►
From YouTube: 5/11/2021 - Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
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
A
I
think
you're
here
on
senator
sotomayor
will
be
late
and
that's
the
main
reason
we'll
be
doing
a
work
session
later.
I
never
like
to
do
a
work
session
without
all
the
committee
members,
so
he'll
be
late
coming
in
and
we
will
do
the
work
session
a
little
bit
later
today,
we're
going
to
have
a
hearing
on
assembly,
bill,
391
and
work
session
on
227.,
just
a
reminder
that
the
legislative
building
is
partially
open,
providing
that
you
go
through
some
other
requirements
to
get
into
the
building,
but
you
can
still
participate.
A
You
can
register
to
participate
on
nellis.
You
can
submit
written
comment.
You
can
share
your
opinion
via
nellis
or
you
can
view
committee
meetings
on
online
or
on
youtube.
Just
note
that,
while
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate,
it
does
not
guarantee
that
you
will
be
able
to
speak.
That's
one
of
the
reason.
I
ask
one
of
the
reasons
I
ask
people.
A
If
someone
has
already
said
what
you'd
like
to
say,
the
gist
of
what
you
like
to
say,
then
ditto
is
a
good
response
and
that
allows
more
people
to
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
when
you're
on
the
phone
line.
Please
pay
attention,
please
pay
attention.
Please
pay
attention
to
the
bill
that
we're
on
and
the
segment
that
we're
on
staff
will
call
you
by
the
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number.
A
A
It
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
knowingly
misrepresent
facts
when
testifying
before
a
legislative
committee
and
a
person
who
knowingly
does
so
is
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor.
The
chair
or
any
member
of
this
committee
may
request
a
testifier
to
submit
documentation
supporting
their
testimony
committee
members.
If
you
are
virtual
and
have
a
question,
please
make
sure
you
raise
your
hand
through
the
zoom
application
and
for
those
of
you
who
are
here.
If
you
just
raise
your
hand,
I'll
look
to
the
left,
look
to
the
right
or
our
trusty
policy
analyst
will
also.
A
Let
me
know
that
we
have
a
question
and
I
will
be
able
to
call
on
you
just
as
soon
as
we
acknowledge
senator
pickard,
as
he
is
always
the
leader
in
questioning-
and
I
see
our
vice
chair
so
she'll
be
second,
but
they
always
have
really
good
questions.
So
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
make
sure
that
you
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
a
question.
A
If
we've
not
been
able
to
accession
your
bill,
then
your
bill
will
not
make
it
out
of
the
legislature
this
session
and
finally,
finally,
finally,
please
put
all
your
electronic
devices,
especially
your
cell
phones
and
your
laptops,
anything
that
you
could
sounds
like
you
can
make
a
pie
with
an
apple
or
blackberry.
Anything
like
that.
Make
sure
that
you
put
those
on
on
mute,
so
they
don't
disturb
the
proceedings,
and
so
now,
let's
open
hearing
on
assembly
bill
391,
we
have
assemblywoman
anderson,
nina
laxalt
and
corrine
sadran.
Did
I
pronounce
that
correct?
C
Thank
you
and
good
morning,
chair
spearman
vice
chair
near
neil
and
members
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee.
My
name
is
nathan
anderson
and
it
is
my
honor
to
represent
assembly
district
30,
which
is
sparks
and
a
little
bit
of
reno.
I
call
it.
C
The
heart
of
the
truckee
meadows
ab391
includes
some
very,
very
extensive,
cleanup
language
from
the
nevada
board
of
dispensing
opticians
to
more
closely
reflect
current
practices
of
the
profession,
as
well
as
clarify
some
of
the
more
lengthy
or
cumbersome
areas
as
it
relates
to
nrs
chapter
637,
and
I
guess
it
was
january.
C
I
was
asked
to
bring
forward
a
small
cleanup
bill.
The
word
small
was
used
more
than
a
few
times.
I
was
like
okay
sure
no
problem.
I
can
do
that
and
so
imagine
my
surprise
when
I
finally
had
a
chance
to
meet
with
nina,
as
as
I'm
sorry,
mr
as
well
as
miss
cedrin,
and
it
was
the
entire
chapter,
so
it
has
been
a
adventure
to
put
it
mildly.
C
However,
I
believe
the
language
that
his
brain
brought
forward
has
done
exactly
what
the
board
had
planned
to
do,
which,
which
was
to
take
away
some
of
the
barriers
from
people
and
understanding
how
exactly
to
become
a
licensed
optician
and
then
also
making
sure
that
people
that
transfer
from
other
states,
as
well
as
even
from
other
nations,
are
able
to
do
so
in
a
consistent
fashion.
C
There
was
some
cleanup
about
the
requirements
about
the
penalties
about
the
licensing
fees
and
to
help
with
the
numerous
numerous
areas
of
cleanup,
there's
a
very
straightforward,
sb
391
revision,
one
breakdown
which
ms
laxalt
had
created,
which
should
be
on
nellis,
and
if
you
have
not
received
that,
I
can
send
that
to
you,
which
is
much
easier
to
follow
along.
C
C
Thank
you,
so
the
first
more
problematic
area
or
just
to
highlight
would
be
section
six
section.
Six
is
one
of
the
biggies
where
the
requirements
are
very
consistent,
one
before
they
had
been
all
over
the
place
and
then
also
makes
it
very
clear
what
the
waiver
should
be
for
those
already
licensed
in
other
states.
C
Section
nine
is
consolidating
the
fees
all
in
one
section
before
they
had
been
peppered
or,
I
guess
sprinkled
wow.
I
seem
to
be
using
a
lot
of
food
metaphor.
Sorry,
throughout
the
chapter,
none
of
the
fees
are
new.
These
are
all
simply
put
into
one
consistent
spot
section
13
for
those
of
you
that
received
an
email
last
week.
C
This
has
been
a
huge
concern
over
the
last
few
days,
probably
last
week,
so
I
know
that
you
all
had
a
very
extensive
meeting
last
week.
That
was
what
two
and
a
half
hours
long
for
us.
That
was
actually
very
helpful
because
it
gave
time
for
miss
laxalt,
as
well
as
the
board,
to
meet
with
those
voicing
those
concerns
and
to
come
up
with
an
agreement,
so
we're
actually
reverting
back
to
the
language
as
cur
as
it
is
currently
in
statute.
C
C
If,
however,
there
is
a
year
left,
you
need
to
fill
it,
but
this
gives
the
governor
a
little
bit
more
leeway
as
to
how
long
to
take
to
fill
those
terms
section
18.
The
board
is
no
longer
administering
the
test
and
has
not
been
for
some
time.
Instead,
those
exams
are
now
performed
by
the
national
organization,
the
american
board
of
opticians.
C
I
also
have
two
individuals
who,
in
case
of
questions
corinne
cedrin
executive
director
for
the
nevada
board
of
dispensing
opticians
and
nina
laxalt,
my
phone,
a
friend
right
next
to
me,
who's
the
lobbyist
for
the
nevada
board
of
dispensing
opticians.
I
believe
the
president
of
the
board
will
also
be
calling
in.
However,
I
don't
believe
she's
part
of
this
presentation.
C
C
That's
correct
yeah!
If
two
and
a
half
hours.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
happy
to
oblige,
and
I
appreciate
the
time
you
took
with
me
before
the
hearing,
so
we'll
keep
this
one
short.
The
one
question
that
I
didn't
think
to
ask
before
has
to
do
with
accepting
gifts,
grants
and
donations.
I'm
looking
at
section
17..
Can
you
explain
why
we're
doing
that?
I
I
mean
I
can
imagine
things,
but
maybe
you
can
enlighten
us
a
little
bit.
E
Thank
you
for
the
record
nina
laxalt,
representing
the
board
of
dispensing
opticians,
that's
actually
language
that
was
moved
from
another
section
and
if
you
go
through
boards
statutes
throughout
many
and
most
of
them
have
them-
and
I
think
the
purpose
of
that
is
is
really
I
don't
know
or
if
it's
ever
been
used
or
why
it
was
initially
put
in.
But
I
believe
that
might
be
really
more
for
grants,
and
I
can
have
corrine
answer
that
more
specifically.
If
she
could.
A
Can
you
do
me
a
favor
get
a
little
bit
closer
to
your
mic.
Can
you
get
a
little
closer
to
your
mic?
Please
yeah.
A
F
Okay,
I'll
do
my
best
to
just
think
a
little
bit
louder,
but
yes,
this
this
provision
was
originally
included
in
our
provisions
covering
complaints
and
investigations,
and
the
provision
actually
said
that
we
could
accept
grants
and
donations
to
carry
out
investigations
which
seem
to
be
a
bit
of
a
conflict
of
interest.
Our
investigations
are
supposed
to
be
confidential
until
the
board
decides
to
take
disciplinary
action,
so
we
decided
to
move
this
and
make
it
just
a
general
provision
to
allow
the
board
to
accept
grants
and
donations
to
carry
out
its
business.
F
To
my
knowledge,
the
board
has
never
utilized
this
provision,
but
it
is
pretty
standard
boilerplate
from
all
of
the
for
all
the
other
board.
Occupational
licensing
statutes
as
well,
and
the
reason
we
would
request
to
keep
this
in
here
is
because
we
do
operate
on
such
a
tight
budget.
We
are
very
small
board.
F
We
do
have
reserves,
but
in
a
case
like
we
had
last
year,
what
was
just
unexpected?
We
had
the
coven
we
could
have.
Potentially,
you
know
had
had
reduced
licensing
fees
and
we
are
operating
on
a
small
margin,
so
that
would
allow
the
board
to
continue
to
function
in
case
of
something
unexpected.
D
All
right,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and-
and
I
wasn't
aware
that
you
could
in
the
prior
iteration,
you
could
receive
grants
and
and
gifts
as
part
of
an
investigation,
particularly
if
it's
by
the
investigated.
I
think
that
would
raise
some
eyebrows.
So
I
appreciate
that
and
I'm
assuming
that's
in
the
regs
and
that
will
be
taken
out
in
a
future
iteration
of
the
regulations
or
was
that
somewhere
in
statute
and
does
this
bill
remove
it
from
there.
F
Karin
cedrin
again
executive
director,
I
so
this
is
currently
in
the
statute,
not
in
the
regulation,
so
we
would
potentially
clarify
it
in
the
regulations,
although
I
don't
know
if
it
needs
clarification,
but
it
was
originally
here
in
the
statue.
D
All
right
I'll
look
for
that,
and
then
the
other
question
was
in
section
13,
where
we're
removing
verification
of
lenses
and
frames.
This
is
something
that
I
was
under
the
impression
that
opticians
did
regularly.
Is
there
a
reason
why
we're
deleting
verification
is
that
just
to
allow
others
who
are
doing
other
things?
I
know
my
ophthalmologist,
for
example,
will
verify
it,
but
he's
you
know,
he's
licensed
to
do
this
work.
So
why
is
this
being
removed.
C
E
For
the
record,
nina
laxalt,
senator
section
13
and-
and
it's
I'm
just
looked
at
it
on
my
breakdown
here
on
the
amendment-
and
I
failed
to
mention
the
actual
section,
but
on
your
proposed
amendment,
it's
the
third
portion
of
the
amendment
and
that
actually
is
section
13
and
because
we
had
a
little
controversy
with
another
group.
D
I'd
appreciate
that
and
and
not
to
maybe
pull
off
a
scab.
But
can
you
tell
me
what
the
the
disagreement
was
about
and
and
why
this
was
an
issue.
E
I
I
can
try
and
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
anybody
else,
but
it
had
to
do
with
the
process
nina
laxalt
for
the
record
it
had
to
do
with
the
process
between
when
a
prescription
is
written
to
the
endpoint
of
delivery,
and
I
believe
the
main
concern
is
that
was
that
when
a
corporation
sends
glasses
out
by
nevada
law,
they
are
supposed
to
be
reviewed
by
a
dispensing
optician
prior
to
going
out
to
customer.
