►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
B
E
F
A
Thank
you
and
please
mark
assemblywoman,
carlton
or
vice
chair
carlton
present
when
she
arrives.
Thank
you.
Members
welcome
to
round
two
of
commerce
and
labor.
For
today
I'm
gonna
go
through
our
normal
housekeeping
before
we
get
started
on
our
bill
hearings,
I
want
to
remind
everyone
that
exhibits.
Testimony
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
by
noon.
On
the
business
day
prior
to
the
committee
meeting
persons
wishing
to
testify
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
online
on
the
legislature's
website.
The
public
is
strongly
encouraged
to
submit
written
testimony
in
advance
of
the
meeting
by
emailing.
A
The
committee
manager
for
commerce
and
labor.
Remember,
zoom
chat
is
reserved
for
committee
business.
Only
members,
please
remember
to
keep
your
camera
on
at
all
times
to
help
it
will
help
us
ensure
that
we
have
a
quorum
unless
you
are
stepping
away
from
non-committee-related
business
members
and
presenters.
Please
remember
to
stay
muted
at
all
times,
unless
you
are
going
to
speak
and
mute
yourself
and
then
promptly
mute
yourself
right
after
we
have
a
short
agenda
for
this
evening's
commerce
and
labor
meeting.
We
have
two
bills
on
our
agenda
assembly
bill
439
and
assembly
bill
438.
A
For
those
watching
and
listening
over
the
internet
and
for
those
here
I
want
to
let
you
know
that
we
will
be
taking
the
items
out
of
order
and
starting
with
assembly
bill
438
with
that
members.
Let's
go
ahead
and
get
started
with
our
agenda,
so
the
first
bill
on
agenda
today
is
going
to
be
assembly
bill
438.
A
So
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
4
38,
which
revises
provisions
relating
I'm
sorry.
I
apologize
assembly
bill,
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
439,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
occupational
licensing.
We
have
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
with
us
this
evening
to
present
assemblyville
439.
D
Thank
you,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
just
received
a
notice
that
my
internet
is
unstable,
so
I
hope
that
you
can
hear
me
okay,
so
happy
to
be
here
for
the
record.
I
am
shannon
bilbrey
axelrod
representing
assembly
district
34
in
clark
county
during
the
interim.
I
was
honored
to
serve
as
vice
chair
of
the
legislative
committee
on
senior
citizens,
veterans
and
adults
with
special
needs.
D
Joining
me
is
kelly.
May
douglas
pacific
southwest
regional
liaison
defense
state
liaison
office
of
the
united
states
department
of
defense
and
cesa
cesar
magairo
mini
policy
analyst
for
the
legislative
committee
on
senior
citizens,
veterans
and
adults
with
special
needs
during
the
2019-2020
interim
this
past
summer.
The
legislative
committee
on
senior
citizens,
veterans
and
adults
with
special
needs
heard
testimony
from
two
military
spouses
serving
in
nevada.
D
These
spouses
are
professionals
in
their
own
industry
and
shared
their
stories.
Experiences
and
employment
challenges
of
spouses
of
those
who
serve.
The
committee
learned
that
more
than
one-third
of
military
spouses
require
some
sort
of
licensure
for
their
careers
and
an
estimated
62
percent
of
military
spouses
report
experiencing
licensure
licensure
challenges.
One
of
the
main
reasons
a
member
of
the
u.s
armed
forces,
leaves
military
service
is
their
spouse's
inability
to
work.
In
addition,
as
a
result
of
frequent
moves
associated
with
military
life,
military
spouses
earn
significantly
less
when
they
work
for
their
than
their
billion
counterparts.
D
D
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
assembly,
woman,
bilbray
axelrod,
for
your
advocacy
on
this
important
issue
good
evening,
chair,
sorry,
vice
chair
carlton
and
members
of
the
committee.
E
E
My
region
encompasses
nevada,
california,
arizona,
utah
and
hawaii,
I'm
based
in
san
diego,
but
I'm
actively
campaigning
my
husband
to
relocate
our
headquarters
to
nevada
but
I'll.
Let
you
know
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
provide
comments
regarding
the
policy
change
referenced
within
ab439
addressing
the
licensure
issues
for
the
spouses
of
our
military
service.
Members
has
been
a
priority
for
the
department
for
several
years
and
has
been
reconfirmed
by
first
lady,
dr
jill
biden,
through
her
renewed
joining
forces
effort.
E
Military
spouses
are
disproportionately
affected
by
state-specific
licensure
requirements
that
can
cause
delays
and
and
gaps
in
employment
with
over
34
of
the
working
population
requiring
state
licensure.
To
practice
in
their
professions
and
an
annual
cross-state
relocation
rate
10
times
higher
than
their
civilian
counterparts,
subsequently,
military
spouses
experience
unemployment
and
underemployment
at
significantly
higher
rates
than
their
civilian
peers,
which
we
could
all
imagine
has
likely
been
compounded
by
the
pandemic.
E
E
Additionally,
this
bill
would
provide
the
legislature
and
the
public
with
valuable
data
on
licensed
professionals
who
are
male
spouses
of
active
duty.
Military
members
accorded
by
the
office
of
the
under
secretary
of
defense
for
personnel
and
readiness
to
governor
sisselak
in
february.
2020.
nevada
has
made
some
progress
in
the
area
of
licensure
portability
for
the
military
community.
However,
current
nevada
statute
on
the
matter
is
somewhat
vague,
permissive
and
does
not
include
enough
licensing
boards
to
fully
meet
our
criteria
for
licensure
portability
for
our
military
spouses.
E
E
In
addition
to
influencing
basing
decisions,
some
federal
grants
have
begun
to
require
applicants
to
address
the
extent
to
which
they
or
their
state
or
local
government
have
provided
support
to
military
spouses
to
include
to
quote
ease
military
spouse,
unemployment
and
licensure
for
consideration.
E
As
far
as
a
return
on
investment,
the
burden
on
boards
to
implement
these
policies
is
low.
This
this
policy
would
only
affect
slightly
over
1
000
active
duty,
military
spouses
at
any
given
time,
while
the
resulting
positive
impact
would
be
exponentially
greater
for
individual
military
families,
the
defense
community,
local
communities
and
the
state
according
to
the
office
of
the
loca
of
local
defense,
community
cooperation,
defense
spending
in
nevada
for
fiscal
year
2019
was
three
billion
dollars.
E
Thank
you
chair
how
to
to
ge
and
the
committee
for
bringing
forth
this
vital
policy
issue
for
action,
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
department
of
defense
regarding
the
impact
on
the
military
community.
I
stand
by
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
D
G
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
and
thank
you
chair
harugi
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
cesar
mel
guerrero
and
I
was
the
committee
policy
committee
policy
analyst
for
the
legislative
committee
on
senior
citizens,
veterans
and
adults
with
special
needs
and
as
an
employee
of
lcb.
G
I
will
neither
advocate
nor
oppose
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
I
will
review
the
substantive
highlights
of
the
bill,
as
captured
by
the
intent
of
the
recommendation
approved
by
the
committee
as
assemblywoman,
billboary,
axelrod
and
and
miss
kelly
may
douglas
address
assembly.
Bill
439
aims
to
require
occupational
and
professional
licensing
boards
under
title
54
of
the
nrs
and
the
board
of
applied
behavior
analysis
to
issue
a
license
by
endorsement
to
military,
affiliated
persons.
G
Sections,
2
and
83
of
the
bill
require
regulatory
body
to
issue
a
license
by
endorsement
to
engage
in
an
occupation
or
profession
in
this
state
to
an
applicant
who
holds
a
corresponding,
valid
and
unrestricted
license
to
practice
a
profession
in
the
district
of
columbia
or
any
state
or
territory
of
the
united
states,
and
is
an
active
member
or
the
spouse
of
an
active
member
of
the
u.s
armed
forces
or
a
veteran
or
the
surviving
spouse.
Of
a
veteran
section.
G
Two
prohibits
a
regulatory
body
from
requiring
such
an
applicant
to
undergo
a
fingerprint
based
criminal
background
check,
unless
required
by
interstate
compact.
Section.
Two
also
requires
a
regulatory
body
to
issue
a
provisional
license
immediately
after
submission
of
the
application.
The
provisional
license
is
valid
until
the
application
for
the
license
by
endorsement
is
approved
or
denied.
G
sections,
4
and
79
supplement
existing
provisions
requiring
a
regulatory
body
to
collect
and
submit
a
report
containing
certain
information
on
the
number
of
veteran
applicants
to
include
collecting
data
regarding
number
of
military
and
veteran
spouses
that
apply
for
are,
issued
or
denied
a
license.
Section.
4
also
requires
a
regulatory
body
to
post
on
their
website
information
concerning
the
available
options
for
obtaining
a
license
as
a
service
member
spouse
of
a
service
member,
a
veteran
or
surviving
spouse
of
a
veteran.
G
In
addition,
the
bill
replaces
the
term
may
with
shall
in
various
sections,
concerning
issuing
a
licensing
a
license
by
endorsement,
to
clarify
that
a
regulatory
body
is
required
to
issue
an
expedited
license
by
endorsement
to
practice
in
certain
health
related
professions.
When
the
applicant
meets
the
statutory
requirements
for
the
issuance
of
such
a
license.
I
would
note
that
these
sections
would
apply
to
all
applicants
for
expedite
expedited
license
by
endorsement
and
not
just
the
military-affiliated
applicants.
G
Finally,
a
section
87
repeals
its
exist
provisions
allowing
regulatory
bodies
to
issue
an
expedited
license
by
endorsement
to
an
applicant
who
is
an
active
member
or
the
spouse
of
an
active
member
of
the
us
armed
forces
or
veteran
or
surviving
spouse
of
a
veteran
chair
hote.
Those
are
the
substantive
provisions
that
were
adopted
by
the
interim
committee
and
I'm
available
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
and
your
co-presenters
for
the
presentation
at
this
time.
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
committee
members
for
questions
and
we
will
start
with
committee
member,
I'm
sorry
with
assembly.
Member
considine.
B
G
Yes,
assemblywoman
for
the
record,
cesar
mel
guerrero
community
community
policy
analyst,
so
the
assemblywoman
constandine.
To
answer
your
question.
These
provisions
are
replicated
throughout
nrs
for
most
of
the
sections
relating
to
occupational
licensing,
because
there
is
a
federal
law
that
would
allow
a
board
to
to
deny
or
repeal
a
license
based
on
on
the
applicant
having
having
to
has
have
an
owed
back
back
pay
for
for
child
purposes.
G
H
Thank
you
so
much
chair
howard.
I
don't
really
have
a
question
I
just
I
I
would
just
like
to
say.
I
think
our
occupational
licensing
has
needed
overhauling
for
for
a
long
time,
but
this
is
a
fabulous
place
to
start.
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
for
your
work
on
the
committee
during
the
interim
and
and
what
you've
brought
to
us.
It's
really
great.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
want
to
somewhat
ditto
mr
stickman's
comment:
miss
bilbray
axelrod
and
your
staff.
