►
From YouTube: 4/21/2021 - 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
Good
morning,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
first
live
session
and
zoom
of
this
81st
session
commerce
in
labor
81st
session
of
the
legislative
session.
So,
madam
secretary,
please
call
the
roll.
A
A
A
There
are
various
ways
members
of
the
public
can
engage
with
us
and
participate
throughout
the
process,
and
this
includes
registering
to
participate
through
nellis,
where
you
have
an
opportunity
to
testify
on
a
bill
request
to
join
a
meeting
in
person
or
provide
public
comments.
You
can
submit
written
comment
to
the
committee
using
the
email
or
the
fax
address
listed
on
the
agenda.
A
Share
your
opinion
on
nellis
view
committee
meetings
online
through
nellis
or
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
to
register
on
nellis,
simply
click
the
participate
button
near
the
committee
meeting
date
and
time
and
fill
out
the
information
that
is
asked
of
you.
Once
you
register,
you
will
see
a
confirmation
screen
and
you
will
also
have
an
email
with
a
phone
number
and
a
meeting
id
to
call
at
the
time
of
the
meeting.
A
Just
a
note
that,
while
you
are
required
to
register
to
participate,
it
does
not
guarantee,
you
will
be
able
to
speak
similar
to
previous
sessions.
Comment
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
time
constraints,
and
I
will
announce
the
time
frame
for
any
for
all
of
these
for
against
and
neutral.
It
will
be
helpful
that,
if
more
than
one
person
in
an
organization
wishes
to
comment
to
remember
that
ditto
is
a
good
response.
A
When
someone
has
already
made
your
points,
this
allows
us
to
get
more
people's
comments
on
the
record
when
you're
on
the
phone
line,
please
pay
attention
to
which
bill
is
being
considered
and
follow.
The
verbal
prompts
provided
by
the
bps
staff,
so
you
know
which
keys
to
press
to
raise
your
hand
or
to
unmute
yourself
and
staff
will
call
on
you
to
speak
by
the
last
three
digits
of
your
telephone
number.
A
If
you
need
assistance
with
any
of
these
processes
or
if
you
would
like
to
receive
electronic
notification
of
the
committee's
agendas
and
minutes,
please
contact
our
committee
staff
at
the
email
listed
on
the
agenda.
Any
and
all
exhibits
for
the
committee
must
be
submitted
in
electronic
format.
No
later
than
8
o'clock
am
the
day
before
the
meeting
contact
information
may
be
found
on
the
committee
page
on
nellis.
A
A
I
will
not
entertain
any
amendments
if
the
bill
sponsor
is
not
aware
of
that
amendment.
The
proposed
amendment
must
be
submitted
in
writing.
24
hours
prior
to
the
meeting,
please
include
the
bill
number,
the
statement
of
intent
and
your
contact
information
and
when
you
are
testifying,
please
remember
to
unmute
your
microphone
and
clearly
state
your
name
and
the
entity
you
represent
at
the
beginning
of
your
testimony,
speak
clearly
and
project
your
voice.
Remember
we
have
some
who
are
listening
to
this
meeting
over
a
computer.
A
That
may
not
be
an
ipad
or
maybe
may
not
even
be
20,
2008
or
less
or
earlier.
So
please
remember
to
project
your
voice,
a
reminder
to
all
those
who
testified
pursuant
to
nevada,
revised
statutes.
Nrs218E
does
it
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
knowingly
misrepresents
facts
when
testifying
before
a
legislative
committee,
a
person
who
knowingly
does
so
is
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor
and
the
chair
or
any
member
of
this
committee
may
request
a
testifier
to
submit
documentation
supporting
your
testimony
committee
members.
A
If
you
are
virtual
and
have
a
question,
please
raise
your
hand
through
zoom,
under
the
zoom
application.
If
members
are
not
on
zoom
and
participate
from
the
committee
room,
please
unmute
yourself
to
let
me
know
that
you
have
a
question
and
finally,
please
put
all
of
your
electronic
devices,
especially
the
cell
phones
and
laptops
on
silent
mode.
During
the
meeting
and
with
that,
let
us
begin
our
hearing
on
assembly
bill
290,
assemblywoman
heidegge,
mr
alonso,
and
I
imagine
you
have
some
more
people
that
are
virtual.
A
Okay,
so
we'll
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
290,
I'm
sorry
a
b
290.
I'm
used
to
saying
this,
though
it's
going
to
build
290.,
it
revises
provisions
relating
to
financial
institutions,
so
assembly
women
begin
when
you're
ready.
Thank
you.
C
C
I'm
assemblywoman
sandra
hariki
and
I
proudly
represent
assembly
district
41.
today,
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
bill
290
assembly
bill
290
was
worked
on
with
the
industry
representatives,
who
will
be
here
presenting
with
me
today
in
consultation
with
the
director
of
business
and
industry
and
the
commissioner
for
the
nevada
fid.
C
Knowing
this
would
help
bring
opportunity
to
our
state
and
in
an
effort
to
learn
more
about
the
industries
that
come
through
commerce
and
labor.
I
was
happy
to
lend
a
vehicle
for
this
bill
assembly
bill
290
revises
the
definition
of
a
fiduciary
to
provide
that
a
trust
company
or
a
savings
bank
that
acts
as
a
custodian
for
an
individual
retirement
account
is
not
a
fiduciary
for
the
purposes
of
certain
provisions
of
law
governing
the
business
of
a
trust
company.
C
Madam
chair,
with
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
robert
waltz
with
charles
schwab
for
further
remarks,
and
we
also
have
mr
jeff
brown,
with
charles
schrab
and
my
friend
alfredo
alonso,
to
help
answer
questions.
Madam
chair,
having
an
education
budget.
Closing
that
I
stepped
away
from,
I
was
hoping
you
would
not
mind
if
I
excuse
myself
from
the
presentation,
and
I
promise
that
I
am
leaving
you
in
good
hands.
A
You
may,
but
everybody
that
does
that
must
come
back
and
sit
in
timeout.
But
thank.
A
Sure
sure,
and
for
those
who
are
presenting
and
for
those
who
are
asked,
questions
no
need
to
go
through
me,
go
directly
to
the
member
that
you
want
to
answer
the
question
for
so
with
that
have
fun
assemblywoman.
Okay,
mr
alonzo,
please
proceed.
D
D
This
is
essentially
part
two
of
of
what
this
body
debated
and
ultimately
passed
last
session,
which
dealt
with
bringing
some
updates
to
nevada
law.
With
respect
to
banking
law.
D
We
had
a
savings
bank
or
a
savings
and
loan
statute
that
hadn't
been
touched
for
decades
and
essentially,
what
came
before
you
was
an
update
to
that
which
charles
schwab
bank,
as
a
result,
is
now
in
henderson
nevada,
and
this
is
part
two
of
that
and
hoping
that
they
may
ultimately
expand
their
business,
and
this
is
their
their
retirement
accounts
and
ira
accounts,
and
I
I'll
turn
it
over
to
to
robert
wolf
who's.
D
The
vice
president
associate
counsel
and
jeff
brown
who's
vice
president
and
head
of
government
affairs,
and
they
can
explain
where
we've
been
how
this
works.
It's
essentially
codifying
federal
law,
because
nevada
law
really
didn't
contemplate
these
types
of
accounts,
at
least
clearly,
and
and
be
able
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
But
I
think
this
is
ultimately
a
good
economic
development.
D
D
E
Hi,
I'm
I'm
robert
walls,
I'm
representing
schwab,
I'm
vice
president
and
assistant
general
counsel
of
charles
robb
trust
bank,
and,
as
alfredo
mentioned
along
representing
schwab,
is
jeff
brown,
who
is
our
senior
vice
president
and
responsible
for
all
legislative
and
regular
regulatory
affairs
for
the
entire
schwab
organization?
E
I
know
most
of
you
have
probably
heard
of
schwab,
but
I
don't
know
that
you're
all
aware
that
the
schwab
organization
has
had
a
banking
presence
in
nevada
going
back
almost
20
years
now,
starting
with
charles
schwab,
trust
or
charles
schwab,
bank,
which
was
a
federally
chartered
bank
that
was
originally
headquartered
in
reno.
E
Our
other
nevada
entity
is
charles
schwab,
trust
company,
which
is
a
non-depository
trust
company,
providing
personal
trust
services
that
include
investment
management,
our
nevada
trust
company,
charles
trump
trust
company,
is
also
the
parent
of
schwab's,
delaware,
non-depository
trust,
company
and
combined
across
those
two
entities.
We
have
11
billion
dollars
of
trust
assets
that
we
administer
on
behalf
of
schwab,
clients
we've
been
in
charleston
trust
companies
relatively
recent.
E
I
think
we
we
chartered
that
about
five
years
ago-
trust
bank-
a
little
bit
after
that,
and
but
because
we've
found
with
through
our
recent
experience
in
nevada,
that
it
provides
an
excellent
environment
for
us
to
conduct
these
trust
businesses,
particularly
on
the
personal
trust
side.
Nevada,
has
has
really
outstanding
trust
statutes.
The
of
the
states
bar
in
nevada
has
done
a
really
fine
job,
keeping
nevada
statutes
in
a
place
that
are
competitive
with
any
trust
jurisdiction
in
the
country.
When
schwab
started
personal
trust,
we
started
in
delaware.
E
People
have
heard
you
know
a
lot
about:
delaware,
trust
and
delaware
being
a
progressive
trust
jurisdiction.
I
think
the
trust
part
at
this
point
believes
nevada
is
the
equal
or
even
better
than
delaware,
and
that's
a
tribute
to
what
you
all
have
done
through
the
years,
making
this
a
great
jurisdiction
for
trust.
E
What
we're
seeing,
though,
is
because
our
as
our
organization
grows
and
evolves
our
we
we've
changed
a
lot.
I've
been
at
schwab
for
over
10
years,
and
during
that
time
the
perspective
of
the
organization
has
changed
from
being
a
broker
dealer
to
what
we
really
are,
which
is
a
bank
holding
company
as
regulated
by
the
the
federal
reserve
and
we've.