E
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
had
a
I
had
a
question
on
section
15,
but
it's
slightly
different,
so
getting
into
the
tight
budget
and
the
and
the
margin
that
you
guys
operate
off
of
so
so
how
many
investigations
do
you
guys
typically
do
in
a
year?
Because
if
you
have
a
tight
margin,
I
mean
I
get
investigators
but
lobbyists
professional
consultants
and
then
attorneys.
G
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
neil,
I'm
gonna
have
the
executive
director
miss
so
sorry
cedrin.
I
was
called
by
your
first
name
answer.
Yeah.
F
No,
no
problem
hi
karen
cedrin
here,
executive
director,
so
yes,
this
is
just
to
allow
the
board
to
contract,
and
actually
we
already
in
the
current
statute,
have
the
ability
to
contract
with
professional
consultants.
We
just
kind
of
clarify
the
titles
of
those
particular
consultants.
As
it
stands
right
now,
our
legal
representation
is
provided
by
the
attorney
general's
office.
So
we're
not
hiring
an
outfit
attorney,
but
this
would
allow
us
to
investigators
is
pretty
routine.
We
don't
have
that
many
in-depth
investigations
per
year.
F
We
investigate
the
complaints
we
received
so
I'd
say
probably
a
max
of
five
to
six
investigations
per
year,
but
those
can
be
a
bit
pricey,
but
as
far
as
lobbyists.
Obviously
we
have
a
lobbyist
with
us
here
today,
but
that's
pretty
much
restrained
to
years
when
there's
a
legislative
session
or
when
we
are
proposing
a
regulatory
or
statutory
change,
we
do
not
have
a
full-time
lobbyist
on
staff,
so
this
is
much
more
just
permissive
and
to
clarify
the
board's
ability
to
hire
these
various.
F
G
G
So
this
is
the
fines
piece.
Well,
I
have
two
questions
in
the
section,
so
you
have
an
administrative
fine
of
not
more
than
ten
thousand,
but
it's
based
on
a
combination
of
and
it's
each
it's
each
incident,
and
I
guess
what's
not
clear
that
this
is
an
increase.
G
G
So
can
you
put
some
some
issues
that
are
in
play
where
you
need
to?
You
know,
what's
happening
around
the
unprofessional
conduct,
etc,.
F
G
So
in
section
23
that
language
is
in
section
2,
sub
2
of
the
board
finds
after
noticing
a
hearing,
and
then
it
has
the
up
to
10
000
and
then
there's
another
provision.
I
think
later
in
the
bill
that
talks
about,
I
believe
it's
section
25
that
also
talks
about
the
combination
and
each
separate
violation.
G
If
you
issue
a
citation
so
there's
two
two
different
sections,
23
and
25
speak
to
the
fines
or
the
combination
thereof.
F
F
Organized
and
cohesive
I
we
did
not
increase
the
fine
here,
the
maximum
fine,
so
each
act
constituting
grounds
for
disciplinary
action
is
it
can
be
fined
ten
thousand
dollars
under
current
statute.
So
in
this
case
these
grounds
not
only
not
only
the
grounds
for
disciplinary
action,
but
the
actions
themselves
are
in
current
statute.
We
did
not
increase
any
of
the
disciplinary
actions.
We
just
combined
the
provisions
here
and
then,
with
respect
to
section
25,
we
did
remove
that
increase.
F
We
had
tried
to
increase
the
cap
of
the
fine
from
1000
to
10
000,
with
the
rationalization
that
this
this
fine
pertains
to
an
employer
versus
just
an
individual,
and
our
I
thought
process
was
that
oftentimes.
The
employer
is
the
more
culpable
party
when
there's
unlicensed
activity
taking
place,
so
we
were
going
to
increase
that
fine
to
ten
thousand
dollars,
but
it
should
be
on
the
current
copy,
with
the
amendments
that
section
three
that
ten
thousand
dollars
is
struck
through
and
it's
put
back
to
its
original
one
thousand.
