathologists were licensed through the Department of Education, therefore A.B. 54 would not affect them. He referenced Exhibit H, a letter from Ms. Judy Moseley, Assistant Director, Speech Therapy Services. He explained under current practices, some school districts were hiring bachelor’s level trained individuals to work as speech therapists, which was not a practice that was encouraged and occurred because of a shortage of fully licensed speech pathologists. Her concern was the existence of a speech assistant would elevate the status of an individual working in the schools with a Bachelors degree. Mr. Figurski further noted he did not understand Ms. Moseley’s logic because the individuals within the school district with a Bachelor’s degree would have to operate as speech assistants under a licensed speech pathologist. Therefore, any school district speech pathologist would also have to be licensed through the Department of Education and the Board of Examiners.

Mr. Hettrick stated legislative requests by different boards often caused greater difficulty for individuals who desired to go into business. He referenced section 14, subsection 5 of A.B. 54 where required hours of supervised clinical experience in audiology or speech pathology was increased from 300 to 375 hours. He further noted additional supervisory requirements in section 10 of A.B. 54 and pointed out each requirement raised costs. Mr. Hettrick wondered if the board had no interest in raising the fees, why the increase was put into the language.

Mr. Hettrick referenced section 18 of A.B. 54, and noted a speech pathologist assistant’s license would expire on December 31 of each year. He pointed out if an individual were to receive a license in the later months of a year, they would be required to pay the full fee and then have to pay the fee again after December 31. That type of action prevented individuals from starting businesses.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out the amendment to A.B. 54 (Exhibit F) would have a fiscal note. He did not see how the board could raise requirements for supervision and licensing, force the Department of Human Resources to pay an additional amount, and not take the bill to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

Chairman Buckley asked how many complaints the board received within the past 5 years regarding actions of assistants.

Ms. Pokorski stated they had not received any complaints. She explained that she was provided information about an advertisement that ran in the Las Vegas Review Journal for a speech pathology assistant, whereby she contacted the company that ran the advertisement. Being unaware there were no speech pathology assistants in the State of Nevada, the company pulled the advertisement and did not hire an assistant.

Chairman Buckley explained speech pathologists currently had assistants in their office helping with such duties as file maintenance, insurance requests, and other such functions. She asked if there were any complaints about the current duties of those who provided such help.

Ms. Pokorski noted there was clerical help available in the offices of speech pathologists and there had been no complaints about their current duties.

Mr. Nolan asked how many individuals currently served in an assistant capacity.

Mr. Figurski replied the sort of clerical duties, where progress notes were taken during a therapy session, were not performed at the present time by any clerical staff. Such notes required an observer who was astute and knowledgeable and such duties were carried out by the licensed speech pathologist.

Mr. Nolan assumed if A.B. 54 passed, the licensed speech pathologist hoped to have speech pathologist assistants available to perform such duties. He inquired if other employees would be displaced because of the enactment of the bill, or if they would be forced to receive a Bachelor’s degree in order to continue their employment.

Mr. Figurski said that would not be the case. There was concern that speech pathologist assistants would replace some licensed speech pathologist, but they would not replace clerical positions already in place. The clerical positions would continue and the workload could increase due to the availability of speech assistants who could enable a licensed speech pathologist to handle a larger caseload.

Mr. Nolan referenced section 3 and 4 of A.B. 54 and noted the reason some individuals were not making child support payments was because they were in between jobs and did not have the income.

Chairman Buckley pointed out the language was standard language added by the Legislative Counsel Bureau bill drafters in order to maintain compliance with federal legislation that mandated such procedures involving licensees who fail to pay child support.

Mr. Nolan noted section 9, subsection 2(a) of A.B. 54 and asked if the law provided for individuals to make some sort of restitution instead of completely satisfying the entire arrearage.

Chairman Buckley said staff would ask the legal division to research the federal legislation. There were no further questions or comments and Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 54 and opened the hearing on A.B. 58.

Assemblyman Bob Beers, Assembly District 4, explained A.B. 58 was a "housekeeping" bill designed to gender neutralize the real estate law of the State of Nevada changing the term "real estate salesman" to "real estate sales associate." There was a fiscal note attached to A.B. 58 which involved the existing stock of forms and the potential for reprogramming the Real Estate Division’s computer system. Mr. Beers offered an amendment to A.B. 58 (Exhibit I) that achieved the goal of A.B. 58 without increasing the cost.

Ms. Buckley elucidated Mr. Beers sought to delete A.B. 58 and insert a new section, which stated whenever the word salesman was used in the regulations it meant salesperson. A licensee could elect to refer to the licensed status as a real estate salesman, saleswoman, or salesperson.

Mr. Beers affirmed Chairman Buckley’s statement.

Mr. Beers noted that in addition to Exhibit I, the Real Estate Division asked that the language be strengthened requiring a broker to refer to themselves by their licensed filed name. He said such requirement existed in the Administrative Code, but the division believed there was a compliance problem and desired it be clearly stated.

Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Beers to provide language to that effect and submit such language to Mr. Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst for the committee work session.

Ms. Shirley Petro, Compliance Auditor II, Nevada Real Estate Division, offered support in favor of A.B. 58 and the amendments.

With no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A.B. 58 and adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jane Baughman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: