►
From YouTube: 5/7/2021 - 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
D
A
A
Let
me
take
a
moment
to
go
over
some
housekeeping
items,
and
I
know
I
say
this
all
the
time
and
some
may
think
why
don't
we
just
get
on,
but
sometimes
we
have
new
people
and
they
may
not
know
so.
I
need
to
make
sure
that
everyone
knows
the
rules
of
the
road
before
we
get
started.
The
legislative
building
is
open
to
the
public
under
certain
restrictions.
A
Therefore,
there
are
some
presenters
and
some
people
in
the
audience
and
some
committee
members
who
will
be
working
and
testifying
remotely
they'll
be
conducted
through
zoom
video
conference
or
by
telephone.
There
are
various
ways
that
you,
the
members
of
the
public,
can
engage
with
us
and
participate
throughout
this
process.
You
can
register
to
participate
on
nellis
and
you'll
have
an
opportunity
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
request
to
join
the
meeting
in
person
to
provide
comments.
You
can
submit
your
written
comments
to
the
committee,
email
address
or
fax
number
that's
listed
on
the
agenda.
A
A
If
you
are
testifying
also
want
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
that
if
you
testify
and
say
something
or
you
give
something
information
that
is,
you
know
that
is
not
factual,
then
it
is
a
misdemeanor
and
any
member
of
this
committee
or
the
chair
might
call,
can
call
and
ask
for
you
to
submit
documentation
to
support
your
testimony
and
that's
pursuant
to
nrs218e.085.
A
Like
so
with
that,
why
don't
we
get
started
with
our
very
first
bill
and
one
more
thing
make
sure
that
you
meet
your
telephones,
your
laptops
and
anything
else
that
will
go
ding
and
then
anything
that
sounds
like
fruit
apple
about
blueberry.
Anything
that
sounds
like
you're
on
a
ski
trip
in
colorado.
Anything
that's
going
to
go!
Make
noise
during
the
during
the
hearing.
A
Please
make
sure
that
you
mute
it
so
as
not
to
disturb
those
who
are
testifying
or
those
who
are
trying
to
listen
and
also
want
to
make
sure
I've
had
an
opportunity
to
listen
to
to
our
meetings,
to
not
just
our
meetings
but
to
several
committee
meetings
on
the
youtube
channel
and
online.
A
If
you're
not
projecting
your
voice,
it
will
be
very
difficult
for
people
who
are
trying
to
listen
to
hear
what
you
are
saying
and
it's
very
unfair
if
they
have
taken
the
time
to
tune
in
if
we
don't
take
the
time
and
make
the
effort
to
speak
loud
enough
project
our
voice
and
speak
clearly
enough,
so
that
they
can
hear-
and
that
goes
to
not
only
committee
members
but
also
to
those
who
are
presenting,
would
request
that
you
adjust
your
microphones
now
and
your
position
or
your
proximity
to
the
microphone
so
that
you
are
speaking
not
in
your
outside
voice
but
don't
use
the
whisper
okay,
and
so
with
that,
let's
get
started.
A
I
want
to
begin
the
work
session
first
on
assembly,
the
assembly
bill
for
mr
melrejo.
Please
walk
us
through
the
bill.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
mel
grejo
committee
policy.
Analyst.
Our
first
bill
is
assembly
bill
4,
sponsored
by
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
on
behalf
of
division
of
insurance
and
department
of
business
and
industry,
and
it
was
heard
on
april
28.
2021
assembly
bill
4
makes
various
changes
concerning
the
nevada
insurance
guarantee
association,
among
other
things,
the
bill
limits.
G
A
I
H
A
Yes,
and
so
with
that,
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
carries
and
I'm
going
to
ask
senator
lang.
Will
you
take
the
force
statement
on
this.
A
Thank
you
work
session
now
on
assembly
bill
18,
mr
marijuan.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
mcgregor
committee
policy.
Analyst
assembly,
bill
18
is
sponsored
by
assembly
committee
and
commerce
and
labor
on
behalf
of
division
of
insurance
of
department
of
business,
business
and
industry,
and
was
also
heard
on
april
28
2021
assembly
bill
18
eliminates
the
limitation
on
the
maximum
amount
of
uninsured
vehicle
coverage
that
may
be
provided
by
more
motor
vehicle
liability
insurance
policy.
J
A
J
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
got
you
so
we
have
a
second
from
for
a
motion
by
first
chair
meal
and
we
have
a
second
from
center
lane
additional
questions
or
discussions.
I
H
A
Yes
and
let
the
motion,
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
carry
I'm
going
to
ask
senator
pickard.
Will
you
take
this
for
a
floor
statement?
Please.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
cesar
mel
guerrero
committee
policy.
Analyst.
Our
next
bill
is
assembly
bill
45,
again
sponsored
by
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
insurance
of
the
department
of
business
and
industry,
and
it
was
heard
on
april
28.
2021
assembly
bill
45
makes
various
changes
relating
to
insurance.
Among
other
things,
the
measure
revises
provisions
relating
to
bonds
filed
by
various
persons
regulated
by
the
commissioner
of
insurance,
revises
provisions
governing
the
service
of
processes
on
certain
insurers
and
revises
provisions
governing
the
issue.
F
Wins,
renewal
and
expiration
of
various
license.
Licenses
permits,
certifications
and
other
authorizations
to
engage
in
an
activity
relating
to
insurance,
provide
specific
requirements
for
certain
stop-loss
insurance
policies
and
the
insurers
who
issue
them
revises
certain
requirements
governing
holding
holding
companies
and
reinsurers
and
reinsurance
expands.
The
list
of
statutory
provisions
to
which
certain
health
care,
related
entities
and
risk
retention
groups
are
expressly
made
subject
and
revises
provisions
governing
annual
disclosures
by
certain
persons
regulated
by
the
commissioner
of
insurance
and
madam
chair.
The
sponsors
have
noted
that
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
A
Thank
you
committee
members,
questions
comments,
madam.
G
I
appreciated
the
amendments
that
were
provided
in
that
respect,
I'm
trying
to
find
a
way
to
try
to
help
out
some
of
the
small
self-insured
groups.
I
believe
that
some
of
the
regulations
that
are
currently
in
practice
are
a
little
bit
onerous
on
them
and
that
we
could
do
a
lot
to
try
to
help
out
these
small
businesses
in
that
respect.
G
E
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
So
for
the
record,
this
is
barbara
richardson
from
the
department
of
insurance,
so
the
amendment
that
was
provided.
The
second
amendment,
which
I
believe
that
senator
sandermeyer
is
referring
to
the
concerns,
is
that
it
alters
the
sovereignty
controls
by
asking
that
every
sig,
no
matter
its
size
or
the
risk
that
it
covers,
be
treated
as
if
you're
an
entry-level
sig,
and
that's
not
really
what
that
statue
was
intended
to
do.
E
The
statutes
specifically
have
different
thresholds
to
address
new
entrants
in
comparison
to
six
that
have
been
in
business
over
three
years.
The
concern
is
workers,
comp
claims
are
long
tailed
and
can
run
over
30
years
and
we're
a
little
concerned
about
just
making
that
one
change
in
that
statute,
because
these
these
tails
and
the
different
sets
of
liabilities
for
those
who
sigs
who've
been
in
business
longer
are
different.
But
I
would
say
in
in
response
to
health,
trying
to
help
out
the
smaller
cigs.
E
So
the
second
request-
I
don't
know
if
you
want
me
to
address
that
too,
on
the
second
request
that
they
made
but
I'll
put
it
forward.
Real
quick
is
that
it
asks
us
to
amend
the
or
alter
the
requirement
for
sigs
to
perform
an
annual
audit
of
their
members
risks,
and
this
information
is
used
to
determine
the
amount
of
the
member
rates
and
assessments
to
the
sigs
themselves,
and
information
from
this
audit
is
used
to
calculate
the
rates
and
assessments
based
on
the
actual
underlying
rate
factors.
E
So,
if
you're
a
smaller
sig,
it's
less
work
and
it's
more
confined
anyway,
I
mean
that
actually
goes
by
the
size
of
the
sig.
But
without
this
audit
there's
a
potential
under
or
over
pricing.
The
risk
pool
and
under
pricing
causes
insolvency
and
over
pricing
pricing
may
cause
the
small
employers
actually
pay
more
than
is
necessary
for
the
risk
pools.
E
So
those
are
the
two
reasons
why
we
don't
feel
comfortable
with
this
particular
amendment,
but
we
do
feel
that
we
are
committed
just
as
a
division
to
working
with
each
of
the
things
individually
to
really
look
at
their
solvency
tools
and
their
solvency
protections
because,
as
as
senator
said,
oh
my
points
out
they're,
not
all
the
same
size,
one
size
shouldn't
fit
all,
but
the
changes
that
are
being
requested
in
the
sig
statutes
right
now
wouldn't
be
helpful
for
making
those
distinctions.
G
I
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
ask
that
question
madam
chair.
In
that
respect,
though
I
would,
I
think
the
number
two
amendment
is
very
minimal,
but
it
does
a
lot
of
great
things
for
these
self-insured
groups
continuing
to
do
audits,
all
the
time
can
be
rather
costly
and
problematic.
I
mean
if
there
was
proof
that
these
previous
audits,
that
they've
done,
has
there
been
any
proof
of
any
of
the
previous
audits
showing
that
there
were
problems
in
the
past
that
needed
to
be
corrected.
G
G
E
So,
thank
you
senator
settlemyre.
This
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
The
actual
issue
with
these
audits
has
to
do
with
determining
pricing
and
based
on
the
standard
classifications
and
based
on
our
understanding
from
the
industry
themselves.
E
They
have
not
been
using
the
standard
industrial
classification
codes,
so
I
would
suggest
that
right
away,
since
that's
what
they're,
based
on
that
there's
a
problem
underneath
lying
underneath
the
any
kind
of
information
that's
come
out
and,
as
you
probably
know,
from
other
statutes
and
statutory
requests
that
we've
made
we
as
a
division,
we
try
to
be
as
as
efficient
and
try
to
be
as
accommodating
to
any
kind
of
market
and
business
or
that
we
oversee,
because
that
we
don't
want
people
to
keep
on
providing
us
data
or
duplicative
data
or
data.
E
That's
not
necessary
to
help
them.
Actually,
you
know
service
their
members
and
take
care
of
the
market
themselves,
and
in
this
case
that,
given
that
they're
they
haven't
been
for
using
the
proper
underlying
tools,
our
fear
was
that
taking
it
away
right
now
is
probably
not
appropriate.
G
J
Chair
spearman
senator
lang.
Yes,
this
is
senator
lange,
so
I
too
have
the
same
concerns
that
senator
settlemyre
brought
up
and
without
I'll
just
ditto
his
comments
and
just
say
that
I'm
gonna
have
trouble
supporting
the
bill
unless
we
accept
the
amendment
number
two.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
since
it
looks
like
a
vote,
might
hinge
on
our
positions.
I
I
share
the
same
concerns
and
can't
support
the
bill
without
that
amendment,
so
I
thought
I
should
probably
weigh
in
and
let
you
know
that.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
if
you're
ready
to
allow
a
motion
to
accept
amendment,
what
we
call
number
two
into
the
bill,
I
think
that
would
probably
be
appropriate
and
I
would
say.
A
A
Commissioner
richardson,
so
I
I
just
need
to
understand,
so
I
think
the
opposition
to
amendment
two
stems
from
the
way
the
bill
is
currently
written.
Without
the
amendment
is,
I
heard
you
say
you
want
to
make
sure
that
the
pricing
is
right.
Is
that
correct.
E
So
for
the
right,
this
is
barbara
richardson.
So
basically
the
prices
and
rates
that
the
the
members
actually
calculate
is
based
on
what
is
known
as
their
underlying
risk
and
since
we're
talking
workers
comp,
you
have
to
think
long
tail.
You
have
to
think
the
fact
that
nevada
has
the
ability
to
open
up
workers
claims
after
the
fact
that
you
know
they
have
a
lifetime
ability
to
reopen.
E
So
you
have
to
make
sure
that
you're
understanding
the
actual
underlying
risks
that
are
a
part
of
the
actual
pull
of
of
members
that
are
in
these
small
businesses.
For
example,
you
know
you
don't
want
to
charge
a
taxi
cab
driver
the
same
as
you
would
charge
an
office
worker.
You
don't
want
to
charge
a
construction
worker
the
same
as
you
would
charge
an
accountant.
It
just
so
happens.
E
There's
different
risks
involved
in
their
work,
and
these
annual
audits
are
supposed
to
make
sure
that
the
pool
of
members
and
the
employers
haven't
changed
enough.