F
F
G
F
Correct
nina,
I'm
sorry
miss
laxalt.
Maybe
you
could
help.
E
E
Thank
you
nina
laxalt
for
the
record.
No,
the
amendment
had
was
the
amendment
proposed
on
the
assembly
side,
where
the
section
and
I
think
we're
talking
about
two
different
sections.
I
think
we
20
section
26
sub
3
was
moved
up
to
10
000
and
I
believe
we
struck
that
and
put
that
back
two
to
original
1000
subsection
three
of
section
25
is
again
current
language
that
that
wasn't
changed
at
all.
G
F
This
is
corrine,
said,
you're
an
executive
director,
so
under
section
23,
that
sign
is
ten
thousand
dollars
and
that's
the
way
it
is
in
the
original
statute,
which
this
fine
pertains
to
an
individual
who
is
caught
dispensing
without
a
license
the
instance
we
were
going
to
increase
the
fine
was
section
26
and
that
was
with
respect
to
employers
as
opposed
to
individuals.
F
So
this
first
section
does
say
ten
thousand
dollars
and
that's
current.
That's
the
current
language
and
the
original
statute.
Just
moved
the
provision's
just
been
moved
and
then
section
26
is
where
we
struck
through
that
ten
thousand
dollar
increase
and
put
it
back
to
one
thousand
dollars.
C
Assembly,
member
anderson-
I
just
want
to
make
sure
as
well
that
we're
all
discussing
the
same
areas.
So
I'm
also
looking
at
the
the
the
first
reprint
page
18
section
25
line
15.
It
would
be
where
you've
got
the
10
000.,
that's
what's
currently
in
statute,
and
I
believe
that's
one
thing
that
senator
neal
is
asking
about,
but
then
on
page
19,
which
is
in
section
26
on
line
six
there's
the
a
thousand
dollars.
C
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
is
that
the
area
you're
asking
questions
about
senator
neil
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
in
the
right
area
of
the
first
reprint.
G
Thank
you.
I
was
asking
about
section
25.
Yes,
I
saw
the
10
000,
but
the
new
language
is
for
each
separate
violation.
I
didn't
see
that
struck
out
and
I
saw
that
as
an
increase
and
so
because
it's
for
each
separate
violation
and
then
because
this
is
the
admin
fine
piece
and
so
that
I
was
asking
questions
on
section
25.
I
didn't
mention
section
26.
C
I
completely
see
now
what
you're
saying,
because
before
I'm
so
sorry
to
the
secretary
assembly
member
anderson,
you
are
absolutely
correct.
There
was
a
period
after
the
ten
thousand
which
was
has
been
taken
removed
and
now
it
does
state
as
new
language
for
each
separate
violation
of
the
individual
in
section
25..
I
think
that's
what
you're
asking
questions
about.
If,
if
ms
cedric
would
like
to
clarify
that
as
well,
is
that
am
I
understanding
that
correctly.
G
Yes,
assemblywoman
anderson,
yes,
because
the
way
I
read
it,
it
was
each
separate
violation
and
then
in
sub
four
it
says
a
combination
of
penalties
set
forth
and
subsections
one
two
and
three,
and
so
I
saw
it
as
an
increase,
because
if
you
have
a
not
more
than
ten
thousand
for
each
separate
violation,
you
could
have
a
combination
rolled
in
which,
let's
say
it's:
five
thousand
five
thousand
five
thousand,
that
combination
language
is
an
increase,
and
so
that's
what
I
wanna
dialogue
around.
C
An
assemblyman
or
assemblywoman
anderson
I
will
ask
either
the
president
of
the
board
or
the
executive
director
of
the
board
to
be
able
to
answer
this
because
again,
this
is
their
language
and
they
have
intimate
knowledge
of
it,
as
opposed
to
me.
So
if
one
of
the
other
individuals
would
like
to
answer
that
and
engage
in
that
dialogue,
that
would
be
wonderful
now
that
we
have
that
clarified.