The
the
the
organization
has
a
greater
appreciation
of
the
benefits
and
capabilities
that
our
trust
charters
can
can
provide
to
facilitate
the
objectives
of
our
schwab
organization
and
our
clients,
as
we
increase.
E
Just
in
recent
history,
we've
purchased
usaa's
investment
management
and
trust
business
over
the
last
year,
which
we
added,
I
think
three
employees
to
our
trust
company
in
henderson.
We're
also
doing
some
other
work
for
our
own
broker
dealer
as
a
collateral
agent
and
and
business
like
that
also
requires
us
to
add
employees,
so
we're
we're
adding
employees
we're
at
40
and
40
50
employees
for
the
trust
company,
and
we
anticipate
it
to
grow
the
company's
doing
well
and,
as
I
said,
we
charted
it
about
five
years
ago.
E
E
If
we
can
move
that
responsibility
to
a
bank
or
trust
company,
it
relieves
us
from
certain
internal
revenue
code
requirements
that
apply
to
non-bank,
ira
custodians
and
allows
us
to
structure
our
ira
product
in
a
framework
consistent
with
what
our
competitors
are
doing.
Both
fidelity
and
vanguard,
two
of
our
largest
competitors
both
have
it
structured
in
this
way,
where
their
affiliated
trust
company
is
the
sponsor
their
ira
product,
which
is
largely
serviced
and
through
the
capabilities
of
the
broker-dealer.
E
As
a
sub-custodian,
it's
anticipated
that
the
nevada
entity
that
we
choose
to
serve
in
this
role
will
serve
as
both
the
sponsor
of
the
ira
program
and
as
the
custodian
of
the
assets
for
the
accounts.
All
these
accounts
are
self-directed
accounts.
We,
the
the
trust,
company
or
the
trust
bank,
will
not
be
acting
as
an
investor
manager
of
these
accounts.
We
will
not
be
taking
on
any
discretionary
responsibilities
that
are
normally.
You
know
indicative
of
the
fiduciary
relationship.
E
The
first
one
is
that
we
were
looking
to
to
refine
the
definition
of
what
constitutes
a
fiduciary
capacity
under
nevada
law,
to
make
it
clear
that
that
a
a
trust,
company
or
trust
bank
acting
as
a
custodian
solely
as
a
custodian
is,
is
not
a
fiduciary
under
nevada
law.
Currently,
there's
a
provision
in
chapter
669
of
nevada
statutes
relating
to
the
the
statute
that
relate
that
that
governs
non-depository.
E
E
Our
proposed
amendment
seeks
clarification
that
holding
assets
of
an
ir
ira
account
and
a
non-discretionary
custodial
capacity
is
not
a
fiduciary
capacity
under
nevada
law.
In
addition
to
that,
and
that
and
that
change
relates
only
to
charles
trump
trust
company,
we're
also
asking
for
a
comparable
change
to
the
statutes
under
section
673.
E
The
second
clarification
that
the
statute
is
is
requesting
is
that
relating
it's?
Actually
it's
it's
actually
not
a
clarification.
It's
a
codification
of
what
we
are
already
doing
with
respect
to
charles
trump
trust
bank.
There
are.
There
are
rules
under
federal,
reg,
nine
that
we
just
talked
about
dealing
with
how
a
bank
treats
proprietary
affiliate
bank
deposits
that
are
used
in
connection
with
trust
relationships.
E
Currently,
nevada
has
adopted
this
provision
of
regnum
for
all
all
types
of
banking
charters
other
than
our
savings
bank,
as
alfredo
mentioned.
You
know
this
is
a
follow-up,
we're
essentially
filling
a
gap
in
that
law,
so
we're
asking
that
the
provisions
of
chapter
673
be
amended
to
incorporate
the
rule
that
is
already
in
place
under
nevada
law
for
other
nevada
charters
engaged
in
trust
business
which
relate
with
in
connection
with
the
treatment
of
trust
gas,
to
apply
also
to
our
trust
bank
under
chapter
673.
E
D
F
Hey
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
all
for
addressing
this
issue.
I've
heard
about
this
in
the
past.
The
one
question
I
have,
though,
is-
and
I
don't
practice
in
this
area-
so
forgive
the
ignorance
but
typically
in
the
law.
When
we
talk
about
fiduciaries,
we're
talking
about
a
heightened
responsibility,
standard
for
the
individual,
managing
the
accounts
or
the
the
interests
of
the
individual
and
with
that
comes
responsibilities
that
are
over
and
above
what
we
would
normally
see
at
an
arm's
length
transaction.
F
So
by
carving
yourselves
out
of
this
fiduciary
language.
What
is
there
in
the
statutory
scheme
generally,
whether
that's
in
the
federal
context
or
the
state
context
that
protects
the
individual
account
holders.
E
Great
question
and
in
connection
with
these
ira
accounts
that
we're
talking
about
section
408
of
the
internal
revenue
code
does
incorporate
sort
of
minimal,
minimal,
fiduciary
obligations
under
statute,
and
it
relates
to
record
keeping.
It
relates
to
safety
and
soundness
of
the
organization.
That's
the
that
is
promoting
the
program
or
maintaining
the
program.
E
It
relates
to
reporting
it's
required
statement
requirements,
everything
that
that
ensures
the
transparency
that
is
deemed
to
be
required
for
that
purpose,
and-
and
I
would
also
add
that,
in
connection
with
these
relationships,
while
the
trust
bank
or
nor
the
trust
company
would
be
acting
in
the
fiduciary
capacity,
that
doesn't
mean
that
these
account
holders
would
not
be
hiring
other
entities,
including
some
schwab
entities.
That
would
in
fact,
act
as
a
fiduciary
if
they
hire,
for
example,
one
of
the
schwab
investment.
E
Products
we
would
as
an
investment
advisor,
we
would
have
the
fiduciary
duties
of
an
investment
advisor,
but
that
would
not
be
again.
The
engagement
would
be
between
the
client
and
that
different
different
that
investment
advisor
not
between
the
us
and
the
not
not
between
the
account
holder
and
the
trust
company
or
the
trust
bank.
F
All
right,
so,
if
I
understand
correctly
we're
making
a
distinction
between
the
advisor
and
the
operations
side,
the
the
banking
side,
so
just
as
we
wouldn't
necessarily
put
a
bank
operation
in
a
fiduciary
capacity
over
someone,
who's
got
their
savings
or
checking
accounts
that
fiduciary
capacity
is
maintained
on
the
advisory
level.
On
the
side
where,
for
example,
I
have
much
of
my
investments
in
schwab
accounts,
and
so
I
talked
to
my
advisor-
that's
a
different
operation.
F
I
presume
I,
I
honestly
haven't
paid
much
attention
to
that
distinction,
so
they're
separate
and
apart
from
the
entities
that
are
carved
out
in
in
this
bill,.
E
Yeah
yeah,
the
the
the
the
role
that
we're
trying
to
clear
here
is
simply
acting
as
a
custodian
of
assets,
essentially
directed
100
percent,
directed
as
to
everything
we
do,
but
for
the
we
we
will
commit,
as
we
have
to
as
a
matter
of
law,
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
internal
revenue
code
as
they
relate
to
ira
products
and
including
the
fiduciary
rules.
Under
section
408.
F
Thank
you,
and
that
was
robert
waltz
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
that
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
whatever
we
do,
we're
not
putting
the
consumer
who
is
not
sophisticated
in
these
things,
we're
not
putting
them
in
a
position
of
having
to
more
fully
understand
the
banking
side
of
this.
So
I
think
that's
an
important
distinction.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
G
Thank
you.
So
I
have
a
question
on
it's
in
section
two
page
four,
and
this
is
the
collateral
requirements
that
are
being
put
in
place
and
I'm
probably
gonna
walk
backwards
in
this
bill.
So
I'm
gonna,
probably
I'm
gonna,
start
at
page
four
and
then
I'm
end
up
at
page
one,
but
so
this
this
is
so.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
and
I'm
gonna
ask
some
basic
ones.
G
So
in
8
a
when
it
says
the
direct
obligations
of
the
united
states
or
other
obligations
guaranteed,
I'm
trying
to
get
a
real
life
example
of
what
are
the
other
obligations
and
also
in
d,
when
we
talk
about
the
surety
bonds
being
associated
actually
not
even
the
surety
bonds,
the
c
the
readily
marketable
securities
of
the
classes
in
which
a
state
bank
or
trust
company
or
other
corporation
exercises
fiduciary
power
over.
I
want
to
know
what
those
are
specifically.
E
E
Name,
yes,
robert
wolves,
again
senator
just
let
me
provide
a
little
context
on
those
collateral
rules.
These
are
the
rules
we
are
currently
operating
under
these
rules.
These
are
these
are,
as
I
said,
the
rules
that
are
in
place
in
the
state
and
and
and
we
are
cur
the
trust
bank
is
currently
operating
under
these
rules
under
the
under
informal
advice
from
the
nevada
fed,
so
we're
complying
with
these
now
these
rules
and
the
types
of
collateral
are
fairly
uniform.
E
This
this
is
this
has
been
the
the
law
of
the
federal
law
for
acceptable
types
of
collateral,
but
the
idea
is,
they
have
to
be
as
a
general
proposition.
They
have
to
be
investments
that
are
not
subject
to
principal
risk,
so
they're,
so
there's
no
there's
no
ability.
You
know
that
that
that
it's
going
to
be
adequate
at
all
times
and
the
rules
also
require
that
the
the
amount
of
the
collateral
be
marked
to
market
on
a
daily
basis.
E
So
there's
always
collateral
at,
I
believe
102
of
the
value
of
of
the
of
the
the
cash
balances.
So
that's
that's
the
way
we're
doing
it
now.
The
specific
types
of
securities-
I
I
don't
know
what
I
can
add
there
other
than
that
you
know
they
are
highly
liquid
types
of
securities
that
are
not
subject
to
great
principal
risk.
G
G
E
Robert
wolves
again,
I
can
explain
that
as
far
as
trust
bank
is
concerned-
and
I
I
said
we're
already
operating
under
these
rules-
trust
bank
does
have
some
fiduciary
relationships
that
are
that
are
pre-existing.
They
are.
They
are
directed
trust
relationships
for
employee
benefit
plans
and
the
cash
balances
related
to
those.