You
did
great
work
on
this
and
I
greatly
appreciate
it.
I'm
a
strong
supporter
of
our
veterans,
particularly
the
spouses
who
I
think
actually
sometimes
suffer
in
service.
More
than
there's
the
active
dod
member
does
from
having
personal
experience
with
it.
I
I
D
Mr
margaret,
I
yeah,
I
think
that
information
would
be
good.
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
we
could
amend
in
just
assembly.
G
Woman,
I
can
address
that
question
and
share
how
to
get
through
you
to
something
o'neil.
G
Thank
you
chair,
so
let's
send
them
in
o'neill
to
answer
your
question.
There
is
a
report
already
required
to
be
submitted
to
the
legislature
on
a
bi-annual
basis.
I
believe
it
it's
required
to
be
submitted
on
even
number
years,
and
this
bill
would
would
also
incorporate
that
information.
So
if,
if
this
bill
were
to
pass
this
session,
then
depending
on
the
boards
being
able
to
to
collect
this
information
and
being
available
by
the
next
reporting
period,
you
should
have
this
report
by
next
february,
on
of
2022.
I
C
Yes,
thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
for
presenting
this
bill.
I
remember
actually
the
first
presentation
that
I
heard
at
an
event
down
in
las
vegas
about
the
need
for
this
in
nevada
at
an
occupational
licensing
panel
that
I
was
part
of
and
I'm
a
huge
supporter
and
so
grateful
that
we
are
have
this
before
us.
C
So
my
question
specifically
is
on
page
seven
subsection,
four
or
section
four
subsection
three
and
that's
the
regulatory
body
shall
post
on
the
internet
website
options
for
obtaining
a
license
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
wanted
to
know
what
other
ways
can
we
promote
this
to
the
you
know,
veterans,
spouses
of
service
members
and
surviving
spouses.
Are
there
other
avenues
by
which
we're
going
to
be
promoting
this,
because
I
think
it's
such
a
good,
good
and
necessary
change.
D
Thank
you
assembly,
woman,
channel
bill
braxton
for
the
record.
I
would
totally
agree
with
you
and
I
think
the
the
important
thing
too
is
the
folks
who
are
moving
into
the
states,
so
I
think
we'll
work
with
our
with
our
my
partner,
who
actually
testified
today,
kelly
may
douglas
and
make
sure
that
we
get
that
out
to
the
folks
who
can
really
use
this
and
miss
douglas.
If
you
wanted
to
expand
on
that,
please
go
ahead.
E
Absolutely
so
part
of
our
the
department
that
that
my
department
falls
under
is
military,
community
and
family
policy
and
under
that
department
we
have
spouse
employment
programs
and
they
they
wait
for
us
to
tell
the
tell
them
when
they
have
passed
policies
that
benefit
military
spouses
and
they
immediately
put
it
out,
and
we
also
work
with
hiring
our
heroes,
and
so
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
different
avenues
to
get
this
out
once
and
and
now
I'll
be
optimistic
and
say
once
this
was
once
this
bill
has
passed.
A
D
I
know
I
believe
that
ms
douglas
did
mention
that,
and
I
don't
have
the
number
at
the
top
it's
manny,
but
go
ahead.
Miss
douglas.
E
Thank
you,
assemblymember
assemblywoman,
bilbrayaks,
axelrod
and
chair
20
states
right
now
have
implemented
the
policies
that
we're
seeking
right
now
and
21
states
have
legislation,
legislation
and
going
through
right
now.
A
And
then
I
have
another
question
because
I
know
we've
repealed
some
sections
of
nrs
and
one
of
the
sections
of
nrs
that
we're
repealing
is
625.510,
which
says
regulatory
bot,
which
requires
regulatory
bodies
to
develop
opportunities
for
reciprocity
for
qualified
active
members
of
the
armed
forces,
member
spouses,
veterans
or
veterans
surviving
spouses.
So
we
already
have
this
in
statute
and
we're
repealing
that
what
was
wrong
with
our
current
policy.
G
You
thank
you,
seven
woman,
billboard,
axelrod
and
jerry
hardaghi
for
the
record,
cesar
margaret
hill
community
policy.
Analyst
chair,
hodgkey.
I
do
think
during
the
during
the
presentations
during
the
the
interim.
G
It
was
reported
that
that
the
policies,
the
current
policies
weren't
being
effective-
and
that
was
the
major
adoption
for
replacing
the
maze
with
shells
and
during
the
hearing
we
also
heard
testimony
that
that
boards
hadn't
licensed
anybody
through
those
provisions
on
an
nrs
622.510
and
I'm
not
sure
if
it
was
a
specific
deletion
because
of
the
drafting
process.
But
what
we
heard
during
testimony
during
the
interval
was
that
the
policy
some
of
the
policies
were
not
as
effective
as
the
legislator
had
intended
to
be.
A
And
then
I
mean,
I
think
I
mean
obviously
we
we
owe
great.
You
know
great
debt
to
all
of
our
service
members
and
their
spouses
for
all
of
the
work
they
do
and
do,
and
I'm
my
concern
is
just
coming
from
like
protecting.
You
know
nevadans,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
because
I
know
I
know
nevada
and
a
lot
of
our
our
boards
have
really
strict
licensing
criteria.
A
Sometimes
it's
stricter,
oh
well,
most
of
the
time,
our
licensing
criteria
is
a
lot
stricter
than
what
other
states
have,
and
so
that's,
where
a
little
of
my
concern
comes
in
just
from
having
sat
on
this
committee
throughout
the
past
sessions
that
I've
served,
and
so
one
of
the
other
areas
of
concerns
is
it's
just
that
immediate,
immediate,
upon
application
issuance
of
a
lice
a
provisional
license
before
they've
even
had
time
to
do
any
investigatory
work.
A
So
if
someone
is
denied
a
license
or
reasons
found
during
that
investigation,
we've
allowed
them
to
practice
in
our
state
with
maybe
having
had
some
violations
in
their
home
state
for
not
following
you
know,
laws,
and
so
what
was
the
thought
process
between
granting
that
immediate,
provisional
license?
And
I
mean
if,
if
they
have
to
grant
the
license,
I
think
within
15
days
of
receiving
the
application?
A
Why
are
we
giving
them
that
15
period
to
practice
without
having
done
any
investigatory
back
like
background.
D
Work
don't
know
who
wants
to
take
that
one
I
I
believe
in
other
states
as
well,
but
I
I
recognize
your
question,
so
I
don't
know
if
miss
douglas.
You
want
to
speak
to
that.
E
Yes,
so
as
far
as
the
department
of
defense,
we
aren't
asking
for
states
to
waive
any
sort
of
security,
background
checks
or
or
or
investigative
efforts
to
make
sure
that
that
military
spouses
that
might
have
some
sort
of
some
sort
of
disciplinary
action
on
their
record
to
work.
So
as
far
as
we're
concerned,
we
don't
mind
if,
if
that,
if
that
requirement
is,
is
in
there.
A
Okay,
perfect,
I
just
want
to
make
sure,
because
I
just
you
know
with
concerns
like
there's
15
days,
somebody
can
come
in
and
be
a
via
licensed
dentist
right,
and
maybe
they
have
tons
of
complaints
against
them
in
their
home
state,
and
we
won't
know
that
for
for
two
weeks
and
we've
just
just
little
things,
I
think
might
help
make
the
bill
better
for
our
state
and
then
the
other.
Just
one
other
question
I
had
is
I
don't?
Why
are
we
not
requiring
the
fingerprints.
G
For
the
record,
cesar
margaret
community
policy,
analyst
chair
howard,
he
the
from
the
from
again
from
the
testimony
received
during
the
interim
committee.
It
was.
It
was
reported
that
the
time.
G
That
the
time
frame
for
the
fingerprint
process
to
return
and
to
be
approved
or
denied
that
was
that
was
taking
too
long
and
for
for
the
spouses
to
to
be
able
to
immediately
start
working.
But
I
would
say
so
the
15
business
days.
It
requires
the
board
to
basically
review
the
the
application
within
15
business
days
and
report
to
the
applicant.
If
there's
any
additional
information
that
must
be
submitted,
but
the
application
can
must
be
approved
or
denied
within
45
days.
A
And
then
so
more
than
45
days,
so
the
so
it
takes.
Sometimes
it
takes
more
than
45
days
for
the
fingerprints
to
come
back.
G
After
having
full
record
says,
that's
what
was
reported
in
testimony
was
that
sometimes
it
just
takes.
So
that's
one
of
the
hiccups
that
kind
of
takes
a
long
time
to
be
able
to
provide
that
license
to
this
military
spouse.
A
Thank
you,
mr
my
god.
I
appreciate
you
answering
all
the
questions.
You
know
many
of
us
didn't
get
the
opportunity
to
serve
on
the
interim
committee,
and
so
I
think
these
were
probably
a
lot
of
the
same
questions
that
came
up
during
the
interim
committee.
So
I
think
it's
just
good
that
we
get
them
for
the
record,
but
I
think
I
mean
I
mean:
wouldn't
there
be
a
possibility
of
granting
a
provisional
license
until
the
fingerprints
came
back
in
fingerprints
came
back
and
that's
that's
what
allows
you
to
do
a
full
background.
G
For
the
record,
cesar
mugrate
policy
analyst,
our
chair,
hadiki
you're,
correct
the
provisional
license
would
be
immediately
approved,
but
then
it
could
be
denied.
The
license
will
be
expired
until
the
board
approves
or
denies
the
the
full
licensure
by
endorsement
application.
A
F
J
Good
evening,
chair
and
committee
on
commerce
and
labor,
my
name
for
the
record
is
tony
yarbrough.
I
represent
nearly
9
000
members
of
the
veterans
of
foreign
wars
and
the
department
of
nevada.
I
also
represent
close
to
a
half
a
million
members
of
the
united
veterans
legislative
council
as
an
officer
and
their
past
chairman.
J
J
I
will
say
in
support
of
abc
439
that
the
committee
on
senior
citizens,
veterans
and
adults
with
special
needs
has
consistently
come
up
with
some
outstanding
legislative
adjustments
that
need
to
be
made
to
make
our
make
our
world
a
much
better
place
in
transitional
situations
such
as
this
matter
of
fact,
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
has
another
bill
out
there
that
we
also
support,
which
is
related,
which
is
ab-206.
J
One
of
the
things
that
comes
out
in
all
of
our
legislative
symposiums
that
we
deal
with
from
veterans
directly
from
the
veterans
is
the
thing
about
transitioning
situations
that
involves
potentially
reciprocity
or
something
along
the
lines
where
we
can
make
it
easier
for
a
spouse
to
transfer
easier
with
the
with
the
other
spouse.
That's
changing
orders.
So
in
this
case
I
will
tell
you
that
I
think
this
is
a
very
good
bill.
There's
a
lot
of
things
that
are
in
here.
J
It's
well
overdue,
and
this
is
one
of
our
top
priorities
that
we
would
like
to
see
take
place.