Thank
you.
F
I'll
go
ahead.
This
is
corrine
sedgeon,
executive
director,
so
upon
review,
that
is
correct.
There
was
initially
a
period
there
and
then
added
for
each
separate
violation.
So
if,
if
that's
going
to
be,
you
know
considered
an
increase.
I
understand
that
this
is
language
that
was
applied
to
us
by
the
lcd
and
did
not.
F
We
reviewed
it
as
carefully
as
we
possibly
could,
but
as
obviously
we
did
not
catch
this
that
this
was
actually
a
change
to
the
language,
and
I
think
that
the
you
know
on
the
part
of
the
lcd.
They
were
just
trying
to
use
a
boilerplate
language.
That's
you
know
typical
of
what
you
see
in
these
types
of
statutes
so
to
strike
through
that
preach,
separate
violation,
that's
not
an
issue
for
us.
I
don't
think
because
it's
what
it
currently
says
in
statute.
F
That
was
not
something
we
were
intending
to
change
and
then,
as
far
as
the
combination
of
the
penalties
that
step
forth,
I
I
can
also
see
why
that
would
be
considered
an
increase
if
the
current
language
just
says
or
but
I
don't
believe
it.
I'm
trying
to
review
here.
H
F
F
Okay,
after
notice
is
an
opportunity
for
hearing
imposed
an
administrative
fine
of
not
more
than
ten
thousand
dollars,
and
then
it
says
we
shall
issue
on
the
person
in
order
to
cease
and
desist.
So.
F
This
issuing
of
a
citation
that
is
new,
and
that
was
something
we
didn't
intend
to
add.
The
the
purpose
of
issuing
a
citation
was
to
sort
of
bypass
the
huge
expensive
hearing
that
would
normally
take
place.
So
this
citation
authority
is
an
addition,
however,
that
ten
thousand
dollar
fine,
as
well
as
notice
to
season
this
says
that's
in
current
statute.
E
Madam
chair,
if
I
could
nina
laxalt
for
the
record
and
madam
vice
chair,
I
think
what
we're
all
saying
is:
yes,
you're
correct.
We
did
not
catch
that
and
we
could
certainly
add
that
to
the
amended
language
to
remove
for
each
separate
violation.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I've
got
two
very
basic
questions.
One
is
where
in
the
world
did
we
get
the
two-thirds
if
everything
stays
the
same,
and
second
is
in
some
other
boards.
If
you're
not
licensed,
the
licensing
authority
has
no
jurisdiction
because
you're
not
licensed
so
this
fine
that
is
being
done.
I
J
I
E
I've
seen
other
things
this
session,
that
perhaps
you
know
maybe
they're
deciding
on
the
airing
on
the
side
of
caution,
but
this
really
is
just
takes
all
the
fees
that
were
when,
when
I
first
looked
at
this
statute
and
was
trying
to
explain
it
on
the
other
side,
it
was
like
trying
to
unscramble
an
egg,
and
so
one
of
the
changes
that
the
board
wanted
to
make
was
putting
all
the
fees
in
one
location
which
a
lot
of
boards
have
done,
and
that's
all
this
does
and
apparently
that
triggered
at
two-thirds.
E
E
For
the
second
question
several
years
ago,
if
you
recall
there
were
many
boards
that
were
having
problems
with
unlicensed.
E
Practices,
a
lot
of
it
was
botox
and
things
like
that,
and
I
believe
that
started
the
trend
of
boards
having
the
ability
or
or
getting
the
ability
to
be
able
to
go
after
those
that
were
unlicensed
and
practicing
illegally.
And
I
will
let
corinne
further
define
that
as
to
when
it
came
into
the
the
statute
and
how
they
go
about
processing
and
proceeding
on
that.
I
So
I
guess
my
question
then
is
twofold:
then:
where
does
the
money
go
and
who
prosecutes
them.
F
All
right
corinne
cedron
executive
director,
so
I
will
clarify
this-
is
not
something
new
to
the
statute.
This
is
currently
in
the
statute.