Those
accounts
are
governed
by
this
rule
as
as
as
fiduciary
funds,
and
as
I,
as
I
mentioned,
we
are
operating
under
this
rule.
Now
this
rule
is
being
applied
to
other
nevada
bank
charters
that
engage
in
trust
business.
E
We
are
just
asking
to
have
it
formally
codified
before
we
move
ahead
with
this.
This
ira
move,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
it
we
we're
clear,
but
this
applies
to
our
existing
business
now
and
it's
it's
essentially
just
the
codification
of
the
rules
that
we
are
currently
operating
under
at
the
direction
of
the
nevada
financial
institutions,
division.
G
Okay
and
then
my
next
question
is
on
it's
on
section,
two:
what's
really
sub
six
and
sub
sub
seven-
and
I
read
this
as
your
ability
to
spread
someone's
money
across
several
different
entities
and
so
and
it's
up
to
the
amount
that
is
being
insured
by
the
fdic
right.
And
so
I
think
what
I
didn't
hear
and
I
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
knows,
but
I
know
that
you
know
it
could
be
up
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
that
is
spread.
G
People
were
then
looking
for
their
accounts
and
trying
to
figure
out
who
now
owns
or
who
now
has
my
money,
and
so
I
want
to
know.
Are
we
walking
ourselves
backwards
into
a
space
where
this
was
a
part
of
the
financial
crisis
that
we
were
facing,
because
we
flexed
the
rules
right
to
allow
the
money
to
be
placed
in
different
areas
and
then
the
when,
when
the
bank
failed
seeking
to
try
to
find
out
where
your
money
was.
E
Robert
wools,
mr
schwab,
well
I
I
can
speak
to
that.
A
little
bit.
Schwab
has
a
program
that
that
we
use
in
connection
with
these
accounts,
which
is
referred
to
as
a
sweep
tower,
and
basically,
what
that
is
designed
to
do
is
to
spread
deposit
amounts
across
existing
schwab
bank
charters
to
in
order
to
allow
our
clients
to
have
the
maximum
allowable
fdic
insurance.
So,
for
example,
if
someone
has
750
000
of
bank
cash
in
their
brokerage
account
or
their
ira
account,
they
theoretically
could
have
that
spread
across
charles
schwab,
bank.
E
We
have
three
bank
charters,
that's
right:
charles
robb
bank,
charles
schwab,
premier
bank
and
charles
robb
trust
bank.
It
is,
it
is
managed
as
an
integrated
program
under
the
supervision
of
the
federal
reserve
bank,
the
united
states
and
it's
it's
been
working.
Well,
it's
it's
a
selling
point,
it's
similar
to
what
merrill
lynch
and
places
like
that
at,
but
it
doesn't
go
beyond
the
three
schwab
banks,
and
that
is
also
disclosed
to
any
account
holder
on
their
statement,
the
amount
that
they
would
have
in
a
particular
institution.
G
How
then
does
the
protection
and
safe
keeping
apply?
If
something
happens?
What,
then,
are
my
some
some
constituent?
I
have
some
80
year
old
woman.
What
are
then
her
rights
in
this
context?
If
we
were
to
pass
this
bill
right,
what,
then,
is
she
able
to
say
and
then
she's
told
well
we're
no
longer
the
custodian
and
we
don't
have
a
fiduciary
relationship.
I
know
we
used
to,
but
the
state
law
changed.
G
E
To
robert
wools
for
schwab,
well,
in
the
context
of
these
types
of
accounts,
she
has
a
number
of
avenues
number
one.
E
These
are
subject
to
very
strict
irs
requirements
and
if
there's
a
violation
there,
she
can
go
to
the
irs
they
can
come
to,
they
can
go
to
the
nevada
fed,
obviously
or
in
the
case
of
trust
bank,
the
fdic,
because
that
is
an
fdic,
insured
institution
and
and
and
raise
a
complaint,
and
they
can
also
complain
to
the
federal
reserve.
Who
was
our
prudential
regulator
and
is
responsible?
E
H
E
They're
on
and
a
whole
a
financial
services
holding
company,
like
schwab,
really
is,
is
sort
of
an
interesting
animal.
It's
not
like
a
standalone
bank.
It
is,
it
is
a
an
interwoven,
wet
web
of
financial
charters
that
are
also
under
that
are
supposed
to
be
under
the
under
the
federal
reserve
requirements.
E
Look
that
together
and
also
the
holding
company
has
to
serve
as
a
source
of
strength.
For
that,
so
we've
got
a
number
of
institutions
that
are
here
to
backstop
anything
that
would
happen
with
these
trust
companies
and
we're
required
to
do
that.
The
federal
government
expects
us
to
do
that.
So
I
think
that's
that's
that's
another
protection
that
I,
I
think
is
appropriate
to
call
out.
A
I
I
I
E
Well,
yeah,
I
mean
what
we're
asking
for
here:
senator
is,
is
to
put
nevada
on
par
with
what
we
would
get
if
we
were
doing
this
through
a
national
bank
charter
or
pretty
much
a
charter
of
any
other
state,
they
would
not
treat
a
custodian
of
an
ira
program
as
a
fiduciary
and
the
irs
doesn't
expect
it.
The
irs
has
has
forms
for
prototype
ira
documents,
there's
a
trust
one.
If
you
want
to
act
as
a
trustee
and
there's
a
custodial,
one,
either
form
is
acceptable.
E
The
custodial
form
is
is
primarily
used
in
the
industry
because
of
the
fact
that
these
relationships
generally
don't
involve
outside
of
the
investment
which
we
talked
about,
the
exercise
of
discretion,
that
is,
that
is
sort
of
the
touchstone
of
a
fiduciary
relationship.
These
are
merely
holding
assets
and
and
dealing
with
those
assets,
as
directed
by
the
account
holder.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
what
I
heard
you
saying
is
a
bank
holds
on
to
the
asset
and
this
actually
invests
the
asset
so
that
there's
a
potential
to
earn
more,
and
that
would
be
the
motivation
for
somebody
to
go
into
this
and,
if
there's
a
potential
to
earn
more,
is
there
potential
to
lose
more
if
you'd.
E
E
They
can
engage
discretionary
investment
outside
of
the
trust
company
or
the
trust
bank,
as
the
case
may
be,
but
we
are
not
assuming
any
investment
responsibility
with
respect
to
those
accounts
and
yes,
if
they
do
invest
in
financial
assets
that
have
a
risk
of
loss,
but
we're
not
we're
not
talking
about.
I
mean
it
shouldn't
be
looked
at
as
as
we're
talking
about
the
difference
between
engage,
investing
in
equities
or
keeping
money
in
a
bank
deposit.
E
These
are
these:
are
investment
accounts
people
invested
in
a
wide
range
of
broker
eligible
securities
in
their
ira
account,
and
you
know
they
they,
as
a
as
a
general
manner
matter,
assume
that
risk.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
just
want
to
ask
one
final
question
on
this.
This
applies
to
the
fiduciary
account
language,
where
it
has
pretty
much
one
through.
It
looks
like
12
and
then
because
I
was
listening
to
this
conversation,
but
what
I
was
trying
to
get
an
understanding
on.
You
have
a
number
10.
G
The
fiduciary
account
means
administered
by
the
savings
bank,
action
in
the
fiduciary
capacity
of
number
10,
the
investment
advisor,
and
what
I'm
not
clear
on
is
that
are
they?
Are
they?
Are
they
excluded
or
are
they
being
included
in
the
fiduciary
role?
Because
I,
when
I
looked
at
that
c,
I
wasn't
clear
if
this
was
the
category
of
entities
that
would
now
no
longer
have
a
fiduciary
role
or
they
do.
G
G
G
E
I'm
sorry,
robert
wolf,
a
non-custodian,
a
custodial
non-fiduciary
relationship
is
entirely
determined
by
the
terms
of
the
agreement
between
the
the
the
customer
and
the
and
the
bank.
Again,
a
fiduciary
fiduciary
relationship
is
defined
by
the
by
the
youth
by
the
exercise
of
discretion.
These
custodial
relationships
are
are
hardwired
by
contractual
language.
They
there's
there's.
We
are
not
acting
at
all
other
than
at
the
direction
of
the
account
holder,
and
I
think
that's
the
distinction
that
I
think
we're
missing.
E
G
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
explain
this
right,
like
if
I
vote
for
this
and
I
go
home,
and
I
tell
my
aunt
okay,
we
passed
this
bill
where
the
your
current
ira
that
you've
had,
since
you
were
a
nun
in
1956.
E
Senator
robert
wolfe
for
schwab
senator
that
there
will
be
no
change
in
the
in
the
relationship.
The
only
thing
the
only
change
is
the
is
the
party
that
is
sponsoring
the
ira
program
and
is
is
holding
the
assets
these.
These
accounts
that
would
be
moving
over
currently
follow
the
structure
that
I
that
I
have
tried
to
explain,
which
is
that
they
are
self-directed
they're.
It
will
pretty
much
be
transparent
other
than
telling
them
that
they
of
the
program
has
changed
from
charles
schwab
and
co.
E
A
registered
broker-dealer
under
the
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
sec
to
charles
robb
trust,
bank
and
or
charles
shrub
trust,
company,
a
nevada,
banking
or
trust
organization.
The
the
the
rights
and
obligations
of
of
the
of
the
account
holder
and
and
the
res
we're
not
we're
not
skating
on
any
responsibilities.
E
D
Madam
chair,
just
just
to
elaborate
on
that
again
we're
not
doing.
D
Excuse
me
alfredo
alonso
again
lewis
and
roger.
The
key
here
is
that
the
only
change
is
the
ability
for
charles
schwab
to
park
those
dollars,
those
funds
in
nevada
when
they're
self-directed.
So
in
other
words
you
know
I
have.
I
have
a
the
ability
to
direct
where
I
want
to
spend
my
money
without
a
broker.
D
That's
where
it
would
that's
the
only
difference
in
in
this
bill
that
would
allow
them
to
simply
treat
that
money
as
if
it's
an
account,
almost
analogous
to
a
savings
account
and
then
I'm
directing
where
the
money
goes.