And
with
that,
I
would
like
to
say
a
great
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
bilbray,
axelrod
and
also
to
cesar
malgarejo,
because
I
know
he's
deeply
involved
in
this
as
well,
and
some
of
the
others
of
you
that
sit
on
this
committee
are
are
very
supportive
of
veterans
and
veterans
issues.
And
for
that
I
thank
you
very
much,
and
I
appreciate
your.
A
A
F
J
J
L-E-P-E-I-L-B-E-T
and
I
represent
the
combat
wounded
veterans
of
the
purple
heart
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
the
seventy
thousand
disabled
american
veterans
in
nevada,
and
I
am
the
current
chair
of
the
united
veterans
legislative
council.
Tony
yarbrough
has
already
pretty
much
stated
our
entire
case,
so
I
would
have
to
say
at
this
point
ditto.
J
F
F
K
K
We
think
we
could
be
helping
a
family
solve
one
problem
while
creating
a
new,
often
disastrous
problem
for
another
family,
and
we
would
request
that
that
portion
of
the
bill
be
amended
out.
We
also
are
concerned
with
the
provision
that
does
away
with
the
fingerprinting
provision.
So
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify.
A
F
L
L
We
are
neutral
on
the
bill
at
this
time.
We
certainly
support
the
intent
of
the
bill
and
have
already
put
into
practice
some
of
the
suggestions
or
some
of
the
requirements
in
this
bill
in
ab439.
L
I
would
like
to
point
out
section
two
subsection
three
with
the
fingerprints
by
removing
the
fingerprints
from
the
requirement
from
the
endorsement
application
is
a
significant
lowering
of
the
bar
for
applicants
and
is
not
accorded
any
other
class
of
applicant
section.
2,
subsection
5,
which
requires
the
immediate
provisional
license,
as
madam
chair
you
mentioned,
does
not
give
the
board
the
opportunity
to
verify
the
the
contents
of
the
application.
L
Also,
with
the
provisional
license
being
issued,
the
person
could
go
ahead
and
practice
even
where,
even
if
the
board
identifies
good
cause
to
deny
the
application
pursuant
to
section
3
before
we
could
complete
the
denial
process,
that's
set
out
in
section
2.,
section,
2.6
authorizes
the
board
executive
director
and
president
to
issue
a
license
between
meetings.
That's
already
our
current
practice.
L
We
sign
off
on
endorsements
between
our
monthly
meetings.
All
the
time
section,
2
9
a
reduces
the
fee
for
endorsed
licenses
by
half.
There
is
a
fiscal
impact,
but
historically
and
realistically
there
are
only
been
five
to
ten
endorsements
per
year.
So
that's
not
a
big
deal
section,
four,
where
it
requires
the
discounts
for
military
veterans,
a
half
discount.
L
We
already
do
that
as
well
for
and
we
do
not
charge
any
fees
for
active
military,
but
we
do
discount
by
half
for
veterans
and
military
spouses
because
of
all
the
exceptions
made
in
our
practice
act
in
sections
23-29,
it
might
be
possible
for
a
non-military
or
non-veteran
applicant
to
make
equal
protection
challenge
under
the
nevada
constitution,
because
we're
going
to
be
treating
two
otherwise
equal
applicants
differently,
just
because
one
has
joined
the
military
at
some
point
or
his
or
her
life.
We
just
want
to
put
that
on
the
record.
L
L
This
is
a
an
impediment
to
endorsement
for
physician
assistance.
That's
present
in
section
27
1b
in
current
statute.
If
you
opt
to
strike
that
section
section
which
is
in
current
statute,
section
27
1b,
then
we
would
be
able
to
license
pas
by
endorsement,
but
it
currently
states
that
they
must
be
certified
in
a
specialty.
Recognized
by
the
american
board
of
medical
specialties
or
american
osteopathic
association,
and
that
would
need
to
come
out
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
oops-
we
don't
do
that
at
this
point.
Thank
you.
A
F
M
Good
evening,
chair
hadagi
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
kat
miller,
I'm
the
director
of
veterans,
services
for
the
state
of
nevada,
and
I'm
testifying
in
neutral
today
to
share
information
regarding
the
issue
of
military
spouse.
Employment
addressed
in
ab-439
every
two
years:
nevada
veterans,
service
and
support
organizations
meet
to
identify
issues
that
they
believe
should
be
addressed
through
legislation,
executive
action
or
other
channels.
During
the
2020
nevada
veterans,
legislative
symposium,
these
organizations
listed
as
priority
8
of
48
the
need
to
create
and
support
military
spouse,
employment
and
reciprocity
programs.
M
F
K
Thank
you,
chairman
haudeke,
and
members
of
the
committee.
Hello
again.
My
name
is
marlene
lockhart
l-o-c-k-a-r-d
and
I'm
representing
seiu
1107.
We
are
calling
in
neutral
on
this
bill.
We
have
concerns
with
respect
to
the
nursing
provisions
and
we
would
appreciate
an
opportunity
to
work
with
the
bill
sponsor
to
receive
more
clarification.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
houdiki
and
commerce
and
labor
committee.
I
am
happy
to
work
with
both
ms
lockhart
and
miss
fisher
to
get
to
this
bill
where
there
is
a
level
of
comfort.
I
think
we
can
all
agree
that
this
is
a
good
policy,
but
obviously
we
don't
want
any
unintended
consequences
to
get
in
way
of
the
safety
of
nevadans.
D
A
Thank
you
assemblymember
bill
brayoxelrod.
With
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
439..
Okay.
Next,
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
438.
This
is
the
last
bill
for
our
bill.
Hearing
today,
assembly
bill
438
revises
provisions
relating
to
dentistry.
I
believe
we
have
mr
alfredo
alonso
here
to
present
the
bill.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
alfredo
alonso
with
the
law
firm
of
lewis
rocha
today
on
behalf
of
the
dental
board
and
what
you
have
before
you
today,
I
think
is
it
started
out.
I
think
a
little
confusing
for
folks,
I
think,
is
if
they
delve
into
it
they'll
understand
where
we're
coming
from.
We
look
at
this
very
simply,
as
as
the
three
aspects
to
it:
reform
access,
transparency
and
accountability.
N
What
you
will
see
as
we
go
through
this
bill
is,
is
it
it's?
It's
obviously
very
hard
when
you're
making
change,
and
I
think
that
this
board,
as
many
others
have
done
the
same
thing
over
and
over
again
for
for
decades.
N
The
hope
here
is
that
we
have
a
a
new
system
that
will
allow
for
more
fairness
in
the
disciplinary
process.
You
know
frivolous
and,
and
other
such
complaints
will
be
vetted
first
before
they're
actually
brought
to
a
board.
So
again,
you
know
the
the
fact
that
the
the
receptionist
was
rude
to.
N
You
may
not
fall
into
this
in
this
category
because
it's
not
it
wouldn't
be
considered
standard
of
care,
and
so
I
think
that
by
by
adding
to
the
standards
reforming
the
board,
I
think
the
board's
position
on
this
ultimately
is
that
that
you're
going
to
end
up
having
a
much
more
streamlined
process
and
a
fair
one
for
everyone
involved.
N
I
think
it's
very
important
to
understand
why
we've
had
many
problems,
obviously
with
this
sport
over
the
years,
but
what
you
have
before
you
are
members
of
the
board
that
are
practically
brand
new.
In
fact,
there
are
a
few
that
were
just
recently
placed
on
the
board
and,
and
each
one
of
them
is
dedicated
to
doing
the
right
thing
here.
N
N
They've
also
listened
to
to
all
of
you
during
many
of
the
board
related
hearings
during
the
interim
they've
they've
heard.
Some
of
those
remarks
echoed
over
and
over
again
and
some
of
the
things
that
need
to
be
done
with
respect
to
staff
being
too
powerful.
N
Really,
the
accountability
should
be
on
the
board
they're,
the
ones
that
are
ultimately
making
those
decisions,
and
so
it
shouldn't
be
a
situation
where
a
staff
person
can
no
matter
how
well-meaning
they
shouldn't
be,
making
decisions
on
what
the
board
will
ultimately
see
on
a
disciplinary
action,
etc,
and
then,
and
then,
obviously
the
the
access
issue.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
nevadans
have
access
to
care
in
in
every
way
possible?
N
Are
there
creative
ways
in
which
we
can
provide
additional
access
to
the
underserved
and
the
board
had
a
couple
of
pretty
good
ideas
on
here
they're
also
in
this
build
I'd
like
to
introduce
casey
steitler,
who
is
also
on
video
here,
I
believe,
and
casey
is
one
of
the
attorneys
in
our
office
that
helped
draft
this
measure,
and
I
I
want
to
preface
his
his
testimony
with
the
fact
that
this
is
nothing
new.
N
What
what
I'm?
I
keep
hearing
that
some
of
this
language
is
groundbreaking.
Well,
if
groundbreaking
is
taking
existing
nevada
law
of
other
boards
and
then
looking
at
other
boards
within
the
the
region
and
taking
some
of
the
best
ideas
they've
got,
then
I
guess
we
are
groundbreaking.
But
I'd
like
to
think
that
we
are
just
simply
looking
at
what
works,
and
that
is
what
is
in
this
bill
and
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
casey.
But
if
that's
okay
with
you
chair.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Yes,
so
as
as
mr
alonzo
was
saying,
the
bill
really
addresses
three
primary
issues.
First,
the
bill
will
clarify
and
strengthen
the
board's
oversight
and
enforcement
authority,
specifically
on
disciplinary
matters.
The
bill
also
takes
some
additional
steps
in
clarifying
that
certain
that
there
are
employees
of
the
board
and
that
the
executive
director
serves
at
will
employees
at
the
pleasure
of
the
board.
O
The
bill
also
clarifies
and
in
in
some
ways,
sort
of
modifies
some
of
the
requirements
that
are
in
place
for
the
board
to
grant
a
licensure
by
endorsement,
with
the
primary
goal
being
to
kind
of
streamline
that
process
and
provide
additional
access
to
care,
and
specifically
regarding
the
board's
oversight
authority.
O
As
mr
alonzo
had
mentioned,
the
language
in
the
bill
is
specifically
in
response
to
the
division
of
internal
audits
report
from
june
of
2019,
and
that
report
specifically
advised
the
board
to
take
action
to
strengthen
its
oversight
and
investigative
authority
and
for
for
just
one
example
of
something
that
was
brought
up
in
the
report.
O
It
specifically
identified
the
previous
practice
of
having
what
was
referred
to
as
a
discipline,
disciplinary
screening
officer
or
a
dso
who
had
the
authority
to
review
and
dismiss
complaints
without
any
review
or
action
by
the
board
itself
so
effectively,
giving
a
single
employee
of
the
board
full
influence
over
decisions
regarding
public
health
and
safety
and
the
livelihoods
of
licensees
in
the
state
of
nevada.
So
in.
O
In
short,
you
know
the
bill
is
really
focused
on
on
trying
to
ensure
that
that
those
requirements
for
the
audit
are
met
and
increasing
access.