The
board's
ability
to
prosecute
unlicensed
activity.
The
board
would
be
the
one
to
issue
the
complaint.
We
would
do
a
standard,
233b
notice
of
hearing
if
we
found
evidence
of
unlicensed
activity
and
we
would
impose
the
fine.
F
We
follow
the
nevada
law
regarding
a
collection
of
files,
which
means
they
go
to
the
state
controller's
office,
and
then
you
know
we
can
collect
our
legal
fees
back
out
of
those
fines,
but
we
don't
keep
the
fines,
but
this
is
not
new
language
here.
This
is
currently
within
the
board's
jurisdiction
to
you
know
to
go
after
unlicensed
activity.
That's
one
of
the
board's
primary
roles,
so
I
I
would
not
say
that
this
is
the
same
as
the
the
previous
section
we
were
discussing
this.
F
I
F
Current
session
executive
director
the
same
way
most
of
the
occupational
license
licensing
boards
would
we
use
a
private,
investigator
who's
licensed
and
insured.
We
don't
just
send
somebody,
and
you
know
that
doesn't
know
what
they're
doing,
but
typically
the
initiation
is
a
complaint
that
we
receive
complaining
about
unlicensed
activity.
F
F
I
can
this
is
current
center,
an
executive
director
I
can
approximate,
I
would
say,
a
typical
investigation
that
can
cost
between
one
thousand
and
five
thousand
dollars.
Depending
on
how
many
times
we
have
to
send
the
investigator
back
to
the
location
and
typically
the
most
expensive
part
of
the
investigation
is
not
even
the
hourly
cost
or
the
the
services
it's
purchasing
a
set
of
eyeglasses
or
contact
lenses.
Whatever
we
have
to
do
to
to
verify
that
unlicensed
activity
is
taking
place.
A
Thank
you
committee.
There's
some
questions,
okay,
saying
none!
Is
there
anyone
here
in
the
room?
I'm
sorry.
Some
woman
understands
this
okay,
anyone
here
in
the
room
who
is
here
to
testify
and
support
of
assembly
bill
391,
seeing
none
broadcast,
let's
go
to
the
phones
and
we'll
do
20
minutes
per
segment
and
three
minutes
per
individual.
H
A
Thank
you
center
woman.
You
have
any
closing
remarks.
C
Thank
you,
some
assemblywoman
anderson.
I
thank
you
again
for
this
presentation
for
the
questions
as
well.
For
the
clarifications
we
will
make
sure
to
add
in
the
concern
that
senator
neil
brought
forward,
because
that
was
an
oversight
on
our
behalf
of
not
seeing
it.
Thank
you,
though,
and
looking
forward
to
having
this
work
session
soon.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you.
A
lot
of
that
will
be
up
to
you
all
make
sure
you
get.
The
amendments
cleared
up.
Questions
cleared
up,
okay,
thank
you,
and
so
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill.
A
391
senator
settlemeyer
is
not
here,
so
we're
going
to
take
about
a
five
minute
recess
and
see
if
he'll,
if
he's
on
his
way
for
those
of
you
who
are
new
to
the
process,
this
typically
happens
around
this
time
of
the
session,
because
many
of
us
are
testifying
in
other
committees
and
sometimes
there's
more
than
one
committee
we're
testifying
in.
A
So
I
always
like
to
give
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
to
the
member,
because
I
know
it's
difficult
to
be
in
three
different
places:
I'm
expecting
someone
a
really
smart
government
relations
person
to
come
forward
with
a
bill
that
authorizes
cloning,
and
so,
if
you
can
come
forward
with
that,
I
have
a
really
good
piece
of
dark
chocolate.
Okay,
we're
in
recess
for
about
five
minutes.
Thank.
A
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
assembly,
bill
two,
two:
seven
for
the
record:
cesaro
mega
hill
community
policy,
analyst
assembly
bill
227,
revises
provisions
relating
to
contractors
and
sponsored
by
assembly,
woman
carlton.
It
was
heard
on
april
23
2021.