For
example,
I
mean
with
covid:
there
could
have
been
a
large
swing
in
the
type
of
actual
work
that
was
involved
and
that
would
affect
how
much
the
the
risk
was
going
to
be
calculated,
and
then
it
would
affect
how
much
the
member
had
to
pay
into
the
the
to
the
sig
itself
for
the
assessment
and
the
and
the
rates.
So
the
the
concern
that
we
have.
E
E
It
really
goes
back
to
the
members
themselves
and,
if
there's
not
enough
money
being
paid
into
this
risk,
pool,
there's
an
insolvency
and
that
that
that
really
that
concerns
us,
because
I
think
we
mentioned
at
the
first
hearing-
if
you,
if
you
don't
calculate
these
with
good
faith
and
based
on
underlying
data
and
good
data,
then
your
insolvency
as
a
sig
will
cause
all
the
other
six
to
go
down
because
they
have
to
take
up
and
pay
for
in
any
insolvency.
E
So
we're
really
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
work
with
each
one
of
these
groups
separately.
But
we
need
to
make
sure
that
they're
actually
pricing
their
member
pool
correctly
and
right
now,
based
on
what
we've
found
they're,
not
so
that
that
does
cause
us
a
lot
of
angst.
And
I
do
it
like.
I
said
I
do
understand
the
to
you
know
like
requiring
it
every
year,
but
I
would
say
that
removing
the
maida
sh
our
wouldn't
change
the
fact
that
we
still
need
them
to
do
this.
E
To
start
the
the
move
in
the
right
direction,
and
I
it
it
appears
to
me
that
that,
if
we
let
them
out
from
underneath
this
requirement,
we're
never
going
to
be
able
to
get
them
back
on
track
and
provide
them.
The
information
and
the
training
that
they
need
to
understand.
These
classification
rates.
A
So,
commissioner,
will
you
say
what
you
just
said:
explain
it
to
me
like
you're,
talking
to
a
kindergarten
class,
I
want
to
understand
who's
the
person
that
is
paying
the
rate.
You
said
you
mentioned
taxi
cab
driver
versus
office
worker.
A
If
someone
has
a
business
and
they
are
the
workers
comp
includes
office.
Workers
walk
me
through
a
scenario
where
that
would
be
different.
If
the
office
worker
had
a
claim
or
the
taxi
cab
driver
had
a
claim,
I
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
the
similarities
or
the
difference
in
really
plain
terms
and,
and
then
after
that
I'd
like
for
our
legal
counsel
to
weigh
in
and
I
see
senator
picker's
hand
but
commissioner
richardson
first
then,
mr
king
next.
E
Certainly
so
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
Basically
so
say,
one
of
the
members
has
only
taxi
cab
drivers,
so
taxi
cab
drivers
have
certain
risks
for
being
on
the
road
for
being
on
the
road.
Often,
if
their
injury
happens,
it's
more
likely
as
a
workers
comp
claim
to
be
much
harsher,
unfortunately,
and
it
costs
more
because
it
might
last
for
a
longer
period
of
time,
office
workers
tend
not
to
have
those
same
type
of
risks,
their
that
their
chance
of
having
a
workers,
comp
claim
is
just
much
lower.
E
So
you
want
to
make
sure
that
if
you
have
a
pool
of
tax
cab
drivers
plus
a
pool
of
worker,
I
mean
office
workers
that
you're
not
charging
the
office
worker
team
or
you're,
not
charging
the
member
the
office
worker
rate
for
taxi
cab,
because
then
you
won't
have
enough
money
to
pay.
The
taxi
cab
claims
themselves
and
again
it
goes
the
other
way
around.
E
You
want
to
make
sure
that
if
you
have
a
lot
of
office
workers
and
some
taxi
cab
drivers,
you
want
to
make
sure
that
the
office
workers
are
being
charged
that
lower
rate,
because
their
risk
is
going
to
be
much
lower
and
their
claims
amounts
are
going
to
be
much
lower.
So
in
this
case
it
helps
the
actual
members
to
not
have
to
again
overpay
or
underpay
what
they're
they're
actually
trying
to
the
risk
they're
trying
to
cover
so.
A
Let
just
as
an
example,
because
I'm
real
I'm
trying
to
get
this
to
okay.
So
if
I
am
a
company-
and
I
have
office
workers
and
the
business
next
door
is
taxi
cab
drivers
if
taxi
cab
drivers,
if,
if
the
person
who
owns
that
business
is
being
charged,
let's
say
400
per
employee,
because
they're
tax
cab
drivers
that
same
400
could
apply
to
me,
even
though
what
my
employees
do
is
different.
E
E
And
if
you
don't
perform
the
sigs
don't
perform
these
audits,
then
the
members
and
based
on
the
data,
because
these
the
there's
a
lot
of
information
about
you
know
why
a
taxi
cab
driver
might
be
charged
more
and
you
know
what
the
risk
is,
but
so,
if
they
don't
actually
price
on
this,
then
there's
already
an
underlying
harm
to
the
sig
members
themselves.
E
Again,
who
may
be
overpaying
underpaying
and
in
the
long
run
that
hurts
them,
and
I
think
that's
one
of
our
our
big
concerns
with
this
particular
audit
section.
We
really
need
to
make
sure
that
that's
happening
appropriately.
A
So
so,
if
I'm,
if
I'm
understanding
you
correctly
and-
and
I
guess
this
would
go
to-
I
want
to
understand
senator
settlemy's
question
too,
if
you're,
a
small
in
insurer
and
you're
being
charged
the
same
rate
that
someone
with
a
higher
probability
of
accident,
then
it
would
it's
not
in
your
interest,
consume
not
to
have
the
audit
or
is
it
in
your
interest
to
have
audit
one
person
should
be
paying
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
employee.
E
This
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
That's
correct
because,
as
everybody
knows
here
in
nevada,
we
have
changing
populations,
we
have
changing
businesses
and
a
lot
of
the
companies
have
who
are
working
this
in
this
arena.
They
actually
have
new
people
and
people
retiring
all
the
time
moving
in
and
out.
So
you
want
to
make
sure
those
rates
are
accurate.
You
don't
again
because
you,
you,
don't
want
to
overcharge
anybody,
and
you
certainly
don't
want
somebody
who
should
be
paying
150
for
a
risk
paying
400.
A
I
think
this
would
be
my
last
question
and
then
I'd
like
for
mr
kane
to
weigh
in
and
excuse
me
excuse
my
pedestrian
mindset.