So
with
that,
I
can
provide
a
summary
of
the
bill.
O
No
problem
so
section
two
of
the
bill
amends
nrs
chapter
631
to
include
language
that
clarifies
that
the
board
may
employ
certain
employees
necessary
in
the
discharge
of
its
duties
and
that
those
employees
are
at
will
and
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
the
board,
and
it
also
provides
the
executive
director
of
the
board
the
ability
to
appoint
and
remove
employees.
O
Section
two
of
the
bill
also
adds
language
which
would
prohibit
a
hearing
officer
hired
by
the
board,
from
serving
in
any
other
capacity
for
the
board
and
sets
forth
that
a
hearing
officer
who
is
terminated
or
resigns
may
not
be
rehired
for
a
period
of
two
years.
All
in
order
to
avoid
potential
conflicts
of
interest.
O
Section
three
of
the
bill
sets
out
requirements
for
the
board
to
grant
a
license
by
endorsement
to
practice
dental
hygiene
in
an
effort
to
increase
access
by
providing
a
method
for
those
practitioners
who
are
licensed
in
other
jurisdictions
to
practice
in
the
state
section.
Four
of
the
bill
clarifies
that
the
executive
director
is
an
at
will
employee
of
the
borders
as
well
and
who
serves
at
the
pleasure
of
the
board.
O
Section.
Five
of
the
bill
clarifies
that
a
practitioner
is
not
considered
in
the
the
practice
of
dentistry
for
licensing
purpose
purposes
where
the
practitioner
is
treating
a
patient
during
a
course
of
continuing
education
that
is
conducted
at
a
permanent
facility
registered
with
the
board
that
provides
grant
postgraduate
continuing
education
and
the
care
is
done
under
the
the
supervision
of
a
nevada
licensed
practitioner.
O
O
Section
6
of
the
bill
removes
language
requiring
that
a
practitioner
who
has
issued
a
specialist
license
to
submit
to
the
board
and
maintain
a
certificate
of
diplomate
from
a
certified
fighting
board
within
six
years
of
their
licensure
as
a
specialist.
The
the
certificate
is
essentially
a
an
additional
requirement.
Above
and
beyond
this,
the
I
guess,
general
requirements
in
order
to
practice
a
specialty,
and
this
we
see
as
a
an
impediment
to
having
additional
specialists
who
come
to
nevada
and
are
able
to
provide
access
to
care.
O
So
we've
removed
that
language
that
requirement
in
order
to
make
it
easier
for
specialists
to
practice
here
in
nevada,
section
seven
of
the
bill
revises
the
process
by
which
the
board
will
grant
a
licensure
by
endorsed
endorsement
for
the
practice
of
dentistry,
notably,
the
language
in
this
section
is
slightly
more
permissive
than
existing
language
and
nevada
administrative
code,
section
361030,
because
it
provides
additional
avenues
where
an
applicant
can
meet
the
requirement
that
they
have
been
in
the
practice
for
the
five
years
preceding
their
application
by
either
serving
as
a
faculty
member
at
an
accredited
dentistry
program
or
completing
an
accredited
dentistry
program.
O
So
it
again
we're
trying
to
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
to
get
additional
practitioners
here
in
the
state
of
nevada.
O
Section
eight
of
the
bill
amends
nrs
section
631-350
by
limiting
the
amount
of
any
fine
that
may
be
assessed
by
the
board.
Currently,
the
language
was
was
ambiguous,
so
we've
set
a
specific
limit
on
the
amount
of
any
fine
that
may
be
assessed
by
the
board
and
we've
also
given
the
board
the
ability
to
issue
written
warnings
and
other
correspondence
that
may
be
considered
a
more
a
lesser
course
of
disciplinary
action.
O
If,
if
the
board
deems
that
disciplinary
action
is
necessary,
section
eight
of
the
bill
also
seeks
to
further
define
the
scope
of
the
board's
authority
to
take
disciplinary
action
for
certain
matters,
and
specifically,
we
have
carved
out
fee
disputes,
insurance
claims
and
misconduct
that
has
occurred
more
than
five
years
prior
to
the
date
of
the
complaint.
In
order
to
ensure
that
that
the
complaints
that
the
board
is
is
hearing
are
are
within
number
one
within
their
jurisdiction
are
are
associated
with
the
actual.
O
You
know,
standard
of
care
that
the
that
the
practitioners
are
providing
and
trying
to
kind
of
limit
the
the
total
number
of
maybe
unnecessary
complaints
or
complaints
that
may
be
better
handled
in
other
avenues.
O
Section
nine
of
the
bill
is:
it
contains
language
that
requires
that
before
any
disciplinary
action
is
taken,
the
findings
and
conclusions
of
the
investigator
or
the
review
panel
that
conducted
the
initial
investigation
be
considered.
So
we've
included
that
requirement
to
ensure
that
there
is
throughout
the
disciplinary
process,
a
record
of
findings
and
recommendations
that
the
board
can
consider
in
making
a
decision
on
whether
or
not
to
proceed
with
any
disciplinary
actions.
So
we're
again
kind
of
trying
to
focus
on
on
accountability
and
transparency.
O
Section
10
of
the
bill
removes
the
requirement
that
complaints
to
the
board
be
verified,
and
this
is
something
that
that
we
think
you
know
requiring
the
verification
of
the
complaints
was,
was
really
an
additional
obstacle
for
members
of
the
public
to
to
file
these
complaints
in
in,
in
truth,
there's
many
members
of
the
public
who
who
may
not
fully
understand
what
it
means
to
have
their
complaint
verified
and-
and
we
kind
of
saw
that
as
an
additional
obstacle
or
burden
for
members
of
the
public
to
have
to
overcome
in
order
to
bring
valid
complaints
to
the
board
for
review.
O
Section
10
of
the
bill
also
requires
that
the
board
designate
a
committee
consisting
of
four
members
of
the
board
to
review
and
investigate
each
complaint
and
determine
whether
each
complaint
is
number
one
within
the
board's
purview
and
jurisdiction
and
whether
there's
a
reasonable,
reasonable
basis
for
the
complaint.
If
the
committee
does
determine
that
the
complaint
is
within
the
board's
purview
and
has
a
reasonable
basis,
then
the
committee
must
refer
the
complaint
to
the
board
or
a
hearing
officer
or
panel
that
has
been
delegated
authority
by
the
board
to
hear
and
investigate
the
complaint.
O
So
this
is
in
direct
response
to
some
of
the
recommendations
in
the
audit
where
we
had
a
single
employee,
making
the
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
a
complaint
had
merit
without
any
action
oversight
or
review
by
the
board.
Section.
10
also
requires
that
the
board
publish
a
summary
of
its
meetings
and
that
all
complaints
that
are
reviewed
by
the
this
committee
have
all
identifying
information
redacted
from
the
complaint
prior
to
being
reviewed
by
the
committee.
O
The
redacted
information
will
not
be
revealed
unless
and
until
the
committee
refers
the
complaint
to
to
the
board
hearing
officer
or
panel
and
again
we're
trying
to
ensure
that
when
these
complaints
are
being
reviewed
by
the
committee,
they're
done
so
in
a
manner
that
that
avoids
as
much
as
possible
any
potential
favoritism
or
bias.
So
we've
essentially
required
that
these
complaints
be
redacted.
In
order
to
avoid
that
possibility.
O
Section
11
of
the
bill
clarifies
that
an
investigator
who
has
been
delegated
authority
by
the
board
can
can
conduct
informal
hearings.
Some
of
this
language
in
section
11,
is
kind
of
a
cleanup
to
clarify
that
that
when
the
authority
has
been
delegated,
there
will
be
a
hearing
or
excuse
me.
There
will
be
an
investigation
and
an
informal
hearing,
section
11,
also
clarifies
and
specifically
states
that
an
investigator
appointed
by
the
board
may
not
dismiss
a
complaint
again
in
direct
response
to
the
audit.
O
This
section
also
requires
the
board
to
hold
its
own
hearing,
where
the
board
will
consider
the
investigator
and
or
the
review
panels,
recommend
report
and
recommendation
on
any
investigation
again,
creating
a
record
and
ensuring
number
one
that
there's
accountability
and
also
trying
to
avoid
the
potential
multiplication
of
the
efforts
in
terms
of
the
investigation
and
section
12
of
the
bill
clarifies
that
a
panel
may
be
appointed
by
the
beer.
The,
but
excuse
me
by
the
board
to
review
and
investigate
and
hold
an
informal
hearing
for
disciplinary
matters.
N
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
jump
in
real
quick
on
one
other
matter
before
before
you
move
on
again,
this
section,
like
all
of
the
sections
in
this
bill,
were
vetted
internally.
N
Reviewing
the
the
audit
reviewing
what
other
other
boards
do.
We
did
not
seek
counsel
for
from
from
others.
I
know
that's
counterintuitive
in
this
process,
but
again
you're
trying
to
reform
a
regulatory
and
and
a
board
that
that
this
is
what
they
do.
They
they're
they're
supposed
to
take
care
of
the
bad
actors
and
and
complaints
when
they
come
across
to
their
desks.
N
So
I
thought
it
was
very
important
that
we
do
this
in
a
vacuum
of
sorts,
try
to
rely
on
the
audit
and
what
other,
what
other
information
that
we
had,
and
that
is
what's
before
you
here.
So
again,
we
can
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you,
mr
alonso
and
mr
alonzo
and
mr
as
we
go
to
questions.
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone
just
to
please
identify
yourself
for
our
committee
secretary
before
answering
questions.
Okay,
perfect
members,
do
we
have
any
questions
assembly,
member
duran,.
H
Thank
you,
chair,
howard,
again,
thank
you
for
bringing
this
board
and
this
bill
to
this
to
our
committee.
First
of
all,
I
was
just
wondering
so
I
was
just
wondering
you
said
that
you
will
not
issue
a
fine
or
discipline
if
the
event
occurred
or
the
complaint
occurred
five
years
prior.
Is
there
limitation
of
time
that
you
investigate
a
complaint?
I
mean
it's
like
the
statue
of
limitations,
even
without
filing
a
lawsuit
or
anything
has
a
statute
of
limitations.
O
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
duran,
for
the
record
casey
steitler,
the
the
primary
goal
in
in
creating
what
is,
in
effect,
kind
of
a
sort
of
statute
of
limitations
is,
is
really
to
try
to
limit
the
the
types
of
complaints
that
the
board
can
hear
and
when
we
start
talking
about
complaints
that
are
based
on
events
that
occurred
five
five
or
more
years
prior
to
the
date
of
the
complaint,
it
becomes
very
difficult
for
for
the
board
to
investigate
those
types
of
complaints
due
to
the
fact
that
that
so
much
time
has
passed.
O
But
but
with
that
said
the
it's
really
more,
an
effort
of
trying
to
kind
of
call
down
those
complaints
to
the
ones
that
the
board
has
has
an
authority
and
jurisdiction
to
hear,
but
also
has
has
the
ability
to
really
investigate
and
and
once
something's
occurred
more
than
five
years
prior
to
that,
it
becomes
a
a
very
big
burden
for
the
board
to
be
able
to
really
thoroughly
investigate
those
types
of
complaints.