If
it
is
directed
by
a
broker
dealer,
as
you
saw
it
lists
out,
who
is
a
fiduciary
then
so
really
it
is,
it
is
we're
doing
nothing
different
than
any
other.
D
I
think
almost
every
jurisdiction
in
the
country
does
the
same
thing.
Nevada's
was
just
unclear,
and
I
think
when
you,
when
you
hear
from
the
regulators,
we
went
through
this
with
the
regulators
to
make
sure
that
the
consumer
was
protected,
that
we
were
doing
nothing
out
of
the
ordinary
here.
That
was
of
of
concern
to
everybody,
or
anybody,
and
the
regulator
actually
went
through
the
language
with
us
to
make
sure
that
what
we
are
doing
is
essentially
codifying
either
their
current
regs
or
federal
law,
which
is
in
existence
to
protect
the
public.
G
Thanks,
you
know
I
was
gonna,
I
mean
I'm
gonna
dig
into
it
because
on
the
surface
it
gives
you
pause
for
concern
right.
You
see
changing
fiduciary
and
you
immediately
go
into
the
legal
context
of
what
it
means,
which
is
what
senator
picker
kicked
us
off
with
and
ultimately
you're
thinking.
There
are
legal
connections
and
relationships
to
that
word.
Right
and
you'd
either
like
to
keep
them
and
hold
on
to
them,
and
so
you
want
to
understand
what
is
the
loss?
D
And
alfredo
alonso
again
for
the
record
and
senator,
if
you
didn't
dig,
I
would
think
something
was
wrong.
So
I
fully
expect
you
to,
and
I
think
you
will
get
all
the
answers
you
need
as
we
go
through
this
and
I
think
the
regulators
were
very
comfortable
with
this
language.
Ultimately
and
again,
it's
it's
difficult
to
see
this
in
a
bill,
because
you
already
have
regulations
in
place
that
this
is
simply
codifying,
and
then
you
have
the
federal
reg
as
well.
D
So
I
think
that
once
you
do
dig
you'll
understand
that
we're
doing
nothing
out
of
the
ordinary
here,
simply
allowing
them
to
then
move
those
accounts
into
nevada,
which
is
again
economic
development
for
the
state.
It's
it's!
It's
a
it's
a
good
thing
ultimately,
but
it'll
change
from
a
consumer
standpoint.
It'll
change!
Nothing!
Because
again,
if
you
have
a
broker
dealer
helping
you
there's
a
fiduciary
responsibility,
there.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
second
opportunity.
I
I
think
I'm
going
to
join
my
colleague
in
digging
and
we'll
probably
end
up
with
quite
a
whole,
but
I
want
to
reconcile
a
couple
of
statements,
and
that
is
you
know
when
we're
talking
about
investment
discretion
and
we're
talking
about
spreading
this
over
multiple
entities,
it
doesn't
sound
to
me
like
the
investment
advisor
or
the
person.
F
That's
self-directing,
their
their
investments
is
choosing
how
that
money
is
spread
because
it
sounds
like
this
is
a
an
administrative
desire
to
maximize
the
amount
of
fdic
insurance
that
they
can
get
so
they're
going
to
be
the
ones
moving
it
from
one
institution
to
another
and
those
banks
are
then
driven
by
their
own
investments,
their
own.
You
know:
where
are
they
actually
going
to
park
this
money
because
they
don't
just
you
know,
drop
the
cash
in
a
bucket?
They
move
it
out
into
the
marketplace.
F
So
it
sounds
to
me
like
schwab,
then
or
any
entity.
That's
operating
under
these
rules
would
then
be
the
ones
investing
that
money.
They
would
be
spreading
it
out
over
their
different
operations,
and
so
they
are
indeed
engaging
in
investment
discretion
as
to
where
those
funds
go,
and
so
if
we
are
excluding
them
from
fiduciary
responsibilities
as
an
operation
and
then
allow
them
to
decide
where
that
money
is
actually
going
to
be
spread,
then
they
are
indeed
engaging
in
investment
discretion.
E
E
Again,
that's
a
decision,
that's
made
by
the
account
holder,
not
by
schwab,
and
I
don't
believe,
there's
any
authority
that
says
that
a
bank
accepting
deposits
and
how
a
bank
a
regulated
you
know
highly
regulated
banking
entity,
how
they,
you
know
and
invest
their
their
deposit
money,
whether
it's
in
loans
which
we're
not
doing
in
trust,
bank
or
or
you
know,
bank
eligible
securities.
E
I
I
don't
think
that
that
imposes
any
fiduciary
obligation,
that's
an
obligation
that
is
that
is
monitored
by
by
the
applicable
bank
regulators,
in
our
case
the
fdic,
the
fed
for
our
other
charters,
the
state
of
texas
and
that.
But
but
I
don't
believe
that
there's
any
any
common
law
fiduciary
obligation
that
attaches
to
the
to
the
bank
investment
process,
how
they?
How
they
invest
bank
assets
that
are
placed
at
a
bank
for
deposit
purposes.
A
Ing
did
a
spin-off
of
voya,
a
new
financial
retirement
company
and
I'm
still
getting
I'm
still
getting
emails
from
people
who
are
trying
to
figure
out
number
one.
Do
they
still
have
money
number
two?
How
much
is
in
there
number
three?
I
don't
know
if
my
account
for
aing
is
the
same
as
foia,
and
I'm
I'm
mentioning
this,
because
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
didn't
happen
as
as
I
can
discern
it.
Maybe
they
did
maybe
they
didn't.
But
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
were
like.
A
I
had
no
idea
this
was
coming,
and
so
what
am
I
supposed
to
do
now?
So
so
the
the
duties
for
those
who
are
managing
the
account
are
the
same,
but
the
account
holders
are
pretty
con
confused
as
to
what
just
happened,
and
I
don't
know
if
that
was
getting
at
what
vice
chair
neal
was
asking
or
not,
but
we
can't
predict
the
future.
But
let
me
ask
that
question.
A
Is
there
anything
in
place?
That
would
say
if
this
bill
passes,
that
would
say
to
those
account
holders
in
plain
language,
like
you're,
like
you're
teaching,
a
kindergarten
class
plain
language?
A
This
is
what
just
happened,
and
this
is
what
it
means,
because
the
you
know
the
the
third
legal
tongue
will
get
you
confused,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
whatever
we're
doing,
everybody
can
understand
it
as
clearly
as
you
all
do,
and
there's
not
the
questions
that
I
get
from
like
the
folks
who
used
to
be
with
ing
one
person
who
sent
me
an
email
trying
to
figure
it
out
over
the
years
had
saved
something
like
forty,
two
thousand
dollars
and
they're
trying
to
figure
out
what
just
happened.
A
A
E
Robert
wolves
for
swap
adam
chairman,
we
we,
we
absolutely
would
do
that.
I
mean
one
of
the
things
we
pride
ourselves
on
at
schwab,
is
being
transparent
to
our
clients
and
educating
our
clients.
So
a
change
of
this
sort.
E
We
would
be
required
under
the
irs
requirements
to
to
to
modify
the
existing
agreements
to
appoint
the
new
new
custodian
and
let
them
let
them
know
that
there's
there's
a
new
custodian
it
would,
it
would
be,
it
would
be
clear,
you
know
we
we
generally
do
these
things,
and
you
know
the
financial
transactions
are
con
are
confusing
sometimes,
but
we
try
to
do
it
in
a
q,
a
format
and
we
try
to
keep
it
as
as
clear
and
transparent
as
possible.
E
I
would
I
would
expect
we
would
do
the
same
thing
here.
I
would
also
note
that
if
we
were
to
make
this
move,
this
move
would
be
done
in
conjunction
with
and
in
cooperation
with
your
regulatory
bodies
in
nevada
fit,
and
they
would
have
an
opportunity
to
look
at
those
those
notices
before
before
we
made
the
move.
If,
if
we
choose
to
go
that
direction,.
A
Okay,
so
guys
this
question
is
mr
kane,
our
legal
counsel.
That
being
said,
is
there
a
way
to
put
something
like
that
into
the
bill,
or
is
that
just
a
bridge
too
far
to
say
that
you
know
this?
These
are
the
procedures
that
have
to
take
place
so
that
ordinary
account
holders
would
understand
what
just
happened
what's
different
and
how
they
move
forward.
J
We
certainly
could
put
a
transitory
provision
into
the
bill
that
would
address
any
issues
that
would
come
up
when
the
bills
enacted
and
any
changes
that
might
be
occurring
to
anybody's
account.
J
Mr
wolves
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
my
understanding
is
that
the
bill
is
simply
trying
to
make
nevada
law
clear
that
that
schwab
will
be
able
to
operate
one
of
its
affiliates
as
a
custodian
of
iras,
and
that's
why
they're
being
split
off
in
section
one
and
it's
something
that
they
cannot
clearly
do
under
nevada
law
right
now
is
to
operate
purely
just
as
a
custodian,
not
as
an
administrator,
but
as
a
custodian
and
I'm
assuming
that
right
now
they
have
entities
which
are
operating
as
what's
called
a
statute
administrator
and
perhaps
using
other
custodians.
J
They
want
to
be
able
to
use
their
own
entity
as
a
custodian,
so
they're.
Creating
this
it
does
anybody
who
has
an
account
with
schwab.
I
would
think-
and
once
again
please
correct
me,
mr
waltz-
if
I'm
not,
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
people
who
are
currently
operating
with
schwab
accounts.
Where
schwab
is
the
administrator.
I
will
not
see
any
difference,
because
schwab
will
continue
to
be
the
administrator.
J
It's
just.
That
schwab
would
move
the
actual
assets
from
an
outside
custodian
to
an
in-house
custodian,
which
would
be
a
separate
entity
in
some
senses,
but
be
part
of
the
schwab
web.
But
we
can
certainly
put
a
transfer
provision
in
requiring
that
any
any
impact
on
anybody's
account
must
be
fully
disclosed
to
them,
and
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
that
would
cause
any
objections
to
anyone.
But
once
again,
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
mr
wolves.
E
Robert
walls,
I
think
that's
that's
accurate
and
again
again,
I
just
want
to
emphasize
that
we
don't
see
that
the
impact
of
this
account
to
these
accounts
is
is
material
at
all.