I
I
just
really
need
to
know
and
understand,
so
I
know
what
I
am
or
am
not
voting
for
so
the
person
who
should
be
only
paying
a
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
per
employee,
the
sig,
the
state,
who
should
be
only
paying
150
dollars
per
employee
without
the
audit,
might
be
paying
400
per
employee,
which
means
that
that
sig
would
be
overpaying
per
employee
by
300
dollars.
E
So
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
It's
actually
the
member
paying
into
the
sig.
So
it's
one
of
the
member
companies,
so
it's
even
the
smaller
employer
group
who
potentially
might
be
paying
more
than
is
necessary.
L
L
So
the
amendment
I
believe
we're
all
talking
about
identified
as
amendment
two
is
the
one
submitted
by
these
nevada
self-insured
groups
and
proposes
amendments
to
nrs,
616b,
0.353
and
nrs616b
0.410,
and
starting
with
the
first
of
those
sections,
there's
no
amendments
to
section
one
which
is
the
section
which
requires
self-insured
groups
to
enter
into
binding
obligations
to
each
other,
to
provide
access
insurance,
to
provide
annual
set
or
to
collect
annual
assessments
and
to
have
a
deposit
of
bond
or
security
in
lua
bond
and
then
subsection
two,
which
is
where
the
first
amendment
occurs.
L
Subsection
two
a
would
say
these
are
additional
requirements
in
addition
to
the
subsection
one
requirements,
subsection
two
a
would
change
the
operation
of
that
paragraph
so
that,
instead
of
well,
let
me
say
it
this
way.
Currently,
the
law
says
that
at
the
time
of
initial
qualification
and
until
the
association
is
operated
successfully
as
a
qualified
self-asses
association
of
self-insured
employers
for
three
years,
then
the
conditions
happen.
L
The
changes
are
changing
until
to
as
long
as
and
then
eliminating
the
words
for
three
years
and
as
I'm
looking
at
that,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
difference
is
between
until
and
as
long
as
and
then
I'm
not
sure.
Once
we
del
delete
the
four
three
years
exactly
how
that
clause
would
operate.
It
almost
seems
to
me
as
I
read
it,
though,
what
that
clause
would
mean
is
that
those
requirements
in
2a
would
operate
in
perpetuity
as
long
as
the
sig
existed.
L
That's
almost
what
it
seems
to
me
I,
but
I'm
curious
as
to
whether
the
commissioner
agrees
with
me
or
whether
mr
wadham's,
if
he's
there
agrees
with
that
interpretation,
and
I'm
asking
this
as
a
drafter,
I'm
not
sure
what
to
draft.
If,
if
I'm
not
sure
what
it
means.
E
So
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
their
record
and
mr
king
you're
accurate.
It
would
make
all
of
the
sigs
act
as
if
they
were
under
the
three-year
business
thresholds,
so
so
there'd
be
no
difference
between
a
brand
new
entrant
and
one
who'd
been
around
for
20
years.
L
Perfect,
thank
you
and
then
the
next
change
is
in
paragraph
2b
and
2b
is
the
provision
that
provides
what
happens
after
three
years
of
successful
operation,
and
then
they
were
changing
the
words
as
determined
to,
if
permitted
by
the
commissioner,
and
in
that
case,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
distinction
is
there.
It
seems
very
similar
and
I'm
always
cautious
about
making
wording
changes
that
don't
seem
to
actually
make
any
substantive
difference,
because
the
courts
generally
would
interpret
a
change
is
having
some
significance.
L
E
So
this
barbara
jensen
for
the
record
and
mr
keane,
we
agree
with
that.
We
did
not
see
the
difference.
L
Thank
you
very
much,
commissioner,
and
for
the
record
will
keen
community
and
then
that's
the
last
change
to
that
section.
The
changes
to
the
following
section
were,
and
that
is
616b
point
four
one
zero
and
those
changes
are
a
little
more
clear
to
me
as
to
what
they
would
be
doing.
It's
about
the
audits
and
as
the
law
stands
now,
it
would
be.
L
I'm
not
sure
whether
you
see
any
significance
in
the
deemed
necessary
portion
or
whether
you
would
read
that
as
meaning
you
could.
You
could
continue
to
audit
frequently
multiple
times
a
year
or
whether
you
would
have
to
if
whether
you
felt
you
would
have
to
engage
in
a
process
to
determine
if
it
was
necessary
and
therefore
might
not
be
able
to
audit,
as
often
as
you
wished.
E
This
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record
and
mr
king.
We
agree
with
that
as
well
on
that
interpretation
and
I
think
that's
what
my
concern
is
is
that
we
were
potentially
asking
for
a
change
in
the
statute
that
we
would
not
encourage
or
or
try
to
move
forward
because
of
the
situation
where
the
things
are
in
right
now
that
might
be
different
at
the
next
legislative
session
after
we've
worked
for
them,
but
currently
it
would
contin
the
the
audits
would
continue.
We
would
deem
them
to
be
required.
L
I
see
and
for
the
record
will
keen
on
community
council
so
with
with
these
changes.
Would
you
see
this
as
something
that
you
would
proceed
with
multiple
audits
a
year,
or
at
least
one
audit
a
year?
But,
however,
then
a
sig
could
challenge
your
determination
that
it
was
necessary
and
therefore
start
a
process
where
there
had
to
be
a
determination
as
to
whether
your
determination
was
correct.
Therefore
putting
off
the
audits
is
that
is
that
one
of
the
purposes
of
this
language.
E
So
this
is
barbara
richards
for
the
record.
I'm
not
sure
what
the
purpose
of
the
amendment
is,
since
we
we
don't
actually
agree
with
it
and
we're
concerned
about
it.
E
So
I'm
probably
not
the
one
to
be
asking
or
answering
that
question,
but
I
would
say
that
unless
there
was
something
significantly
wrong
which
we
don't
interpret
running
into,
we
wouldn't
as
a
division
do
more
than
an
annual
audit
as
it
stands
so,
but
I
believe
that
they
propose
the
person
who
proposed
the
amendment
might
be
able
to
give
you
a
better
answer
on
what
their
intention
was.
L
I
just
thank
you.
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
wanted
one
last
patient,
so
so,
commissioner,
that
language,
though,
would
never
be
necessary.
Do
you
see
that
as
being
something
that
you
can
decide
on
your
own,
if
necessary,
or
would
that
necessarily
be
a
process
that
a
sig
could
challenge
your
determination
and
therefore
put
off
the
audit
or
length
of
time
of
their
challenge
of
your
determination
that
and
the
determination
I'm
talking
about,
is
your
determination
under
the
language
as
revised
your
determination
that
an
audit
should
be
conducted.