A
H
No,
I'm
just
trying
to
say
you
know.
Discipline
should
be
corrective
and
not
punitive.
So
I'm
just
wondering
why
you
know
it's
even
allowed
to
hear
a
complaint
or
take
a
complaint
after
a
certain
amount
of
time.
Because,
again
things
happen,
you
don't
remember
things
get
lost,
so
I'm
just
wondering.
Is
it
just
taking
that
long
for
the
board
to
get
to
that
complaint,
or
is
it
it's
being
allowed
to
just?
I
could
file
a
complaint
on
somebody
five
years
ago.
If
I
felt
like
I
didn't
like
him
at
this
point
or
something.
O
Thank
you
for
the
follow-up
follow-up
assemblyman
for
the
record,
casey
steitler.
If
and
if
I
understand
your
your
question
and
concern
correctly.
As
far
as
you
know,
the
the
board's
ability
to
investigate
something
that
occurred
more
than
five
years
ago,
that
that
really
just
kind
of
becomes
a
a
practical
challenge.
More
than
anything.
O
So
yes,
the
you
know,
the
the
selection
of
five
years
was
was
based
primarily
on
practical
concerns
in
terms
of
the
ability
to
investigate,
but
there
are
obviously
circumstances
where
complaints
may
be
filed
in
bad
faith,
and
you
know
they,
someone
may
look
to
an
event
that
occurred
three
four
five
seven
years
ago
for
a
basis
for
that
type
of
complaint,
and
that's
really
why
we've
put
in
place
the
committee
system,
where
all
of
those
complaints
would
still
be
vetted
by
a
committee
of
the
board
to
determine
whether
or
not
there
be
there
really
had.
O
There
is
a
reasonable
basis
for
those
complaints.
But
in
terms
of
the
like,
I
said,
the
five
year
limitation,
that's
that
was
really
selected
out
of
practical
concerns.
N
Madam
chair,
if
I
could.
N
Alfredo
alonso
for
the
record
again
and
to
assemblywoman
duran
practitioners
are
required
to
keep
records
up
to
five
years.
That's
another
practical
matter
here,
because
if
you
go
past
that
five-year
period
and
and
someone
files
a
complaint,
we
simply
wouldn't
have
the
records
in
in
some
cases
to
be
able
to
investigate
properly.
H
So
just
follow
up
chair
or
just
a
different
point.
I'm
just
wondering
why
are
we
allowing
you
know
somebody
to
file
a
complaint
after
such
a
long
period
of
time?
I
I
get
that
I
just
again,
I
don't
you
know
working
as
a
grievance
specialist.
We
tell
the
companies
you
have
to
file
your
your
your
complaints
and
or
your
discipline
in
a
timely
manner
or
not
be
able
to
continue
to
let
this
all
go,
because
it's
just
not
good
practice.
That's
in
my
mind.
N
And
and
madam
chair
to
you
and
through
you
to
the
assemblywoman
alfredo
alonso
again
for
the
record,
we
don't
disagree
with
you.
You
know,
I
think,
that's
a
number
that
that
has
been
used
in
other
boards.
You
know
that's
an
awfully
long
time,
but
it's
also
the
time
period
they
require
to
keep
records.
So
we
figured
at
least
that's
a
at
least
we're
setting
a
boundary,
which
is
something
we
don't
have
right
now.
A
Thank
you,
mr
alonso
and
mr
steitler.
Please
feel
free
to
go
directly
to
the
members
when
answering
questions.
Okay,
assemblymember
considine,.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
for
the
bill
presentation.
I
have
some
clarifying
questions
so
in
section
two
subsection
five,
the
executive
director
may,
with
the
approval
of
the
board
discharge
an
employee,
but
it's
not
clear.
If
the
executive
director
needs
to
obtain
prior
approval
or
can
discharge
someone
and
then
obtain
board
approval
is,
is
it
supposed
to
go
one
way
or
the
other,
or
is
it
supposed
to
be
kind
of
wide
open
here.
O
The
assembly
one
for
the
question,
the
I
think
the
intent
here
is
really
to
ensure
that
that
again,
the
board
has
adequate
oversight
over
over
staff.
So
so
here
the
the
approval
would
be
a
pre-approval.
So
so
there
may
be
instances.
I
think
where,
where
the
executive
director
would
be
in
a
position
where
they,
they
needed
a
a
quick
decision
and
there
may
be
internal.
You
know,
policies
and
procedures
in
place
in
order
to
gain
that
approval.
O
But
the
idea
here
is
is
to
really
per
the
direction
that
we
received
in
the
audit,
ensure
that
the
the
board
is
is
being
consulted
and
is
giving
an
acknowledgement
or
an
approval
in
order
for
the
executive
director
to
carry
out
those
those
those
responsibilities.
So
it
would
be
something
that
that
they
would
need
to
get
approval
for
prior
prior
to.
B
Thank
you
and
then
on
section
seven.
B
For
the
dentistry
for
getting
the
license
by
endorsement
to
practice
dentistry
section,
I
guess
one
g,
if
I'm
looking
at
it
right
that
for
the
endorsement
part
of
that
would
require
that
they
pay
for
the
application,
examination
and
renewal
fees,
and
I
guess,
after
hearing
the
the
last
the
last
bill.
My
question
is:
if
they
don't
have
to
take
the
examination,
is
it
normal
practice
to
charge
them
for
the
examination.
O
Thank
you
assembly,
woman
constandine,
for
the
for
the
question.
I
think
the
the
intent
here
is
not
to
to
charge
applicants
for
a
licensure
by
endorsement
or
for
an
examination
that
they
they
have
not
taken.
That's
something
that
I
I
think
we
may
need
to
clarify,
based
on
the
the
current
practices
of
the
board
for
some
of
their
other
licensing
procedures.
But
I
think
the
the
intent
here
is
not
to
charge
them
unnecessarily
for
for
an
examination
that
they
did
not
take.
B
A
Hey
go
ahead,
assemblymember
considering
hi,
oh.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
my
last
question
is
concerning.
I
guess
the
area
that
assemblywoman
duran
was
talking
about
earlier
about
what
the
board
shall
not
impose.
Sorry
shall
not
impose
disciplinary
action
for
and
then
under
a
it
lists,
a
few
a
few
things,
but
the
last
one
caught
my
eye.
B
It
says
for
the
length
of
time
a
licensee
took
to
perform
a
procedure,
and
I
I
don't
know
if
this
is
an
issue,
but
I
know
one
of
the
areas
of
discipline
that
the
board
can
give
out
is
just
like
a
letter
of
concern.
B
O
Thank
you
again
for
the
question
assembly,
woman
constandine.
I
think
the
the
intent
there
is
to
avoid.
O
Thank
you.
I
apologize
for
the
record
casey
steitler
is,
is
really
to
try
to
vet
out
or
or
limit
potential
complaints
that
that
are
are
based
on
the
length
of
time
that
it
takes
a
practitioner
to
to
conduct
a
procedure
specifically
because
those
it's
not
necessarily
something
that
really
falls
within
the
standard
of
care.
O
If,
if,
for
some
reason,
the
practitioner
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
to
carry
out
a
procedure-
and
again
you
know,
that's
that's
something
where
we're
trying
to
kind
of
limit
the
overall
jurisdiction
of
the
board
to
to
make
sure
that
that
complaints
that
fall
within
that
area
and
standard
of
care
are
really
the
ones
that
that
the
board
hears.
B
N
And
madam
chair,
if
I
could
jump
in
real,
quick
to
alfredo
alonso
again
to
assemblywoman
consonant,
one
of
the
issues
that
came
out
also
was
that
that
was
one
of
the
sort
of
ways
that
that
the
the
other
boards
would
would
seek
out
complaints
on
on
dennis.
So
it
was,
it
was
unfortunately,
a
way
to
get
a
complaint
and,
and
frankly,
that's
the
type
of
complaint
that
we
don't
want
is
is
a
frivolous
one.
N
If
it's
genuinely
someone
hasn't
hasn't
done
their
job
and
and
the
standard
of
care
comes
into
effect.
For
instance,
it
takes
a
year
to
get
a
filling
in,
I
mean
obviously
the
board's
going
to
take
take
that
into
account,
but
if
it's,
if
it's
simply
it
took
two
weeks
and
and
this
is
the
thing
you
know
it
took
two
weeks-
it
took
too
long
to
get
the
impressions.
N
B
Yes,
thank
you.
It
does
make
sense,
but
in
your
two
examples,
even
though
one
of
them
seemed
to
be
sort
of
egregious
under
the
way
that
this
is
written,
neither
of
them
would
be
able
would
be
subject
to
a
discipline.
I
I
guess
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
seeing
and
we.
C
Yes,
thank
you
chair
and
a
few
questions
that
I've
been
touched
on,
but
looking
at
section
eight
sub
section,
I
guess
three
a
so
the
board
shall
not
impose
disciplinary
action
for
any
grounds,
including
without
limitation
matters
related
solely
to
the
amount
of
a
fee
charged
by
a
licensee,
the
amount
of
an
insurance
claim
or
length
of
time
of
license.
So
you
took
a
to
performance
procedure.
I
know
we
just
just
touched
on
that.
I
have
that
same
concern.
C
So
what
action
do
we
take
if
somebody
isn't
paying
their
their
fees
or.
N
I'll
go
ahead
and
take
this
if
that's
okay,
alfredo
alonso
again
for
the
record
again,
I
mean
it's
a
it's
about
standard
of
care.
You
know
if,
if
I
think
what
we're
seeing
or
what
we've
seen
historically
is
is
a
huge
backlog
of
complaints
that
go
something
like
this.
The
receptionist
was
mean
to
me.
I
I
didn't.
I
didn't
hear
the
dentist
the
first
time
he
told
me
what
the
estimate
was,
so
I
I
was
unhappy
with
the
ultimate
cost.
N
N
You
know,
unfortunately,
you
can
only
imagine
how
many
complaints
come
in
and
and
the
the
hope
is
that
a
we're
making
it
easier
to
have
those
complaints
come
in
and
and
so
that's
going
to
be-
an
increase
because
we're
trying
to
make
it
easier
for
the
public
to
be
part
of
this
process,
but
at
the
same
time
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it
is
about
standard
of
care.
C
O
Madam
chair,
if,
if
I
may
sorry,
I
have
some
difficulty
getting
off
of
mute
there,
assemblywoman
tools,
the.
O
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
the
language
immediately
preceding
that
in
in
section
8,
which
remains,
is
that
the
it
specifically
cites
right,
the
that
the
following
activities
may
be
punished
by
punished,
as
provided
in
subsection
one,
including
illegal
practice
of
dentistry
dental
hygiene
or
dental
therapy,
unprofessional
conduct
or
violating
any
regulations
adopted
by
the
board,
or
the
provisions
of
this
chapter
so
outside
of
the
new
language
that
we
have,
which
specifically
states
right.