You
know
it's
sort
of
interesting.
If
you
look
at
the
the
internal
revenue
code
in
the
the
irs
believes
that
if
these
accounts
are
custody
at
a
bank
or
trust
company,
that's
all
they
need
to
do.
If
it's,
if
it's
custody
at
a
broker
dealer,
they
feel
like
they
need
to
do
a
higher
level
of
of
diligence
on
those
accounts.
E
I
would
I
would
submit
now
that
it's
it's
very
expensive
and
it's
it's
not
maybe
what
it
was
then,
but
to
a
bank,
because
the
idea
being,
if
you
have
bank
regulators
involved,
you
have
the
constant
review
that
goes
on
in
a
regulated
bank
environment
that
these
these
are
going
to
be
these
accounts.
These
custody
accounts
are
going
to
be
maintained
in
a
proper
and
safe
and
sound
manner.
A
Thank
you
thank
you,
mr
wolfe,
and
and
here's
what
I
asked
the
question,
because
we
we
have
now
spent
53
minutes
trying
to
explain
this
that
that
you
know
you
all
say
it's
self-explanatory,
but
for
those
of
us
who
are
not
attorneys
and
don't
operate
in
that
field,
it
could
be
a
little
could
be
a
little
confusing,
and
I
just
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
especially
coming
out
of
the
pandemic,
when
a
lot
of
people
don't
have
the
same
kind
of
financial
resources,
you
know
that
offer
them
security.
A
The
liquidity
is
not
there,
and
so
anything
that
happens.
If
they
don't
understand
it,
then
it
I
mean
it
could
cause
a
panic.
You
understand,
I'm
saying
so
so
I
you
know
I'd
like
to
see
something
in
the
bill
that
that
basically
explains
that
in
clear
language,
so
that
when,
when
this
bill
passes,
if
this
bill
passes,
everyone
who
has
an
account
at
schwab
understands
this
is
how
it
started,
and
this
is
how
it
is.
I
D
Madam
chair
senator
hardy,
alfredo
alonzo
again
for
the
record
again:
they'd
have
the
charter
in
the
state
of
nevada
so
that
that
is
the
benefit.
The
hope
is
that
we
will
see
some
more
of
these
banks
and
again,
as
as
mr
wools
indicated,
we're
talking
about
banks,
we're
not
talking
about
and
there's
there's
highly
regulated.
I
think
it's
probably
the
safest
situation
an
investor
could
be
in,
and
so
yes,
we
want
more
of
these
banks
in
the
state
of
nevada.
We're
hoping
that
this
allows
for.
A
That
thank
you,
mr
alonzo.
If
you
can
get
with
mr
keen
and
let's
see
if
we
can
work
out
some
language
so
that
senator
hardy
pointed
out,
it's
not
just
schwab,
it's
it's
anybody!
Okay,.
D
I
think
I'll
I'll
cut
my
losses
right
now.
A
Okay,
so
having
said
that,
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
Oh
I'm
sorry
public
testimony
yeah,
thank
you
broadcast.
Are
we
ready
for
public
testimony
we'll
start
off
with
those
who
are
four
and
we'll
do
15
minutes,
20
minutes
and
two
minutes
per
person,
and
that
will
be
the
instructions?
Those
will
be
the
instructions
for
not
just
support
opposition,
but
also
for
neutral.
K
A
Recognize,
mr
kane
and
broadcaster,
as
soon
as
he
finishes,
then
we'll
go
to
the
phones.
I
don't
see
anyone
else
approaching
the
table.
Yes,
please
begin.
H
Chair
spearman
members
of
the
committee
good
morning,
my
name
is
connor
kane
c-o-n-n-o-r-c-a-I-n,
testifying
today
in
support
of
summit
bill
290
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
bankers,
association
and-
and
I
will
say,
chair
spearminter,
you
refer
to
this
as
the
hot
seat.
It
actually
feels
feels
warm
pretty
nice
after
mr
alonzo
is
sitting
in
it,
especially
because
I
get
to
be
in
front
of
all
of
you.
H
It's
a
lot
nicer
than
the
plastic
chairs
in
the
back,
but
but
we
we,
we
are
in
support
of
of
assembly
bill
290..
You
know
the
nevada
bankers
association
is
grateful
to
chair
houdiki,
and
I
do
want
to
respond
to
a
question
that
senator
hardy
had
about
other
state
chartered
savings
banks.
I
believe
that
that
schwab
is
the
only
one
currently
in
the
state.
We
do
not
have
any
other
state
chartered
savings
banks.
We
would
like
to
see
more.
H
A
K
L
L
The
nevada
savings
bank
charter
would
be
enhanced
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is,
it
would
be
strengthened
by
the
proposed
change
that
would
be
consistent
with
the
national
banking
laws.
In
addition,
the
change
will
make
nevada
savings
bank
charters
more
competitive,
as
mr
kane
said,
that
is
an
important
issue
for
nevada,
since
we
have
lost
about
50
percent
of
our
banks
during
the
recession
and
we're
looking
at
trying
to
be
more
competitive
to
get
more
financial
institutions
into
the
state.
L
I
would
also
want
to
point
out
that
charles
swab
bank
is
endless
amount
of
funds
into
the
community.
Reinvestment
act
nationally
over
two
billion
dollars,
and
they
have
also
invested
in
in
nevada
in
their
tenure
here,
so
we're
very
pleased
to
have
them
as
a
financial
institution
in
our
state,
and
we
think
that
this
these
changes
make
good
sense
for
the
state
of
nevada.
Thank
you.
K
B
Good
morning,
chair
and
committee
members,
sandia
laflin
s-a-n-d-y
o-l-a-u-t-h-l-I-n,
commissioner
of
the
financial
institutions.
Division.
Excuse
me
I'm
here
today
to
testify
in
support
of
ab2-90.
This
bill
makes
changes
to
nrs
chapter
673,
saving
banks
and
nrs
chapter
669
trust
companies
allowing
employer-sponsored
ira
investments.
B
K
K
A
Thank
you
committee
members
position
questions.
I
guess
I
just
have
one,
because
we
have
a
bill
making
its
way
through
the
legislature
requiring
banks
to
do
some
things
with
respect
to
their
obligations
for
community
reinvestment
act
so
schwab.
I
heard
mr
reynolds
say
that
they've
been
a
real
good
community
partner.
Are
they
subject
to
the
community
reinvestment
act,
also
known
as
cra.
E
Trust
bank
actually
is
not
subject
to
cra
requirements.
They
have
received
a
special
purpose
bank
exemption
from
the
fdic,
because
we
do
not
generally
engage
in
consumer
activities.
We,
we
are
largely
an
institutional
institutional
accounts,
custody
and
retirement
accounts
for
for
corporate
entities,
and
the
fdic
does
not
require
us
to
do
that.
That
being
said,
schwab
does
have
some
investments
in
the
nevada
community.
E
Our
our
local
employees
are
involved,
schwab
does
a
lot
of
volunteering
work
and
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
community
development
work,
and
there
are
our
people
are
involved
in
that
on
a
regular
and
ongoing
basis.
M
M
I
represent
assembly
district
25
for
the
record,
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
bill
366.,
and
I
would
like
to
just
briefly
describe
what
this
bill
does
give
a
little
bit
of
background
and
then
introduce
some
co-presenters.
With
your
permission,
madam
chair,
thank
you
so
much
so
today,
I'm
here
to
present
assembly
bill
366,
which
exempts
recordings
of
certain
training
activities
from
the
retention,
maintenance
and
disclosure
of
health
care
records
by
mental
health
professionals.
M
M
M
N
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
tolls,
chair
spearmen
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
dr
whitney
owens
and
I'm
the
board
chair
for
the
nevada
board
of
psychological
examiners.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
about
ab366,
so
audio
and
videotaping
psychotherapy
sessions
has
been
a
standard
practice
for
training,
psychologists
and
other
mental
health
professions
for
many
decades.
N
Our
desire
to
clean
up
the
current
language
in
nrs
is
to
ensure
our
current
way
of
training.
Future
generations
of
mental
health
professionals
will
not
be
impaired
as
most
people
if
they
knew
that
the
audio
or
video
tapes
would
be
a
part
of
the
record
would
not
be
willing
to
have
their
psychotherapy
sessions
audio
or
video
tape
due
to
concerns
about
confidentiality
and
privacy.
N
This
discrepancy
in
our
standard
practice
in
the
language
nrs
came
to
the
attention
of
our
board
through
a
psychologist.
Working
at
the
university
of
nevada
reno
after
their
university
attorneys
told
them
that
they
would
need
to
keep
their
audio
and
video
recordings
based
on
the
current
language
of
nrs
as
psychologists
and
other
mental
health
professionals
in
nevada
currently
do
not
keep
the
training,
audio
or
video
tapes.
This
caused
great
concern
for
our
board.
We
obtained
an
attorney
attorney
general's
decision
and
they
concurred
with
your
unr
attorney.
N
F
Senator
pickert,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
interesting
to
me.
I
view
these
sorts
of
things
through
the
lens
of
a
litigator,
where
I
it's
customary
for
me
to
want
to
get
evidence
in
a
case,
and
so
I
understand
the
the
the
desire
to
destroy
these
records
if
they
are
used
purely
for
purposes
of
training.
F
However,
I'm
I'm
also
aware
that
there
are
a
number
of
practitioners
who
record
often
through
video
means
their
sessions.
It
allows
them
to
take
better
notes
to
more
fully
understand
the
colloquy
between
the
patient
and
the
therapist,
and
so
I
I
assume
that
those
would
remain
as
part
of
their
records
that
this
only
affects
records
made
for
purposes
of
training.
Is
that
correct.
N
Whitney
owens
for
the
record,
that's
a
really
great
question
and
I
don't
think
that
that's
standard
of
practice
for
most
mental
health
professionals
to
audio
or
videotape
our
sessions
unless
we're
doing
some
kind
of
training.
So,
for
example,
there
might
be
licensed
professionals
who
would
record
their
sessions
for
the
context
of
receiving
consultation
or
or
other
kind
of
pure
supervision,
or
things
like
that.