L
E
So
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
Our
our
statutes
in
general
allow
those
kind
of
challenges,
so
I
would
assume
that
a
challenge
would
be
applicable
a
challenge.
Is
it
just
delays
the
process
and
takes
us
further
down
the
road
without
necessarily
fixing
anything,
but
the
we
believe
that
the
industry
always
has
the
right
to
challenge
the
anything
that
might
be
a
may.
L
And
thank
you
sheriff.
I
could
just
ask
one
more
question,
for
the
record
will
keen
so
as
the
language
stands
now
without
the
amendment
you
would
be,
you
would
be
auditing
the
sigs
at
least
annually,
and
there
would
not
be
an
opportunity
for
the
sigs
to
challenge
your
right
to
audit
them.
E
So
this
is
barbara
richardson
for
the
record.
I
I'm
mr
keenan,
I'm
not
quite
sure
I
would
interpret
it
that
way
and
I
apologize
if
that
is
the
way
you'd
like
us
to
interpret.
I
can
certainly
understand
that.
But
again
I
go
back
to
I
I
any
time
that
insurance
company
a
sig
I
mean
anybody,
we
regulate
I'll,
just
say
it
that
way.
E
If
they
feel
aggrieved
by
any
decision
of
the
division,
they
always
have
a
right
to
challenge
or
ask
for
a
discussion
or
ask
for
a
hearing,
so
it
would
change
whether
or
not
we
you
know
put
a
process
in
place,
but
I
don't
think
it
changes
the
rights
of
the
actual
aggrieved
or
potentially
grieved
party.
A
Thank
you,
and
I
know
that
mr
wallins
is
on
the
phone
I
had
said
senator
pickard.
If,
if
your
question
deviates
from
the
discussion
that
we're
having
right
now,
will
you
allow
mr
waters
to
come
in
first
or
if
it's.
H
Absolutely,
madam
sure,
if
you
want
to
ask
him
the
question
first,
I
think
I'm
asking
on
the
same
line
and
it
might
add
some
clarity
to
the
discussion.
Mr
mr
waddens.
F
F
M
B
N
A
And
I
think
that
I
think
the
questions
probably
center
around
number
one,
the
purpose
for
the
amendment.
What
would
be
the
substantive
changes
if
I
understand
our
lcb
council?
What
are
the
substantive
changes
that,
without
that
amendment,
wouldn't
carry
the
same
thought.
N
Let
me
try
to
address
them
briefly,
because
the
amendments
are
very
brief,
and
I
I
first
want
to
express
my
appreciation
to
commissioner
richardson
and
her
staff,
who
spent
actually
more
than
a
few
hours
talking
about
this
and
and
the
purpose
of
it.
The
the
first,
the
first
section
we've
asked
to
be
amended
is
in
616
b
353,
and
it
relates
back
to
an
issue
that
came
up
just
recently.
N
C
N
Have
operated
under
in
that
particular
section
the
qualification
of
having
a
tangible
net
worth
of
2.5
million
dollars
in
the
aggregate
these
these
sigs
have
operated
under
that
for
again
up
to
about
25
years
and
and
pay
their
claims.
The
the
modification
was
to
clarify
an
interpretation
that
has
been
presented
to
the
sigs
that
they
can
only
qualify
if
they
have
enough
money
in
the
bank.
That
is
an
asset
test
for
three
years
after
that
they
have
to
have.
N
N
It
just
gives
the
opportunity
for
these
sigs,
who
have
successfully
existed
on
the
asset
test,
to
continue
to
be
under
the
asset
test,
as
opposed
to
being
forced
into
the
cash
flow
test
and
failed
to
qualify
because
of
the
act,
their
activity
level
may
be
low,
they
could
be
builders
and
they
weren't
building
early
in
the
covered.
They
could
be
cab,
companies
and
the
transportation
was
slowing
down,
doesn't
mean
they
don't
have
the
assets
to
pay
the
claims.
N
It
just
means
that
their
revenues
were
not
the
same,
and
the
interpretation
was
issued
last
fall
that
there
is
no
choice
after
three
years
you
have
to
have
meet
the
revenue
test,
and
so
that
change
was
designed
to
address
that
simple
problem
and
and
I'll
answer
questions.
But
let
me
then
move
to
the
second
amendment,
which
is
also
very
simple,
and
it's
a
simple
change
from
the
may
to
a
sh
from
a
shell
to
a
may,
and
the
problem
here
for
the
committee
is
under
the
current
statutes.
N
The
commissioner
has
power
to
examine
and
audit
these
sigs
anytime.
The
division
deems
it
appropriate
under
616
b,
three
nine
five,
and
so
the
amendment
we're
asking
for
is
is
in
six
one.
Six
b,
four
ten
is
to
change
this
from
a
mandatory
annual
audit
as
an
additional
one
to
a
discretionary
one
that
the
commissioner
still
has
the
power
to
do
anytime.
N
That
would
be
three
three
expenses,
essentially
covering
the
same
information
and,
frankly,
from
an
economic
standpoint
that
doesn't
make
sense.
She
has
the
power
under
395
to
examine
any
time
to
protect
the
solvency
and
the
final
comment,
the
definition
of
solvency
is
provided
in
the
statutes
and
that's
the
ability
to
pay
the
claim.
So
we
are
not
asking
for
these
to
take
away
the
commissioner's
power.
N
She
will
have
the
power
to
to
examine
any
time
that
she
feels
uneasy
about
the
solvency,
but
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
these
companies
don't
lose
their
certificate
to
stay
in
business
simply
because
their
cash
flows
are
low,
even
though
their
assets
are
adequate,
they
can
pay
their
bills
out
of
their
assets.
N
The
cash
flows
are
not
pertinent
to
to
force
the
change,
which
is
why
we're
making
that
first
amendment
could
potentially
put
them
out
of
business.
N
In
the
discussions
with
the
commissioner,
she's
indicated
she
it's
time
to
revise
the
statutes
in
the
rigs.
That's
not
appropriate
this
session,
this
late,
but
this
gives
some
breathing
room
for
these.
Companies
to
stay
in
business
doesn't
prevent
them
from
being
audited
from
being
examined,
but
it
just
eliminates
the
potential
that
they
would
lose
their
license
while
they're
still
healthy.
Thank
you.
A
A
I'm
going
what
I'm
going
to
do
now.