O
The
the
board
will
will
not
impose
disciplinary
action
for
any
grounds
not
described
in
this
chapter.
We,
the
board,
still
has
the
authority
disciplinary
action
for
any
violation
of
the
regulations
or
any
other
requirements
or
standards
within
within
the
chapter.
So
the
the
carve
out
that
we
have
added
here
is
is
essentially
just
limiting
the
board's
jurisdiction
to
those
matters
that
are
explicitly
within
the
board's
regulations
and
within
the
chapter
itself.
A
Mr
stetler,
just
a
quick
reminder
to
get
your
name
for
the
record
before
answering
questions.
Identify
yourself.
C
A
And
if
I
could
assembly
member
told
if
you're
referring
to
the
section
eight
sub
three
eight,
I
don't
think-
and
then
mr
el
alonso
or
mr
steiler,
please
correct
me
if
I'm
incorrect,
but
that
section
applies
to
a
patient
camp,
a
feast
charge
to
a
patient,
not
fees
paid
by
the
debt,
the
dentist-
and
so
I
think,
that's
your
you
might
just
be
reading
it
a
little
wrong,
assemblymember
tolls,
because
that
section
838
means
they
can
not.
A
They
cannot
file
a
complaint
or
take
disciplinary
action
by
a
fee
charged
by
the
dentist
to
the
patient,
not
the
fees,
the
dentist
case,
and
so
mr
alonzo
and
mr
stetler
enough.
You
want
now
yeah.
N
That's
exactly
right,
madam
chair.
N
Yeah
in
other
states
the
boards
the
boards
have
had
such
a
so
many
complaints
about
how
much
my
I
don't
like
the
fact
that
my
dentist
charges
me
this
much.
I
mean
that's
just
not
a
standard
of
care,
question
or
issue,
and
so
many
states
have
just
simply
said
we
don't
take
those
because
they're
not
they're,
not
pertinent
here.
If
you
don't,
you
don't
want
to
pay
the
fee,
then
don't
go
to
the
dentist.
C
Okay,
thank
you
thank
you
and
and
you're
right
chair.
I
was
misreading
that
so
I
appreciate
the
correction
on
the
record
and
we
could
maybe
scrap
that
whole
section
out
of
the
minutes
that
I
appreciate,
but
I
do
still
share
some
of
the
concerns
that
assembly
women
considine
also
raised.
So
thank
you.
A
H
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
my
question
is
quick
and
I'm
not
sure
who
it's
for
possibly
lcbo
or
possibly
mr
alonso
can
answer
it
for
me,
but
is
it
the
the
5
000
not
to
exceed
5
000
fine
in
section
8
sub?
H
That's
causing
this
to
require
to
search
majority
vote,
because
I
thought
in
the
explanation
you
said
that
the
fees
before
were
unclear
so
you're
kind
of
putting
a
cap
on
them
right.
N
N
It's
how
you
correct,
and
so
I
think
the
the
purpose
of
the
cap
is
so
that
again,
not
just
this
board,
but
future
boards
can't
just
have
an
unfettered
ability
to
fine
at
will.
There's
got
to
be
again
a
paper
trail.
There's
got
to
be
a
method
to
it
and
then
you've
got
to
have
caps
on
how
much
you've
been
charged
or
or
find
someone.
H
Yeah
I
I
appreciate
that
and
that's
what
I
was
reading,
but
I'm
just
wondering
why
lcb
put
a
two-thirds
requirement
on
this
bill.
Anyone
know.
A
We
can
ask
our
assembly
member
dickman,
we
can
ask
our
legal.
Thank
you.
K
A
Well,
we
can
give.
We
will
give
our
legal
time
to
look
that
up
and
then,
if
you
have
any
other
questions,
that
was
just
my
question.
Okay,
thank
you
assembly,
member
o'neal,.
I
N
I
N
Assemblyman
o'neill
alfredo
alonso
again
for
the
record.
I
I
think
they
hire
licensed
investigators.
You
know
you've
got
folks
that
that
both
on
the
private
and
the
public
side,
I
will
confirm
exactly
what,
where
we
find
those
folks
and
and
get
you
a
little
more
detail
on
it.
I
No,
I
was
just
curious
if
they
used,
because
I
I
remember
years
ago,
the
veterinarian
board
used
to
assign
it
to
various
vets
to
do
investigations
that
way
they
could
get
through
quicker.
They
need
the
standard
of
care,
et
cetera.
That's
so
I
understand
you
actually
go
out
or
they
go
out
and
get
pis,
who
aren't
necessarily
dentists
or
experts
in
any
of
the
medical
or
dental
field.
N
Yeah,
mr
o'neill
yeah
again
I
I
have
no
doubt
that
these
individuals
have
at
least
some
extensive
knowledge
of
of
of
the
the
world
of
dentistry.
How
much
are
they
you
know?
Are
they
former
dentists?
That
sort
of
thing
I
do
not
know,
and
I
will
find
out
for
you.
I
So
I'm
gathering
they
want
to
change
some
of
the
practices
by
not
allowing
this
investigator
to
discharge
frivolous
cases
initially
without
going
to
a
ward.
Have
there
been
issues
already
or
that
require
this
new
change
and
procedure
where
the
investigator
discharged
or
declared
a
frivolous
and
was
later
found
not
to
be.
You
know
by
any
chance.
O
For
the
record,
casey
styler
assemblyman
o'neill,
yes,
so
so
the
the
basis
for
a
lot
of
what
we're
proposing
in
this
bill
is
from
that
previous
audit
report
and
as
the
the
audit
report
doesn't
go
into
too
many
specific
details
for
specific
cases.
O
But,
for
example,
there
were
situations
identified
in
the
audit
where
the
investigator
had
a
close
professional
relationship
with
someone
who
who
the
complaint
had
actually
been
filed
against.
So
under
the
the
previous
method
of
doing
things
that
investigator
or
the
the
dso,
as
the
case
may
be,
would
technically
have
the
ability,
without
oversight
from
the
board.
So
so
the
board
would
not
have
the
opportunity
or
the
ability
to
actually
determine
whether
or
not
that
that
claim
was
frivolous.
O
Had
the
ability
to
just
dismiss
that
claim
without
any
oversight
without
any
other
opinions.
So
the
the
structure
in
and
of
itself
really
lent
itself
to
the
possibility
of
an
investigator
having
some
some
type
of
relationship
or
association.
With
someone
who
a
complaint
was
filed
against
and
and
potentially
having
that
service
basis
for
for
favoritism
or
bias.
A
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sam
claus
committee,
council
and.
K
And
because
that
then
creates.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
I
just
put
this
in
the
chat,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
ask
here
is
that
audit
available
anywhere
online?
I
think
part
of
the
challenge
here
is
just
trying
to
understand
what
all
is
in
this
bill
and
the
reference
that
it's
to
fall
in
line
with
the
audit
and
and
and
that
might
help
clarify
some
things.
If,
if
we
could
have
that
as
a
comparison.
O
For
the
record,
casey
schuyler
assemblywoman
tools,
we
have
a
copy
of
the
audit,
I'm
sure
it's
available
and
we'll
make
sure
that
that
you
have
a
copy
of
it
and
that
the
other
members
of
the
committee
have
a
copy
as
well.
A
F
Oh,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
no
problem,
but
this
is
actually
the
perfect
place
for
my
question
since
we're
brought
up
the
audit.
So
what
I'm
gathering
from
the
questions
mentioning
in
the
audit
and
this
the
conversation
that
there
have
been
issues
with
the
previous
boards,
and
so
that's
the
need
for
this
bill.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
when
you're
working
on
the
language
for
the
bill-
and
you
know
things
that
need
to
be
corrected,
did
you
seek
input
like
from
from
dennis
or
the
nevada?
F
O
For
the
record
casey
steitler
assemblywoman
hardy,
as
as
mr
alonzo
kind
of
mentioned
at
the
at
the
beginning,
you
know
the
the
call
really
to
action
in
the
audit
was
to
ensure
that
the
board
itself
was
taking
appropriate
action
and
has
in
place
appropriate
procedures
to
ensure
that
the
disciplinary
process,
including
any
investigation,
is
conducted
in
a
manner
that
avoids
as
much
as
possible
the
possibility
of
favoritism
or
bias.
O
And
there
are
specific
instances
I
identified
in
that
that
audit,
where
it
specifically
outlined
the
the
procedural
steps
that
that
led
to
the
possibility
and
in
some
cases
the
very
strong
suggestion
that
that
some
favoritism
or
or
bias
had
had
worked
its
way
into
the
system.
O
O
Our
approach
with
the
bill
was
was
really
to
focus
on
those
procedural
questions
with
the
board
and
how
we
could
put
in
place
measures
that,
regardless
of
who
the
members
of
the
board
are
at
any
given
time,
would
prevent
as
much
as
possible
the
possibility
of
bias
or
favoritism.
So
so,
given
that
it's
really
the
board's
charge,
the
board
is
going
to
be
the
the
ones
held
responsible.
O
F
Thank
you
and
it's
one:
follow-up:
okay!
Yes,
okay!
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
answer
that
more
in-depth
explanation
of
how
this
came
to
be
boards
and
functional
board
is
something
that
I'm
learning
I've
learned
more
than
I
knew
in
2019.
F
N
Assemblywoman
hardy
alfredo
alonso
for
the
record,
I
I
in
in
the
case
of
the
dental
board,
they're
all
practicing
dentists.
So
it's
a
tough
job.
I
mean
they,
they
are
put
in
a
position
where
they
are
practicing
and
then
they're
also
there
to
to
basically
judge
their
tier,
their
peers
to
some
degree
and
follow
the
law.
So
it's
a
tough
job,
no
matter
what
and
I
think
that
the
way
they
did
it.
N
It
may
not
be
intuitive
in
this
case,
because
the
legislative
process
is
always
one
where
you
work
with
everybody
to
to
find
a
solution,
but
with
regulatory
boards
it's
different
and-
and
I
think
that
the
reason
it
is
is
because
again,
they're
enforcing
and
they're
and
they're
and
they're
potentially
investigating
a
complaint
on
on
on
the
dentist
down
the
street
from
you
perhaps,
and
so
we
we
thought
the
best
way
to
start
that
is
look
at
the
audit.
N
Try
to
interpret
the
audit
as
best
as
we
can
and
then
understand.
Some
of
the
questions
and
issues
that
came
up
during
the
interim
over
the
past
two
sessions
or
two
interim
excuse
me
and
then
afterwards
obviously
leave
it
in
your
hands
as
the
legislature
to
determine
whether
we're
right
or
not,
and
that
was
that
was
our
attempt
to
do
this
as
fairly
and
and
I
think,
as
unbiased
as
we
possibly
could.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
very
much,
and
I
apologize
for
my
my
tardiness
this
evening.
I
was
working
on
some
things
for
tomorrow.