But
the
standard
of
practice
is
then
to
destroy
them
and
not
keep
them
as
a
part
of
the
record.
N
Really
it's
a
way
of
ensuring
the
best
treatment
for
the
patient
and
ensuring
that
they
get
the
best
treatment
that
they
can
without
having
it
as
a
part
of
their
clinical
record
that
could
be
later
used
against
them
or
could
later
be
accessed
by
family.
So,
as
I
was
sharing
this
with
a
colleague
one
of
one
of
the
things
that
they
mentioned,
they
said
oh,
my
gosh.
I
would
not
want
to
have
access
to
you
know
my
father's
records
after
he
dies.
N
You
know
what,
if
he
talked
about,
you
know
hating
being
a
parent,
and
then
your
child
has
access
to
all
of
your
mental
health
records.
As
mental
health
professionals,
we
document
the
session,
we
document
the
the
methods
that
we're
using
the
response
from
the
patient,
but
we
don't
tend
to
document
exact
statements
from
the
patient.
For
that
reason,
because
if
they
do
get
access,
it
could
be
used
against
them
in
a
way
that
was
never
intended
or
not.
M
F
Thank
you,
and
I
appreciate
that,
as
I
was
going
through
section
two
and
three
and
I'd
look
at
you
know
if,
if
these
records
were
used
initially
or
recorded
initially
for
the
purpose
of
maintaining
a
more
robust
understanding
by
the
therapist,
and
then
you
know,
if
they
had
the
proper
informed
consent,
then
they
could
be
used
in
training.
F
But
you
know
now
we're
starting
to
kind
of
blur
the
line
a
little
bit
where
it
wasn't
initially
and
solely
recorded
for
the
purposes
of
training,
but
was
also
part
of
the
therapeutic
process
in
terms
of
the
the
practitioners
understanding,
we've
got
a
blurred
line,
and-
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
and-
and
I
also
recognize
this
is
different
from
a
forensic
evaluation
where
the
purpose
of
the
evaluation
is
for
to
generate
evidence
right
and
of
course
those
are
a
separate
beast,
but
we've
got
a
potential
for
blurring
of
the
lines
and
and
I
would
hate
to
think
that
we
would
have
a
and-
and
there
are
also
confidentiality
requirements.
F
To
the
doctor's
point.
But
my
concern
is
this:
that
if
you
know,
if
we're
not
clear
on
the
record
that
this
applies
to
recordings
that
are
made
for
the
purposes
of
training,
then
those
records
should
remain
even
if
those
records
are
subsequently
used
in
some
training
capacity.
Even
though
that
was
not
the
original
intent.
I
want
to
make
sure
those
records
are
retained
because
not
particularly
when
we
get
into
malpractice
and
other
kinds
of
issues,
we
need
those
records,
and
the
video
record
is
often
much
better
than
the
recorded
record.
M
Madam
tariff
emmy,
thank
you
and
I
appreciate
your
concerns
and
again
all
those
other
statutes
would
still
remain
in
place.
But
I
would
direct
the
members
of
this
committee
to
section
two
subsection
one
b,
which
says
that
the
patient
has
provided
informed
consent
to
the
use
of
the
recording
in
the
training
activity.
M
In
response
to
the
questions
about
whether
or
not
any
lines
are
blurred,
and
this
would
be
very
specifically
something
that
we
would
have
a
record
of
informed
consent
that
it
is
for
the
purpose
of
training.
And
that's
the
limitation
of
this
provision
in
this
proposed
language
that
you
would
be
adopting.
F
I
appreciate
that
and
and
again
mine
is
the
other
side
of
that
coin,
where
it
wasn't
originally
recorded
for
the
purposes
of
training,
even
though
they
may
ultimately
get
an
informed
consent
to
allow
it
to
be
used
in
training
subsequently,
if
it
is
a
recording
of
a
therapy
session
with
the
purpose
of
aiding
the
therapy.
I
think
that
that's
an
important
distinction
that
we
might
want
to
make.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
N
Dr
dr
whitney
owens,
they
they
can
it's
possible
to
access
records.
You
know
posthumously,
and
I
think
you
know
after
I
said
that
I
realized
that
was
a
little
outside
of
the
the
scope
is
still
and
though
it
also
provides
good
rationality.
We
don't
want
to
keep
especially
if
the
intention
is
just
for
training.
We
don't
want
to
keep
an
audio
or
video
reporting
for
that
reason
than
many
many
others.
I
Destroy
a
record
I,
I
can
see
senator
pickard's
concern
about
that.
So
we
have
an
obligation
to
retain
records
and-
and
I
was
looking
through
all
of
these
people
specifically
noted-
and
I
didn't
see
the
word
psychiatrist
and
all
the
things
that
you
were
looking
at
psychologist:
marriage
in
clinical,
professional
and
social
and
social
and
but
I
didn't
see
the
word
psychiatrist
and
I'm
thinking
did
you
leave
that
one
out
on
purpose
and
then
in
retrospect,
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
all
the
questions
in
retrospect.
I
Does
this
allow
people
who
have
now
got
the
records
to
destroy
the
records
or
is
this
going
forward,
and
can
you
sometimes
say
that
the
training
is
for
the
patient?
So
if
you
record
the
patient
in
some
state
and
play
it
back
six
months
later
or
a
year
later,
are
we
not
training
the
patient
to
see
where
they've
been
and
where
they're
going
and
where
they
are,
and
obviously
the
psychiatrist
is
under
a
different
board,
but
that
board
will
have
requirements
for
re
retention
of
records
and
who
can
get
the
record?
N
Whitney
owns
for
the
record,
we
did
reach
out
medical
board
and
they
they
had
no
comment
for
us.
We
weren't
able
to
get
any
any
support
or
opposition,
for.
N
I
think
it's
a
bit
more
complicated
as
psychiatrists
are
under
the
full
medical
board,
and
I
can
see
situations
where
they
meet.
They
might
want
to
retain
audio
or
video
recordings
in
in
the
medical
world
for
for
various
purposes.
N
N
Whitney
owens
for
the
record,
the
standard
of
practice
for
training
records
is
that
the
the
trainee
would
take
the
audio
or
video
recording
they
might
listen
to
it
for
their
own
purposes,
for
their.
You
know
to
to
critique
their
work
for,
and
they
would
provide
it
to
their
supervisor
for
use
either
to
listen
to
prior
to
supervision
or
in
supervision,
and
then,
after
that,
it's
immediately
destroyed.
That's
the
standard
of
practice
for
mental
health
training
in
most
jurisdictions.
N
N
This
is
standard
of
practice,
and
until
it
came
to
our
attention,
most
training
records
are
consistently
destroyed
after
they're
listened
to
and
after
supervision
takes
place.
So
it
wouldn't
give
permission
to
destroy
any
previous
records
that
were
that
were
kept
any
previous
audio
or
video
recordings
that
were
kept.
It
would
just
yeah
give
permission
to
to
continue
doing
what
we're
doing
already.
N
Just
for
training
our
students,
so
post-docs
interns,
psychological
trainees
or
social
work
interns,
it
would
just
allow
us
to
not
keep
those
records
in
terms
of
training
our
patients,
so
we
don't
typically
keep
any
record
of
that.
So
in
certain
in
certain
therapies,
patients
may
record
themselves
outside
of
session
engaging
in
you
know,
skills,
training
or
things
like
that,
but
that
never
goes
into
their
clinical
record,
that's
owned
by
the
patient.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
so
what
I
had
a
my
questions
were
the
length
of
time
that
the
recordings
would
be
used,
the
number
of
uses
and
the
number
of
persons
who
would
have
access
during
the
training
to
the
actual
recordings
and
and
then
you
could
just
kind
of
take
these
all
at
once
and
then
the
fourth
is:
what
happens
if
there's
a
disclosure
like
a
disclosure
related
to
either
criminal
activity,
fraud,
etc,
things
that
may
trigger
some
legal
liability
around
within
that
training
and
that
that
patient
discloses
something
or
or
in
this
case,
where
you
have
the
family
therapist
piece
and
they
disclose
something
that
may
be
related
to
their
divorce
or,
what's
probably
going
to
help
them
get
one
anyway.
N
Whitney
owens
for
the
record,
so
in
the
case
of
in
the
case
of
who
has
who
would
have
access
to
that
training
tape,
it's
all
detailed
in
our
informed
consent.
So
when
a
patient
comes
in
for
therapy,
they
know
exactly
who's
going
to
have
access
to
that
record.
So
if,
if
the
student
is
sharing
it
with
their
advisor
or
their
supervisor,
you
know
it's
detailed
in
that
informed
consent.
If
it's
shared
with
a
consultation
team,
it's
detailed
in
the
informed
consent,
so
the
patient
knows
exactly
who
has
access
to
that?
N
N
So
you
know,
depending
on
the
frequency
of
supervision,
which
is
typically
weekly,
the
the
tape,
the
audio
or
videotape
might
stay
live
for
a
week
or
so
and
maybe
a
little
bit
longer
than
that,
maybe
up
to
two
weeks,
but
typically
they're
destroyed
pretty
quickly
and
then
in
terms
of
it
being
accessed.
N
For
you
know
for
like
a
family
therapy
situation,
if
there's
a
court
case
typically,
because
the
informed
consent
states
that
the
audio
or
video
tape
would
be
destroyed,
it
is
the
contract
that
we
have
with
a
patient
that
that's
not
a
part
of
their
record
that
it's
going
to
be
destroyed,
and
so
from
the
outset
you
know
patients
are
informed
that
that's
not
something
that
they're
going
to
be
able
to.
N
They
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
access
that
themselves
because
it's
not
a
part
of
the
record,
and
then
they
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
access
that
for
legal
proceedings
in
the
future,
because
it's
meant
for
the
it's
meant
for
training
purposes.
Only
any
other
parts
of
any
other
parts
of
the
therapy
are
documented
in
the
clinical
note
and,
and
that
record
is
kept.
You
know
per
per
clinical
note
rules
in
nrs
and
timelines,
but
it's
all
documented
in
the
notes.
C
Thank
you.