I
just
got
word
that
we
have
one
of
the
presenters
a
cinnamon
auditor
has
to
be
in
another
meeting
at
9.,
so
what
I
want
to
do
is
I
want
to
push
the
pause
button
on
this
and
we'll
come
back
to
it
while
we're,
while
we're
taking
a
pause
from
the
work
session.
Commissioner
richardson
I'd
like
for
you
in
light
of
what
mr
wadhams
has
said,
I'd
like
for
you
to
present
a
response
just
as
soon
as
we
come
back
is
that
okay.
E
A
Otherwise,
otherwise,
I'm
leaning
more
towards
let's
try
to
figure
out
how
this
is
going
to
work
for
yes
to
small
businesses,
but
also
how
is
it
going
to
make
sure
that
those
who
are
new
entrants
aren't
picking
up
the
tab
for
those
who
have
been
in
for
a
long
time
and
that
just
that
just
may
be,
as
I
said
before,
my
pedestrian
understanding
of
it.
A
But
I
want
to
be
sure
I
know
what
I'm
voting
on
okay,
so
we're
gonna
take
a
pause
on
the
work
session
for
this
and,
if
a
cinnamon
orator,
if
he
is
ready,
we
will
move
to.
I
think
it's
4
37
and
for
those
of
you
who
are
listening,
we've
got
this
time
next
week
will
be
the
last
day
that
bills
have
to
pass
out
of
committee
or
die.
A
So
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
happen
not
according
to
schedule,
but
we
try
to
do
that
so
that
we
make
sure
that
we
hear
and
process
all
bills
as
many
bills
as
we
can
with
the
fairness
that
is
due
to
the
to
not
just
the
drafters
but
also
to
the
person
who's
bringing
the
bill.
So
with
that,
let's
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
437.
A
I
Thank
you,
chair
spearmen
and
members
of
the
committee
for
allowing
me
to
present.
Now
I
am
david
licker
representing
assembly
district
20,
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
assembly
bill
442,
which
revises
continuing
education
requirements
for
health
care
providers
who
are
authorized
to
prescribe
controlled
substances.
I
These
providers
will
have
to
complete
training
to
better
identify
patients
who
have
or
at
risk
for
developing
substance
use
disorders,
and
while
it's
a
new
requirement,
it
doesn't
add
to
their
total
number
of
credits.
They
have
to
earn
the
credits
they
have
to
earn
for
this
particular
training
fits
within
their
total
credits
that
they
now
have
to
satisfy.
I
I
O
O
There
we
go
for
the
record,
my
name
is
andrea
peterson
and
I
am
a
clinical
pharmacist
for
dignity.
Health,
saint
rose,
dominican,
hospital
and
co-founder
of
the
empowered
program.
Empowered
stands
for
empowering
mothers
for
positive
outcomes
with
education,
recovery
and
early
development.
O
O
O
In
november
of
2019,
we
had
the
opportunity
to
present
in
power
to
the
interim
health
committee
and
were
originally
going
to
seek
funding
to
continue
this
work
and
then
the
pandemic
hit.
We
understood
the
financial
impact
this
would
have
on
the
state
and
instead
came
up
with
a
no-cost
policy
option
that
has
the
potential
to
impact
many,
not
just
pregnant
women.
O
This
policy
option
revolves
around
continuing
education
credits
for
esper,
which
stands
for
screening,
brief
intervention
and
referral
to
treatment
and
was
adopted
by
the
interim
health
committee.
Many
thanks
to
the
members
of
that
committee
and
dr
stephanie
woodard
from
dhhs
for
their
help
in
drafting
this
legislation.
O
As
I
mentioned,
esper
stands
for
screening
brief
intervention
and
referral
to
treatment.
It
is
an
evidence-based
approach
that
can
be
rapidly
performed
in
a
number
of
settings
to
identify
patients
with
substance
use,
disorder
or
patients
are
at
risk
for
substance,
use
disorder
and
is
a
medicaid
reimbursable
service.
O
A
Thank
you,
dr
assemblyman
auditor
is
at
the
end
of
your
presentation.
A
Okay,
thank
you
committee
members,
questions.
I
We
already
have
some
requirements
for
pain,
management
and
addiction
in
the
nrs.
Do
we?
I
mean
this
obviously
overlaps
if
the
physician,
for
instance,
gets
the
two
hours
of
expert
training.
I
David
r
liquor
assembly
district
20
for
the
record,
I
believe
so,
but
dr
peterson
or
dr
woodard-
can
confirm
that.
P
So
stephanie
woodard
for
the
record
just
to
confirm
the
intent
of
the
legislation,
is
not
to
add
an
additional
two
hours
of
continuing
education
credits
to
the
existing
two
hours
required
through
assembly
bill
474
from
the
2017
legislative
session.
But
to
be
able
to
allow
the
expert
trainings
to
actually
take
the
place
of
those
two
required.
Outers.
K
So,
on
section
8
sub
two,
I
had
a
question
around
the
not
using
the
continuing
education
for
the
screening.
I
didn't.
I
didn't
understand
that
particular
provision,
and-
and
were
they
able
to
do
that
before,
because
this
is
a
person
already
has
an
existing
license.
I
P
Stephanie
woodard
for
the
record,
so
my
understanding
in
reviewing
this
section
is
that
they
wanted
to
make
clear
in
statute
and
dr
peterson.
Please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
these
hours
would
not
be
used
towards
ethics
hours
and
they
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
specifically
called
out.
But
dr
peterson,
please
jump
in.
If
you
have
something
else
to
add
andrea.
K
Okay,
so
just
a
quick
follow-up,
but
so
okay,
so
after
you
get
the
license,
you
have
your
continuing
education,
but
typically
continuing
education
is
used
for
any
additional
training,
and
so
you
want
them.
I'm
still
not
understanding
why
you
don't
want
them
to
do
it.
Why
you
don't
want
them
to
use
continuing
education
as
some
of
their
hours
towards
this,
because
isn't
that
the
point
after
you
get
the
license
to
continue
classes
to
shore
up
certain.
K
P
So
this
is
stephanie
woodard
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
absolutely
want
these
to
account
for
continuing
education
credits,
but
each
board
has
authority
to
determine
how
many
continuing
education
credits
are
required
during
specific
licensure
periods
and
during
the
process
of
delineating
the
kinds
of
continuing
education
credits
that
a
licensee
is
required
to
have.
There
is
typically
a
subset
of
those
requirements
that
determine
how
many
hours
of
ethics
training
a
provider
may
be
required
to
have
as
well,
as
particular,
other
specific
types
of
continuing
education
hours.