I
just
have
a
brief
statement
to
make,
and
I
I
want
to
thank
those
thank
the
committee
for
allowing
the
bill
draft
and
I
want
to
thank
the
board
for
their
work.
H
They
have
reached
out
to
me
numerous
times
over
the
interim
to
have
conversations
about
the
history
of
the
board,
things
that
have
happened
in
the
past
because
they
wanted
to
get
a
full
feeling
for
where
we've
been
and
and
when
you
look
through
a
lot
of
the
minutes.
I've
been
involved
in
these
dental
issues
since
since
about
2001,
and
I
understand
what
they're
trying
to
do,
and
I
think
it's
very
and
I'm
glad
they
brought
up
the
audit
and
I'm
I.
H
I
would
really
think
that
if
folks
take
a
look
at
that
audit
and
look
especially
in
the
key
findings
and
then,
if
you
look
towards
the
end
of
the
audit,
there's
actually
a
list
of
recommendations
that
the
auditors
made
towards
the
board
and
very
rarely
when
you
sit
on
the
audit
subcommittee.
Do
you
see
where
recommendations
have
been
rejected
by
a
board?
H
So
if
you
read
the
minutes
of
that
particular
audit
meeting
you
I
think
you'll
find
it
very
enlightening
as
to
the
problems
that
we're
trying
to
solve-
and
I
think
it's
always
really
important
for
us
to
remember
that
boards
are
there
for
public
safety
they're.
The
regulator
associations
are
there
to
advocate
for
the
profession
and
they
have
their
job
and
they
do
it
very
well,
but
the
board
is
there
to
protect
the
public,
so
this
was
a
difficult
issue
for
them.
I
know
they've
done
their
homework.
No
bill
is
perfect.
H
I
know
there's
going
to
be
some
issues,
but
I
just
want
to
thank
those
that
are
involved
and
especially
the
new
members
of
the
board
that
the
governor
just
appointed,
I
believe,
last
year,
so
that
they
can
actually
deal
with
these
issues.
I
I
appreciate
their
hard
work.
They
they're
doing
everything
that
they
can
to
address
the
issues
that
the
state
brought
up
with
the
board.
So
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
F
Thank
you
chair
when
we're
talking
about
the
boards.
One
thing
came
to
mind.
It
is
a
long
day
and
there
was
another
bill
today
or
yesterday
regarding
some
boards
and
and
on
those
it
actually
specified
the
board
members.
You
know
two
actively
practicing
or
one
appointed
by
the
governor
and
I
notice
on
or
you
know
whatever
it
might
be.
I
notice
on
this
one
here.
It
didn't
really
specify
the
makeup
of
the
board
and
is
that
something
that
should
be
done
or
why
was
it
that
not
put
in
there.
O
For
the
record,
casey
styler,
thank
you
for
the
question,
assemblymember,
kasama
and
and
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
but
it
is
it.
It
sounds
like
what
you're
describing
is
the
the
makeup
of
the
the
entire
board
itself,
and
I
don't
believe
that
that
any
of
the
sections
of
the
bill
specifically
address
or
modify
the
the
makeup
of
the
board
itself.
O
I
believe
that's
in
another
portion
of
the
chapter,
but
I
can
get
that
information
for
you
so
that
you
can
see
exactly
how
the
the
board
itself
is
is
appointed
and
how
those
members
are
selected.
A
F
F
M
Hello,
I'm
calling
in
my
name
is
sandy
connor
and
I'm
calling
in
support
of
ab438.
I've
been
following
this.
M
This
what's
been
going
on
with
the
dental
board
for
years
and
have
been
part
of
public
members
lobbying
to
make
changes
to
the
dental
board
for
the
past
several
years
and
we've
met
with
various
legislators
over
the
years,
and
I
wanted
to
give
say
that
one
of
the
things
that
assemblywoman,
I
believe,
as
hardy
pointed
out,
was
that
the
nevada
dental
association
is
a
a
you
know:
a
trade,
it's
representing
the
trade
and
the
dentist,
and
not
the
public
and
prior
to
governor
syslock,
replacing
this
entire
board.
M
The
dental
board
was
comprised
of
mainly
members
of
the
nevada,
dental
association,
including
the
president
of
the
nevada,
dental
association
and
as
a
result
of
the
audit
and
replacing
the
dental
board.
Now
you
have
mainly
all
members
that
aren't
a
part
of
any
association,
and
you
know
when
you
have
dentists
that
are
competing
in
the
marketplace.
It's
really
important
to
have
neutral
members.
M
Ab-438
was
drafted
as
a
result
of
the
state
audit
and
a
lot
of
the
alleged
bad
acts
by
the
old
board.
It
seeks
to
fix
the
problems
that
we,
as
the
public
had
lobbied
against,
and
one
of
the
main
things
was
the
complaint
process,
and
I
see
that
the
nevada
dental
association,
you
know,
is
opposing
this
bill
and
we
believe
that
they're
trying
to
go
back
to
the
old
ways
they're
talking
about
a
peer
review
process.
There
was
never
a
peer
review
process
with
the
dental
board.
M
They
are
there
to
help
and
protect
the
dentist,
not
the
public
and
the
audit
will
show,
as
you
read
it,
that
there
were
complaints
that
went
uninvestigated,
because
if
you
belong
to
the
nevada
dental
association,
the
complaint
would
get
sent
out
of
the
dental
board
and
over
to
the
dental
association,
so
that
stopped
with
the
audit.
We
don't
want
to
go
back
to
that.
There
needs
to
be
anonymity
so
that
if
a
member
of
the
public
complains
and
the
dentist
looking
at
it,
it
could
be
a
complaint
about
him
or
herself.
M
It
could
be
a
complaint
about
their
best
friend.
It
could
be
about
the
person
they
hate
the
most.
So
you
know
again
as
the
public
that
have
been
lobbying
for
years.
We
really
support
this
bill
because
there
is
anonymity
and
because
there
is
more
oversight
so
to
have
a
complaints
committee
review
it
to
make
sure
there's
jurisdiction
and
then
to
have
the
review
panel
review
that,
because
that
wasn't
happening
before
before
there
was
one
investigator
who
wasn't
a
board
member
who
would
review
the
complaint
and
decide
to
move
forward
or
not
move
forward.
M
M
M
Yeah,
the
audit
section
12
that
they're
talking
about
is
to
avoid
favoritism
or
abuse
by
one
of
the
investigators
who
may
dismiss
it
and
that's
again
in
the
audit
and
then
the
last
thing
is
opening
up
access
to
care.
It's
almost
impossible
to
get
into
dentists.
I've
tried
getting
into
a
dentist,
and
sometimes
it
takes
two
three
months
to
get
in
and
I
believe
that
opening
up
access
to
care
is
really
good.
But
again,
thank
you.
A
For
your
testimony
broadcasting
next
caller,
please.
A
F
F
Q
Good
evening,
honorable
members
of
the
assembly,
commerce
and
labor
committee
and
honorable
chair
haragi
for
the
record,
my
name
is
eddie
ablosser
edd
a
ie
l
e
s
e
r,
I'm
here
this
evening
representing
the
nevada,
dental
association
and
we
are
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
438.
Q
Moreover,
we're
aware
that
even
members
of
the
current
board
were
not
even
aware
that
this
bill
was
being
fought
brought
forward
by
the
board.
The
claims
of
excluding
dentists
from
participating
this
bill
because
of
bias,
certainly
makes
no
sense.
Dentist.
Dental
hygienists
are
board
members,
dentists
and
dental
hygienists
throughout
nevada
are
participating
in
subcommittee's
drafting
regulations.
Q
Practitioners
within
the
state
are
participating
on
high
levels,
drafting
important
pieces
of
regs
and
statute
in
many
different
areas
and
to
exclude
seems
foolish.
All
the
regulatory
boards
in
other
professions
have
open
and
transparent
processes
in
which
they
actually
include
members
of
their
profession,
for
feedback,
consensus
building
and
in
most
committees
and
boards
in
nevada.
The
board
would
host
public
comment
and
engagement
in
open
and
transparent,
setting
the
irony
that
this
board
is
attempting
to
create
transparency
provisions
yet
created
language
in
a
vacuum
to
men's
statute.
That
is
completely
non-transparent
at
all.
Q
The
history
of
this
board
is
riddled
with
controversy
and
abuse.
The
last
thing
our
industry
needs
is
to
provide
even
more
concentrated
power
to
the
board
and
their
staff.
This
board
is
going
to
increase
fees
in
order
to
pay
for
the
growing
new
staff
that
the
board
is
wanting
to
bring
on
in
section
2.
more
concerning
is
the
swift
action
that
governor
sysolak
recently
took
in
replacing
board
members
from
this
board
and
their
staff
because
of
abuse
of
authority
afforded
to
them,
and
with
this
bill
in
section
2,
10,
11
and
12,
the
bill.
Q
That
was
introduced
perhaps
from
staff
members
of
the
current
board
is
sponsoring
language
that
is
giving
themselves
even
more
authority
and
power
without
that
oversight.
While
prior
commentators
mentioned
that
the
intent
is
to
strengthen
oversight,
this
bill
actually
does
the
opposite.
It
creates
a
circular
path
of
accountability
where,
according
to
section
10,
members
of
the
board
can
meet
without
open
meeting
laws
to
refer
themselves,
actions
to
take
disciplinary
action
to
the
broader
board,
where's
the
accountability
in
that
circular
logic.
Q
Members
I'd
like
to
call
your
attention
to
the
fact
that,
as
this
hearing
convinced
there
was
not
one
dentist,
not
one
dental,
hygienist
or
therapist,
an
in
the
trenches
practitioner
who
understands
the
practice
of
dentistry.
That
was
asked
to
participate
in
this
hearing
who
might
provide
better
insight
than
the
legal
analysis
provided
this
evening.
Our
dentist
and
dental
hygienists
were
not
asked
for
input
guidance.
They
have
expert
knowledge.
A
Mr
appleser,
I'm
so
sorry,
I'm
going
to
need
you
to
wrap
up
your
testimony.
We
have
quite
a
bit
of
other
callers
that
we
need
to
get
to
in
the
queue.
If
you
have
any
written
remarks,
you
can
please
provide
them
to
our
committee
manager,
we'll
include
them
in
the
record
and
make
sure
every
committee
member
gets
them.
F
K
Hello,
my
name
is
sharonda
spreider-veraza,
first
name
asses
and
sam
h-e-r-o-n-d,
asian
dog
and
last
name:
strider,
barraza,
asses
and
sam
tears,
and
tom
are
ideas
and
dogs,
er,
hyphens
and
boy
a-r-r-a-v-a.
K
I
am
a
dentist
in
las
vegas
and
I
have
practice
for
three
years
and
I
am
opposing
this
bill.
One
of
the
main
reasons
is
because
of
what
mr
avalester
has
just
mentioned,
that
this
bill
was
rushed
and
proposed
without
any
input
from
any
dentist
who
this
bill
impacts
the
most.
So
for
that
reason
I
oppose
this
bill.
Thank
you.