I
have
a
couple
of
clarifying
questions
as
well
and
I
think
my
colleague
senator
hardy
alluded
to
this
or
or
almost
got
there.
My
question
is,
I
think
what
you
said
was
that
this
came
to
your
attention,
because
psychologists
at
unr
had
the
were
creating
these
tapes
for
training
purposes.
They
were
destroying
them
as
normal
practice
and
they
were
told
by
council
that
they
had
to
retain
them
and
the
attorney
general
waited
and
agreed.
N
Whitney
owens
for
the
record:
no,
they
actually
stopped
right
when
right,
when
their
attorney
informed
them
of
this,
and
so
they
haven't
been
using
audio
or
videotapes
for
training
purposes,
which
is
our
concern
is
that
if,
if
we
had
to
keep
all
of
our
audio
and
video
recordings,
we
would
not
use
those
for
training
purposes,
we
would.
We
would
have
to
either
sit
in
with
our
trainees,
which
would
drastically
reduce
the
mental
health
workforce
in
nevada,
because
you
know
instead
of
having
two
providers
able
to
provide
services.
N
At
the
same
time,
you
would
only
have
one
because
we
would
have
to
be
in
the
room
or
behind
like
a
two-way
mirror,
which
was
what
we
kind
of
did
before.
Audio
and
video
recordings
were
were
very
possible,
and
so
we
wouldn't,
we
wouldn't
even
have
those
records.
No
one
would
keep
them.
C
Okay,
now
I
understand
thank
you
and
I
have
a
follow-up
question
which
may
be
a
little
bit
outside
the
scope
of
this
bill,
but
I'm
just
curious
if
you
can
speak
a
little
bit
to
how
the
practice
has
changed
with
the
implementation
of
new
technology.
I'm
imagining
you
know
if
I
were
a
marriage
and
family
therapist.
I
would
record
that
session
on
my
iphone
in
the
session
and
then
I'd
probably
go
home
and
listen
to
it
on
my
computer
as
a
student
or
as
a
trainee
and
then
delete
it
from
both
places.
C
But
it
again
I
don't
know
if
it's
outside
the
scope,
but
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
whether
we
need
to
address
specifically
the
issue
of
cloud
storage
of
these
recordings
or
duplication
of
these
recordings,
or
if
there
is
another
program
or
software,
that
mental
health
professionals
use
that.
I'm
not
aware
of.
N
Whitney
owens
for
the
record,
so
all
mental
health
professionals
are
bound
by
hipaa
and
so
anytime.
We
make
any
kind
of
electronic
record
of
anything.
We're
required
to
have
two-factor
authentication
so
making
sure
that
we
have
two
blocks
before
somebody
could
access
the
information,
so
an
iphone
would
not
meet
that
metric.
We
wouldn't.
We
aren't
able
to
use
our
iphones
to
record
sessions.
Some
standards
of
practice
are
just
to
use
an
old-fashioned.
N
You
know
audio
recorder,
sometimes
we'll
use
good
old-fashioned
vhs.
You
know
things
are
coming
along
rapidly,
but
we're
you
know
we're
working
really
hard
with
it
companies
to
make
sure
that
to
make
sure
that
we
can
meet
that
hipaa
standard.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
line
of
questioning.
It
brings
up
a
whole
lot
of
other
questions.
Unfortunately,
and
in
that
respect
I
think
what
I'm
looking
at
is
so
if
we
pass
this
bill,
it
means
that
once
again,
potentially
they
will
be
utilizing
this
resource
recording
devices
for
training
purposes,
but
then,
of
course,
myself
before
I
can
vote
on
the
bill,
I
need
to
know
about
the
accessibility
of
individuals
to
this
information
and
the
admissibility
of
that
information,
potentially
in
any
legal
setting.
B
N
Yeah,
so
I
wish
I
wouldn't
have
whitney
owens
I
wish
I
wouldn't
have
used
that
example,
because
the
reality
is
is
that
if
this
doesn't
pass
meant
our
you
know,
our
mental
health
professionals
will
just
no
longer
use
audio
or
video
recordings
for
training
training
purposes.
N
For
that
reason
is
that
we
wouldn't
want
those
to
be
kept
to
be
kept
as
a
part
of
the
clinical
record.
They
were
never
meant
to
be
a
part
of
the
clinical
record.
That's
not
that's
not
the
way.
Patients
understand
it
in
our
informed
consent.
We
specifically
state
this
is
for
training
purposes,
only
to
make
sure
that
you
get
the
best
care
possible
to
make
sure
that
you
know
you
don't
just
have
the
student's
eyes
on
you.
N
You
have
the
licensed
professionals
eyes
on
you,
and
so,
if
you
know,
if
this
doesn't
pass,
our
whole
training
community
will
have
to
get
really
creative
in
figuring
out.
How
do
we
provide
high
quality
supervision
of
our
next
generation
of
mental
health
professionals,
and
the
solution
will
be
that
we
have
to
do
in
vivo
supervision
in
person
which
will
drastically
reduce
the
workforce?
So
it's
been
standard
of
practice.
N
K
Along
the
same
lines,
what
I'm
really
concerned
about
is,
I
understand
the
informed
consent,
but
once
there's
a
video
or
once
there's
a
recording,
those
can
go
anywhere
and
so
do
for
training
purposes.
Do
those
recordings
stay
in
a
particular
building,
or
do
they
go
out?
Do
people
take
them
home?
It's
so
easy
to
make
copies.
K
N
Whitney
owens
for
the
record
yeah,
so
we
have
just
the
same
concerns
as
you.
We
don't
want
those
records
to
go
anywhere,
they're
not
supposed
to
go
and
so
we're
bound
by
hipaa.
We
have
to
create
an
assurance
that
those
records
are
kept.
You
know
under
lock
and
key,
and
only
and
only
access
by
who
they
should
be
accessed
by
each
practice.
N
Each
company
is
mandated
to
have
a
policy
and
procedure
as
to
how
they're
keeping
these
audio
and
video
recordings,
and
if
they
don't
follow
that
you
know
policy
and
procedure,
and
perhaps
those
records
do
get
out,
then
our
board
would
hear
the
complaints
about
that,
and
we
would
you
know,
we're
in
charge
of
regulating
that
to
make
sure
that
psychologists
and
mental
health
professionals
are
are
ensuring
that
they're
following
their
rules
and
regulations
and
still
we
would
never
want
that
to
happen.
N
A
Okay,
thank
you,
dr
owens.
I
had
flashbacks
of
doing
my
doctoral
research
and
sending
out
the
notices
to
the
people
who
had
consented.
You
know
the
institutional
review
board
has
to
look
at
your
entire
study
and
they
have
to
make
sure
that
the
people
who
participate
are
protected,
and
so
I
had
to
send
out
a
consent
form
to
everyone
and
then
get
it
back.
A
And
then,
when
I
take
the
interview
I
had
to
tell
them.
This
is
what
I'm
doing
it's
about
global
energy
policy
and
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
what
that
looks
like
from
your
perspective
as
a
professional,
blah,
blah
and
irb
required
required
me
to
keep
those
records
for
five
years
and
then
destroy,
and
that's
just
in
case.
Anybody
had
a
question
about
my
research
or
the
validity
validity
of
my
conclusions.
A
Is
there
anything
like
an
irb,
because
I'm
pretty
sure
that
I'm
pretty
sure
that
people
who
go
through
the
the
training
of
mentor
anything
psychiatrists
psychologists?
A
We
had
to
do
the
same
thing
when
I
was
in
seminary,
and
we
had
you
know,
training
sessions
as
it
were,
where
we
would
talk
about
some
of
the
things
that
we
encountered
and
kind
of
work
through
that
as
a
way
for
if
it
didn't
happen
to
me,
but
it
happened
to
one
of
my
student
colleagues,
then
I
would
learn
about
that
and
also
learn
how
to
address
the
issue.
If
it
came
up,
is
there
anything
that
we
can
glean
from
the
irb
institutional
review
board?
A
Address
the
questions
of
number
one:
why
would
it
be
necessary
number
two?
How
do
we
protect
that?
Because,
when
you,
when
you're
doing
research
with
human
subjects,
it's
very
very
strict
and
you
have
to
put
down
exactly
what
you're
doing
I
mean
you
can't
even
do
it?
You
can't
substitute
an
if
for
an
end?
N
Dr
whitney
owens,
it's
a
great
question
that
I'm
not
sure
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
answer
thoroughly,
but
I'll
do
my
very
best.
The
difference,
I
think
is,
is
research
versus
treatment.
N
You
know,
after
the
review
of
the
one
session-
and
you
know
again
back
to,
we
wouldn't
keep
those
records,
because
patients
wouldn't
sign
up
to
be
recorded
if
they
knew
that
those
records
were
kept.
N
Many
patients
already
refuse
treatment
with
students
because
of
because
of
being
recorded
or
video
recorded.
They
just
don't
want
that.
That
is
a
part
of
their
record.
It's
just
not
a
part
of
clinical
practice
that
we
typically
tape
our
sessions.
For
that
reason,
people
really
want
confidentiality
and
privacy.
N
N
Having
people
know
that
every
word
that
they
say
if
they
say
I
hate
my
children
and
that
could
come
on.
You
know
back
to
them
later
or
you
know
telling
really
vulnerable
scary
things
about
yourself,
and
you
knew
that
that
was
recorded,
and
somebody
was
going
to
use
that
against
you.
Why
would
you
ever
go
to
therapy
you
just
wouldn't?
N
And
so
you
know
we
don't
want
to
create
another
barrier
for
our
trainees
to
not
get
the
best
experience
that
they
can
and
the
best
supervision
that
they
can
and
we
don't
want
to.
You
know
create
such
a
burden
on
supervisors
that
they
have
to
be
in
session
with
their
with
their
with
their
students
at
all
times,
because
then
supervision
becomes
a
burden
and
not
a
joy,
and
so
our
ability
to
train
future
generations
would
just
decrease
tremendously.
N
A
A
We
did
the
same
thing
when
I
was
training
to
be
a
trauma
chaplain,
it's
called
a
verbatim.