P
K
O
For
the
record,
andrea
peterson,
so
this
educational
requirement
will
fulfill
that
substance,
use
and
other
addictive
disorders
and
the
prescribing
of
opioids
set
forth
in
ab474.
K
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
A
Thank
you
questions,
yes,
is
that
senator
meyer.
G
I
G
I
C
I
There
is
a
difference
between
an
optician
and
optometrist,
and
the
optometrist
should
have
the
ability
to
use
the
controlled
substance
and
not
the
optician.
I
think
senator
centelmeyer
has
scored
another
point.
A
B
I
Thank
you,
chair
david
orient
liquor,
assembly
district
20
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
Thank
you
to
the
interim
committee
to
doctors,
peterson
and
woodard
for
their
help
with
this,
and
we
will
fix
the
problem
that
senator
settlemyer
pointed
out
and
if
there
are
any
other
concerns
you
have
please.
Let
me
know.
A
Okay,
and
with
that,
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
442
and
we
will
go.
We
will
go
back
to
our
work
session
and
I
believe
we
were
with
the
commissioner.
Richardson
was
going
to
respond
to
mr
wadhams.
E
The
insurance
commissioner
for
the
state,
and
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
address
this
is
we
didn't
speak
with
mr
adams
for
quite
a
few
hours,
and
I
think
both
sides
learned
a
lot,
but
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
is
still
sort
of
pending
in
everyone's
head
is
that
that
mr
adams
keeps
on
claiming
that
there's
some
type
of
crisis
or
some
type
of
concern,
all
of
a
sudden
with
statutes
that
have
been
in
place
since
1993
and
it's
it's.
E
It
seems
to
me
that
if
you
read
the
entire
statute,
the
some
of
the
crisis
that
are
fit
well,
we're
focusing
on
two
are:
are
just
they're,
not
they
don't
play
out
so,
for
example,
in
the
first
one,
the
whole
issue
about
having
a
change
for
the
the
underlying
amount
that
a
three-year-old
has
to
hold
versus
anything
over
three
years.
E
We
keep
on
sort
of
talking
to
him
and
I
think
I've
presented
here,
but
I
may
not
have
been
clear
enough
that,
under
that
very
same
statute
under
section
6,
it
allows
the
opportunity
for
the
sig
themselves
to
work
with
the
division
to
alter
the
solvency
protection
amounts
and
solvency
tools
based
on
the
individual
risks
that
the
sig
covers.
So
these
smaller
sigs
don't
have
to
fall
under
the
7.5
million
threshold
if
there's
alternatives
that
work
for
them.
E
As
of
this
time,
we
haven't
had
all
of
the
open
discussions
that
are
necessary
to
determine
what
that
might
be,
but
we
have
started
discussions
and
we
also
allowed
them
to
be
out
of
compliance
for
this
calendar
year
in
order
to
get
everybody
here
to
right
set,
because
it
was
our
understanding
that
the
sigs
did
not
understand
that
this
that
this
statutory
section
would
allow
them
to
actually
make
changes,
which
is
why
it
appears
they're
thinking
that
something's
wrong
when
in
fact,
there's
not
and
then
on
the
second
amendment,
question
or
specific
topic.
E
Mr
adams
is
completing
three
different
oversight
requirements
and
attempting
to
claim
that
there's
a
again
a
crisis
situation
where
there
is
not
so
the
requirement
to
provide
financial
statements
is
a
general
requirement
for
any
ongoing
concern,
so
there's
and
there's
not
usually
a
cost
of
them
to
email
it
to
us.
For
that
going
concern
to
provide
financial
statements
to
the
division
we
get
them
from
all
of
our
business
entities
and
then
the
examination
statute.
He
points
to
is
focused
on
financial
statements.
E
So
basically,
these
examinations
are
done
every
three
years
and
they're
actually
based
on
the
financials
that
have
been
supplied
and
what
the
concern
is
is.
Mr
adams
is
confusing
the
audit
with
these
with
these
other
financial
reviews.
This
audit
that
we're
talking
about
is
not
a
financial
review
at
all.
This
odd
is
to
properly
classify
employees
for
members
to
determine
the
rates
to
pay,
to
protect
these
employee
members,
so
trying
to
claim
that
all
three
of
these
things
will
cause
a
cost.
Crisis
of
any
sort
is
misleading
at.
E
A
Okay,
I
understand
mr
adams
is
in
the
room.
Can
you
can
you
respond
please
and
and
every
every
every
round
you
know
jacob's
ladder
goes
higher
and
higher,
but
this
every
round
I
get
more
confused
and
confuse
her.
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
word,
but
I'm
I.
I
I'm
not
comfortable
that.
I
understand
exactly
what
I'm
being
asked
to
vote
on.
So,
mr
wallins,
can
you
respond.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
am
in
the
room
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity-
and
let
me
just
state
again,
commissioner,
has
been
very
forthcoming
in
discussing
this
issue.
We
had
thorough,
robust
discussions,
and
so
I
hope
the
committee
understands
that
this
is
not
intended
to
be
an
argument
with
the
commissioner
herself.
Q
Q
It
may
give
that
kind
of
discretion,
but
the
uncertainty
of
that
could
be
clarified
if
we
make
the
alternative
between
test
a
and
test
b,
clearly
as
an
alternative
that
doesn't
preclude
the
commissioner
from
some
other
finding,
but
at
least
in
terms
of
maintaining
the
basic
certificate
of
authority
to
continue
in
business,
it
shouldn't
be
interrupted
if
they're
managing
to
pay
their
claims,
so
the
the
amendment's
subtle.
But
it's
designed
to
just
overcome
an
interpretation
that
first
appeared
just
a
few
months
ago.
Q
Q
It
is
possible
that
a
small
sig
could
face
three
audits
in
one
year
and
we
wouldn't
think
that
that
would
be
necessary
if
their
solvency
isn't
an
issue.
The
commissioner
could
launch
the
full
examination
and,
if
they're
insolvent,
hopefully
they
would
be
taken
out
of
the
market
quickly.
We
would
all
support
that.
So
that
also
is
a
very
subtle
change
to
take
it
from
a
shell
to
a
may
and
one
of
the
reasons
in
our
discussions
that
I
raised.
Q
Q
H
Thank
you,
madam
sure,
my
this.
This
last
discussion
raised
preliminary
questions
to
get
before
I
get
to
the
the
one
I
had
and
that's
who
does
the
audit
currently?