J
The
bill
provides
that
a
contractor
may
personally
perform
work
that
requires
a
contractor's
license
or
or
may
perform
the
work
by
or
through
employees
of
the
contractor
or
of
another
contractor.
Additionally,
these
those
persons
or
a
person
employed
by
a
private
employment
agency
licensed
by
the
labor
commissioner
may
perform
for
a
contractor
work
that
does
not
require
a
contractor's
license.
J
Such
an
agreement
is
void
and
unenforceable,
and
senator
spearman
proposes
the
following
amendment,
which
is
to
revise
section
four
of
the
bill
to
make
the
bill
effective
upon
passage
and
approval
for
the
purpose
of
adopting
regulations
and
engaging
in
any
other
preparatory
administrative
tasks
and
effective
on
october
1,
2021
for
all
other
purposes.
Madam
chair,
that's
all
the
amendments.
A
Thank
you
committee
members.
Any
questions
or
comments.
D
D
They
hear
appeals
from
the
administrative
decision
and
in
this
decision
the
alj
made
a
very
important
comment
that
the
board
did
not
contest.
He
said
that
the
wage
earning
employees
leased
from
property
property
sorry
properly
registered
leasing
companies
by
licensed
contractors
are
in
fact
the
regular
full-time
employees
of
the
licensed
contractor.
D
So
in
the
the
cases
that
the
board
used
to
support
their
position,
that
the
legacy
case
was
improperly
decided
and
that
supports
their
promotion
of
this
bill,
it's
misleading.
They
did
not
cite
any
case
that
supports
their
position
and,
in
fact,
the
one
case
that
they
did
not
challenge
which
they
could
have
done
had
they
chosen
to.
They
could
have
appealed
the
alj
decision
to
the
district
court.
They
did
not,
they
chose
to
accept
it.
They
took
exactly
the
opposite
position,
so
I
think
the
contractor's
board.
D
D
What
is
clear
in
my
mind
is
that
this
is
a
practice
that
has
gone
on
for
better
than
30
years
without
complaint
and
without
any
serious
challenge,
to
suggest
that
these
licensed
contractors,
as
the
testimony
provided,
are
largely
minority
and
disabled
or
partially
disabled
contractors
who
cannot,
for
whatever
reason,
work
a
full-time
position
for
a
contractor
and
the
small
businesses
that
rely
on
temporary
labor
labor,
who
cannot
afford
to
hire
multiple
people
in
order
to
move
them
from
job
site
to
job
site
are
going
to
be
put
out
of
business
as
a
result.
D
D
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
talk
generally.
We
talk
after
we
make
the
motion
and
the
vote,
but
it
seems
we're
talking
now.
So,
let's
get
it
out
of
the
way
I
myself
have
used
through
the
local
conservation
district
in
dallas,
county
private
employment
agencies,
we've
found
them
to
be
extremely
safe.
I
Their
individuals
are
well
trained,
they're
very
flexible
on
ours,
so
for
weed
crews
and
things
that
we've
done
agriculturally
when
it
spins
up
or
down
in
the
conservation
district,
according
to
work
that
we've
had
this
opportunity
to
work
with
them
and
they've
been
working
for
a
long
standing
history.
You
know
throughout
the
state
of
nevada,
with
these
individuals
in
that
respectable
this
bill
specifically
to
contractors
and
within
that
realm
the
information
we're
looking
at
is
we're
looking
at
affecting
4
300
people's
jobs,
at
least
so
4
300
jobs
are
at
stake
to
the
contractors
alone.
I
A
A
I
did
it
again
the
spirit
of
senator
raddy,
I'm
I'm
channeling,
senator
addy,
don't
tell
her.
I
said
that
okay,
I
would
take
a
motion.
A
motion
amended.
B
I
A
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
all
the
business
that
we
have
today
the
button
and
the
microphone
are
in
a
very
odd
place.
That's
hard
to
get
to
so
so
that's
all
the
business
we
have
for
today,
with
the
exception
of
public
comment
so
broadcast.
Do
we
have
anyone
on
the
phone
lines.