F
K
Good
evening,
chair
and
assembly
members,
my
name
is
dr
kelly,
mcginley
first
name
k-e-l-l-I-e
last
name
m-c-g-I-n-l-e-y
and
I'm
a
board-certified
pediatric
dentist
and
diplomat
of
pediatric
dentistry.
I
practice
in
reno
nevada.
In
addition
to
what
is
being
stated
in
opposition,
I
am
opposed
to
ab438.
K
F
Q
Q
Okay,
my
name
is,
as
I
mentioned,
my
name
is
gregory
hunter,
I'm
an
oral
and
maxillofacial
surgeon
practicing
in
las
vegas
nevada.
I
would
also
point
out
that
I
am
a
anesthesia
anesthesia
examiner
for
the
board
and,
as
previously
noted,
no
input
was
sought
other
than
from
the
legal
counsel
of
the
board.
Q
Q
The
lack
of
transparency
for
discipline
and
due
process
is
missing
from
this
bill,
even
as
pointed
out
that
the
the
language
was
allegedly
supposed
to
increase
transparency.
I'd
also
point
out,
as
previously
mentioned,
that
it
released
board
certification
from
specialists.
If
the
idea
is
to
protect
the
citizenry
of
nevada
that
actually
lowers
the
standard.
Q
A
For
your
testimony
for
our
secretary,
we
could
just
please
make
sure
to
record
his
testimony
in
opposition.
F
F
P
Hello,
my
name
is
dr
david
white
d-a-v-I-d-w-h-I-t-e,
and
my
testimony
was
also
the
same
as
dr
hunnard's
in
a
in
opposition,
so
I
will
wait
for
direction
at
this
point.
A
Thank
you,
dr
white.
Let's
go
back
let's,
let's
finish
up,
let's
finish
testimony
and
neutral
broadcasting,
if
we
could
and
then
we
can
come
back,
I
understand
this
is
a
a
new
setting
and
people
are
getting
used
to
the
virtual
setting
and
calling
in
for
testimony.
So
I
will
go
back
to
those
in
opposition,
but
let's,
let's
complete
testimony
in
neutral.
First.
F
K
Ready,
yes,
my
name
is
dr
khaled
jalani
last
name
j-I-l-a-n-I.
I
do
apologize
as
dr
white
and
dr
hunter,
I'm
also
calling
in
opposition.
I
apologize.
A
A
Okay,
now
at
this
time,
let's
go
back,
I
understand
again
that
there
is
technical
difficulty,
so
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
who
has
been
patiently
waiting
to
testify
gets
the
opportunity
so
broadcasting,
if
we
could
go
back
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition.
F
K
K
K
K
F
F
R
Hello,
this
is
madam
chair
committee
members.
My
name
is
richard
dragon.
I
have
practiced
dentistry
as
a
licensed
nevada
dentist
in
douglas
county
since
1985,
I'm
the
immediate
past,
president
of
the
nevada,
dental
association,
as
well
as
the
non-paid
lobbyist
for
the
current
81st
nevada
legislative
session.
R
R
Peer
review
reduced
the
cost,
remediation
with
significant
positive
outcomes.
This
bill
potentially
creates
more
punitive
regulatory
control
over
the
public
and
licensees
again.
It
has
always
been
my
understanding
that
the
current
and
previous
governors
were
seeking
remedial,
not
punitive
actions.
When
complaints
were
filed,
fb
438
will
significantly
raise
licensing
fees,
which
is
the
reason
I
believe
that
there's
a
two-thirds
majority
associated
with
it
at
a
time
when
young
graduates
are
facing
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
debt
nevada
needs
more
access
to
care,
not
less.
Why
would
we
discourage
any
out-of-state
dentist?
R
F
P
Madam
chair
and
committee,
my
name
is
dr
david
white
d-a-v-I-d,
w-h-I-t-v
w-h-I-t-e,
I'm
currently
the
chairperson
for
the
american
dental
association
council
on
government
affairs
and
also
the
chairperson
for
the
nevada,
dental
association
council
on
government
affairs
I
think,
to
fully
and
where
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
here.
I
really
do
appreciate
mr
alonso's
acknowledgement
of
the
difficulty
and
the
challenges
of
the
boards,
the
last
several
years
and
the
continued
discussion
over
the
audit.
P
The
most
important
thing
is
to
understand
that
there
are
two
documents
that
are
imperative
to
understand
this
particular
process.
First
document
was
done
conducted.
It
is
a
performance
audit
in
2016
of
which
the
14
recommendations
were
made
at
that
particular
juncture,
all
14
or
all,
but
three
were
were
accepted
but
as
assemble
as
madam
carlton
mentioned,
that
there
were
three
that
were
not
accepted
at
that
particular
juncture.
P
Then
in
2019
there
was
another
audit
conducted
and
it's
important
to
have
both
of
these
documents
and
at
that
point
the
what
they
stated
was
that
the
nevada
state
board
of
dental
examiners
can
enhance
operations
by
strengthening
oversight
of
the
investigation
enforcement
activities,
consulting
with
commissions
on
ethics,
to
avoid
conflicts
of
interest,
complying
with
state
contract,
contracting
requirements
and
complying
with
the
nevada
admission
of
procedure
act,
and
I
personally
rise
in
opposition
to
this,
because
I
don't
feel
once
you've
dissected
both
those
documents
that
this
particular
bill
accomplishes
that
goal.
P
In
addition,
we
know
that
safety,
public
safety
is
paramount
through
this
particular
process
and
when
you
dissect
further
into
this
you'll
realize
that,
unfortunately,
it
is
the
inexperience
of
the
board
that
allows
them
to
be
very
influenced
to
spice
staff,
which
led
them
down
this
course,
but
again,
safety
being
the
paramount.
We
would
want
to
go
ahead
and
make
sure
that
our
standard
of
care
is
very
high.
P
So
when
we're
attempting
to
access
care
and
I'm
a
general
dentist
who
operates
in
both
reno
and
elko
and
mike,
and
I
working
with
my
tribe
in
ely
nevada
that
we
can
continue
to
keep
the
standard
of
care
as
high
as
possible
to
keep
patient
safety
at
at
the
paramount
and
at
the
safety
at
the
highest
areas.
We
possibly
can
and
with
that
I'd
like
to.
Thank
you
very
much.
F
K
Okay,
great,
yes,
I'm
the
past
president
of
the
lot
hello.
K
Yes,
I'm
the
past
president
of
the
las
vegas
dental
association,
I'm
the
one
that
helped
and
was
responsible
for
the
audits
that
took
place,
and
I
think
that
a
lot
of
people
here
today
on
this
phone
call
have
this
wrong.
The
reason
for
these
audits
were
there
was
definitely
favoritism.
These
peer
review
systems
were
set
up
to
favor
certain
members
that
belong
to
certain
groups.
I
again
with
the
las
vegas
dental
association
and
a
lot
of
the
problems
stem
from
the
nevada,
dental
association,
and
so
these
audits
were
very
clear.
K
There
was
zero
discipline
for
for
the
formal
discipline
that
went
against
people
who
were
non.
There
were
nevada
association
members,
so
they
didn't
get
any
discipline
any
serious
discipline
at
all,
and
this
was
really
really
the
reason
for
this
bill
is.
We
have
to
number
one
make
it
anonymous,
so
the
board
members
there's
no
favoritism,
that's
what
this
bill
is
about.
No
favors
is
gonna,
get
us
anonymous,
that's
the
whole
point.
The
other
point
is
that
one
of
the
biggest
problems
that
occurred
was
that
there
was
the
board's
attorney
in
the
past.
K
Who
was
let
go
because
of
all
the
problems
that
occurred
is
he
would
basically-
and
he
did
this
to
me
and
to
many
other
dentists-
he
would
threaten
the
dentist
and
say:
hey
it's
going
to
be
forty
thousand
dollars.
If
you
want
to
fight
this
or
sign
here
I
mean
it
was
so
ridiculous,
so
it's
so
important
that
we
put
a
limit
on
these
investigations
because
you
shouldn't
you
shouldn't
have
to
pay
for
the
right
to
have
your
side
of
the
story.
This
bill
is
so
important
and
committee.
Please
pass
this
bill.
K
This
is
going
to
make
a
huge
difference
for
the
for
anonymous
complaints,
so
the
patients
can
be
heard
and
there's
a
fair
system
for
everybody.
A
And
sir,
this
is
actually
the
opposition
portion
of
the
bill
hearing.
I
understand
technical
difficulties,
I'll
make
sure
you're
talking
about
the
support
of.
A
A
N
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
alfredo
alonso
again
for
the
record
and
I'd
like
to
keep
this
as
short
as
possible.
I
I
think
it's
very,
very
important
that
that
that
everybody
understand
what
the
bill
does
I'd
be
glad
to
sit
down
with
with
anybody
that
that
has
concerns
over
over
what
the
bill
actually
does
and
go
through
it
with
them.
So
I
offer
that
up
again.
This
is
about
flexibility.
N
It's
about
reform,
it's
about
transparency
and
talking
to
the
industry
of
anyone
you
regulate
is
never
a
good
idea
beforehand,
and
so
that
is
why
we
are
here
today.
I
think
it's
very
important
also
to
remember
that
that
last
year
or
excuse
me
between
the
years
of
2016
and
18,
we
had
about
200
complaints
a
year
and
44
of
those
were
dismissed.
N
Now
I
I'm
I'm
just
telling
you.
I
think
that
is
a
very,
very
high
mark
and
it
is
concerning.
It
should
be
concerning
to
everybody.
So
again,
that's
what
this
is
about:
protecting
the
public
and
ultimately,
finding
a
fair
method
in
which
the
board
can
operate,
and
I
think
we've
done
that
here
with
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
A
Remember
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
for
this
evening
is
public
comment
and,
and
while
we
give
those
time
listening
over
the
internet
time
to
call
in,
I
will
just
go
through
our
public
comment
housekeeping.
I
want
to
remind
members
that
public
comment
is
a
time
to
call
in
and
talk
about
matters
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee.
It
is
not
a
time
to
comment
on
bills
that
we've
already
heard
we
open
and
close
the
hearings
on
bills
to
establish
a
record
of
the
testimony
on
a
bill.
A
I
would
also
remind
members
be
respectful
when
making
comments.
We
limit
public
comments
to
two
minutes
per
person
and
if
you
start
addressing
to
your
your
remarks
to
matters
that
fall
outside
of
the
jurisdiction
of
this
committee,
I
will
ask
you
to
redirect
your
remarks
or
terminate
them
with
that
broadcasting.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
line
for
public
comment.
F
A
Thank
you
so
much
broadcasting.
Thank
you
committee
members.
Thank
you,
commerce
and
labor
entire
team,
who
was
with
here
this
entire
time
with
that
our
meeting
is
adjourned,
and
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone.
Our
next
meeting
will
be
this
friday
when
you
get
the
agenda,
please
remember
just
to
note
the
start
time
or
the
meeting.
Thank
you
committee
members,
we're.