A
A
So
if
there's,
if
the
process
is
for
the
irb
for
the
institutional
review
board,
I
had
to
keep
all
of
my
records
all
the
recordings,
everything
for
five
years
and
and
trauma
chaplain
training
after
after
that
semester
was
up
or
our
extent
at
the
hospital
was
up.
We
had
to
destroy
everything,
so
it
was
a
start
and
an
identifiable
end.
If
you
will
I'm
just
talking
about
the
process,
not
training
or
but
just
the
process.
N
Whitney
owens,
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
the
question,
so
the
question
is:
is
there
a
detailed
outline
in
the
informed
consent
about
how
long
these
recordings
are
kept?
Is
that
is
that
the
question
that
you're
on.
A
Yes,
ma'am
because
I
I
may
be
misunderstanding,
but
the
questions
that
I
hear
from
my
colleagues
from
the
committee
members
is
that
getting
into
the
wrong
hands,
and
so
they
signed
an
informed
consent
as
a
part
of
that
informed
consent.
A
N
So
in
our
informed
consent
it
specifically
states
that
the
patient
will,
you
know
the
patient
agrees
to
being
recorded,
will
be
recorded
in
the
session
that
they
have
with
the
student
and
then
the
recording
is
destroyed
after
the
supervision,
and
so
there's
no
specific
timeline
like
one
week
or
two
weeks,
and
part
of
that
is
to
create
a
bit
of
latitude
to
make
sure
that
you
know
a
bit
of
latitude
so
that
if
supervision
occurs
within
you
know
like
a
week
and
a
half
of
the
session
or
two
weeks
of
the
session,
we,
you
know,
we
don't
have
a
specific
timeline,
but
it
is
destroyed
right
after
the
supervision
occurs.
N
In
terms
of
the
clinical
record,
the
recording
isn't
kept
in
the
clinical
record,
so
many
mental
health
professionals
have
switched
to
an
electronic
health
record
and
in
order
to
be
kept
as
a
part
of
that
that
record,
it
would
have
to
be
uploaded
into
the
electronic
health
record,
which
is
not
standard
practice
and
doesn't
happen.
So
typically,
it's
kept
on
a
separate
recorder.
N
Whatever
that
device
is
whether
it's
a
video
recorder
or
an
audio
recorded
and
that's
kept
in
a
in
a
separate
place.
You
know
under
locking
key
per
hipaa
rules.
N
So
you
know
as
long
as
as
long
as
practitioners
are
following
their
hipaa
rules,
then
in
terms
of
confidentiality
and
privacy,
the
the
risk
wouldn't
be
that
it
would
be
released
within
the
clinical
record
unless
we
don't
change
the
language.
If
we
do,
then
that's
a
different
story,
but
if
you
know,
if
the
language
is
changed,
then
the
recording
never
becomes
a
part
of
the
clinical
record,
it's
kept
separately
and
then,
if
somebody
were
to
pass
away,
the
same
practice
would
happen.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Is
there
language
in
the
bill
similar
tolls
that
the
captures.
M
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
question
and
happy
to
have
the
director
also
respond.
If,
but
is
if
your
question
is
in
regards
to
whether
or
not
there's
a
length
of
time
specifically
outlined
yeah
in
the
in
this
statutory
change,
I
in
my
review
of
the
bill-
that's
not
included
in
here,
but
it
is
my
understanding
that
it
that
could
be
addressed
through
regulations,
and
that
might
be
a
more
appropriate
place.
A
A
Somebody
says
something
and
then
it
comes
back
to
to
haunt
them
and-
and
I
guess
you
know
what
just
struck
me
is,
I
guess
maybe
similar
to
what
happens
when
you
have
medical
interns
doing
rounds
with
doctors
and
they
see
the
patient
and
they
know
everything
that's
going
on.
They
look
at
the
chart
and
then
they
make
some
type
of
assessment
again,
making
sure
that
there's
you
know
a
finite
time
and
everybody
understands
what
that
is.
It's
just
the
process.
A
You
know
it's,
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
in
a
particular
place,
but
it's
the
process.
You
know
kind
of
like
dr
seuss
in
a
plane
on
a
train.
It
doesn't
matter
so
so
that
that's
what
that's
what
I'm
looking
for
and
if
I
understand
it
correctly,
I
think
that's
that's
the
concern
of
the
committee
members.
How
do
we?
How
do
we
address
it?
And
I
have
no
problem
if
we,
if
we
put
in
statute
the
infrastructure
that
would
guide
people
who
would
be
setting
this
up?
A
Based
upon
their
individual
practice
or
what
needs
to
happen,
etc,
and
then
we
can
put,
we
can
put
the
specifics
in
the
nac,
but
but
just
some
something
to
address
the
questions
about
okay.
So
what
happens?
If
this?
What
happens?
If
that,
so
just
just
tighten
it
up
a
little
bit?
Are
you
amenable
to
that.
M
Absolutely
madam
chair
jill
tolls
for
the
record.
Absolutely,
of
course-
and
I
do
appreciate
all
the
questions
and
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
the
concern
for
the
patients
and-
and
that
really
is
what
this
bill
is
about-
is
making
sure
that
we
are
protecting
the
patients.
And
so
I
commend
the
members
of
this
committee
for
having
that
first
and
foremost
in
their
mind,
and
I
think
that
that
would
strengthen
and
make
the
bill
even
better
100
amenable
to
taking
a
look
at
how
we
could
add
any
clarifying
language.
M
And-
and
I
just
thank
you.
F
F
I
was
thinking
in
terms
of
a
classroom
experience
we're
recording
this
for
the
purpose
of
you
know
using
this
multiple
times
to
teach
students
at
the
university
setting
in
how
to
do
this,
and
so
I
I
and
I
this
bill
doesn't
distinguish
between
those
two
uses,
but
I'm
particularly
intrigued
by
the
discussion
about
the
informed
consent
form
because
it
sounds
like
number
one:
they
it's
a
standard
form,
but
then
there
was
a
comment
from
dr
owens
about.
You
know
that
that
there
may
be
different
forms
used
by
different
people.
F
N
Dr
whitney
owens
for
the
record,
so
it
is
in
our
ethics
code
and
in
I
mean
it's
a
really
great
question
that
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
it.
It's
just
what
we
do.
We
follow
our
ethics
code,
so
I
I
do
believe
legally
that
we
have
to
have
it
in
our
informed
consensus.
There's
no
one
standard
informed
consent.
Just
like
when
you
go
to
your
physician's
office,
your
physicians
have
their
own.
N
You
know
their
own
stylized
way
of
doing
their
informed
consents,
but
there
are
necessary
parts
that
are
included
in
the
informed
consent,
and
so
I'm
imagining
that
that's
in
statute
somewhere
and
it's
also
a
part
of
our
ethics
code,
so
it
has
to
be
in
our
informed
consent.
If
that's
what
we're
doing,
if
it's
not
in
our
informed
consent,
then
our
board
hears
hears
those
complaints
and
those
psychologists
become.
F
All
right,
that's
comforting,
because
that
would
be
critical
to
make
sure
that
every
practitioner
is
actually
getting
the
same
information
to
the
patient
and
and
then
it
is
truly
informed
consent
anyway,
I'll
I'll
take
the
remaining
clarification
questions
offline.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
A
Okay,
so
broadcast:
let's
go
to
the
phones,
now
15
minutes,
four
15
minutes
in
opposition
15
for
neutral
two
minutes
per
individual
and
we
need
to
have
a
hard
stop
at
two
minutes
because
we're
we're
running
over
into
the
floor
time
and
the
only
reason
I
say
that
is
because
there's
some
people
that
when
they
look
and
they
see
it's
going
to
start
at
11
o'clock-
they're
ready
for
it
to
start
11
o'clock.
And
if
we
start
at
one,
then
it's
kind
of
frustrating
the
system
so
broadcast.
Are
we
ready.
K
K
B
Hi,
can
you
hear
me
I'm
so
sorry.
B
One
second
good
afternoon,
women
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
erica
valdrez.
B
E-R-I-C-A-V-A-L-C-R
with
the
vagus
chamber,
the
chamber
is
in
support
of
ab366.
The
chamber
believes
that
this
bill
provides
support
to
mental
health
professionals,
especially
during
training.
We
believe
that
this
bill
will
help
improve
the
system
and
the
behavioral
health
of
our
community.
Thank
you,
chairwoman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
your
time.
We
urge
your
support
for
this
bill.
A
Let's
move
now
to
opposition
and
if
there
are
no
callers
there,
we'll
move
immediately
into
neutral,
okay.
A
M
Yes,
thank
you
so
much
madam
chair
members
of
this
committee
jill
tols
for
the
record.
I
do
very
much
appreciate
this
committee's
attention
to
this
matter
and
again
I
appreciate
the
questions
that
were
asked,
I'm
very
happy
to
work
with
the
board
and
also
the
members
of
this
committee
on
ensuring
that
you,
you
are
comfortable
with
the
language
so
that
we
can
move
it
forward.
M
I
I
do
believe
that
this
could
very
much
help
with
patient
privacy
and
security,
and
I
am
concerned
I
do
share
the
concerns
of
the
board
that
if
this
does
not
pass,
it
will
have
a
negative
impact
on
our
ability
to
provide
services
in
mental
health
settings
and
at
a
time
when
we
need
it
an
increasing
measure.
I
definitely
want
to
make
sure
that
we
find
a
way
to
get
the
language
just
right
so
that
we
can
move
this
forward.
M
confidential
information,
including
written
informed
consent
includes
recordings,
have
been
done.
Excuse
me
are
included
in
that
that
nac
and
the
recordings
have
been
done
since
recordings
have
been
possible
from
my
understanding
and
to
at
least
to
the
the
board's
knowledge
there's
been.
No
privacy
breaches
thus
far,
so
they
do
protect
the
the
recordings
with
their
life
and
we
want
to
be
able
to
give
them
the
opportunity
to
continue
in
a
way
that
would
make
this
body
and
comfortable
and
also
accomplish
our
goal
here.
Thank
you.
A
K
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
we'll
close
out
public
comment
committee
members,
additional
questions
comments
all
right,
so
everybody
welcome
to
our
hybrid
in
the
building
and
on
zoom,
and
we
will
be
right
back
at
it
on
friday
at
eight
o'clock.