Does
the
division
do
the
audit
or
does
the
the
sig
provide
audited
records
to
the
division.
E
So
I
I
I
assume
this
that's
to
me,
so
this
is
barbara
richardson.
E
Thank
you,
senator
pickard.
We
actually
discovered
in
2020
that
quite
a
few
statutes
were
not
being
followed,
and
that
was
this
happens
to
be
one
of
them
for
years,
and
it
was
turns
out.
It
was
based
on
a
misunderstanding
and
it
took
a
long
time
for
the
industry
and
the
division
to
figure.
E
This
out
is
a
misunderstanding
of
the
phrase
standard
industrial
classification
code
and
which
is
I
I
this
is
probably
more
technical
than
we
want
to
talk
about,
but
they
were
using
or
they
were
interpreting
that
particular
set
of
words
to
mean
something
or
a
particular
classification
code
that
had
been
around
in
the
early
1990s,
rather
than
actually
looking
at
the
words
that
actually
just
means
pick
a
standard
industrial
classification
code.
E
There
are
ones
available,
and
so
there
was
a
whole
series
of
things
that
the
that
the
sigs
were
not
doing
because
they
had
interpreted
that
phrase.
That
way-
and
this
particular
audit
has
that
phrase
in
it.
So
we
discovered-
as
I
said,
I'm
embarrassed
to
say
this,
but
honestly
on
the
record,
they
have
not
been
calling
the
statutes
for
a
long
time,
which.
E
The
under
the
statutes,
the
spa
bridges
and
for
the
record,
the
audits
themselves,
are
the
sigs
for
the
members.
H
Right,
that's
an
important
distinction
for
me
because
the
way
I'm
and
I'm
looking
at
the
proposed
amendment-
and
I
guess
I
was
looking
at
the
amendment
kind
of
reading
it
backwards-
and
maybe
this
is
for
mr
wadhams
since
he's
the
one
who
drafted
this.
As
I
read
the
revision
to
616b
410,
changing
it
from
mandatory
to
permissive
whenever
deemed
necessary,
it
seems
to
me
then
the
prior
two
amendments
are
really
to
conform.
The
rest
of
the
statute
to
this
change
is
that
an
accurate
reading.
Q
Q
H
Q
Q
That
is
a
very
that
is
common
throughout
the
insurance
code.
The
commissioner,
because
solvency
is
an
issue
for
all
types
of
insurance
operations.
She
has
the
unlimited
unfettered
power
to
examine
whenever
and,
however
she
deems
necessary.
So
395
is
the
potential
for
yet
a
third
audit.
Now
one
is
one
is
mandatory.
Q
A
Yeah
yeah
thanks
senator
pinkert,
here's
here's
what
I'm
going
to
do.
I
I
did
not
realize
that
this
would
this
work
session
would
be.
This
long
did
not
know
that
there
were
still
this
many
questions,
but
I
appreciate
the
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
try
to
plow
through
it
and
figure
out,
what's
going
on
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
mr
holist
move
on
we'll
pause
kind
of
work
sessions
for
for
this
before
we
find
in
the
bill
45,
and
we
will
bring
it
back
next
week.
A
I
have
asked
mr
negrete
and
shelby
parks
to
work
together
to
schedule
help
leave,
so
we
can,
we
can
figure
out.
We
can.
We
can
find
the
answer
to
marvin
gaye's
question.
What's
going
on,
okay
and
thanks
everybody
for
for
your
understanding.
A
As
I
said
these,
these
are
times
when
we're
trying
to
get
through
a
lot
of
things,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
them
judiciously
and
fairly
and
I'm
sure,
like
my
other
colleagues,
you
all
understand,
we
don't
want
to
vote
on
anything
that
we
don't
understand,
and
so
with
that
we'll
pause.
This
work
session
work
session
for
this,
and
I
want
to
move
to.
I
understand
that
assemblywoman
torres
is
waiting
and
she
has
a
number
of
people
who
are
probably
waiting
on
the
telephone
in
support.
A
I
was
reminded
last
week
that
some
people
for
some
people
when
they
wait
a
long
time
on
their
cell
phones.
There
is
a
charge,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
fair
to
them
as
well,
a
single
woman.
Are
you
ready
to
present
your
bill
and
do
we
have
everyone
in
the
room
that
you
meet.
D
A
We
will
proceed
I'll,
just
explain
to
those
of
you
who
are
new
to
this:
the
legislative
process
in
the
last
under
under
30
days
for
the
session
to
go
forward.
There
are
a
number
of
things
that
we
have
to
change
at
the
last
minute,
so
appreciate
your
understanding
when
we,
when
we
make
changes
like
this,
to
accommodate
people,
understand
that
karma's
watching
and
one
one
day
it
may
be.
You
and
karma
will
say
back
at
you,
so
assembly
woman
tortoise.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
good
and
good
morning,
and
thank
you,
chair
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
happy
to
be
back
in
the
senate,
commerce
and
labor
committee.
To
close
out
my
week
I
am
assembling
selena
torres
proudly
representing
assembly.
D
D
So
first
I
will
begin
and
provide
the
committee
with
some
background
information
and
talk
about
the
problem
that
this
bill
aims
to
resolve,
and
then
I
will
invite
attorney
james
kemp
to
make
additional
remarks
and
complete
a
walk
through
of
the
bill
throughout
the
copen
19
pandemic.
Workers
have
reached
out
to
express
their
concerns
for
safety.
This
concern
has
not
been
limited
to
the
stories
highlighted
in
the
news
and
social
media.
D
Before
I
dive
into
the
sections
of
legislation,
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
how
this
policy
expands
employee
protections.
Currently,
if
an
employee
feels
unsafe
at
work
and
reports
to
the
external
authority,
like
osha,
a
regulatory
body
or
the
labor
commission,
they
are
guaranteed
whistleblower
protection,
and
that
is
only
through
case
law.
D
It
is
not
codified
in
the
statute,
however,
this
protection
is
not
guaranteed
to
employees
who
report
this
conduct
to
a
supervisor
or
other
appropriate
authority
within
their
their
corporation
nevada
must
encourage
employees
that
find
their
working
conditions
unsafe
to
report
these
conditions
to
their
employers.
This
is
beneficial
to
employees
and
employers.
It
encourages
employees
to
talk
to
their
employers
about
unsafe
working
conditions,
so
that
employers
may
quickly
address
the
issue.
This
really
empowers
the
employer
to
have
conversations
with
their
team
about
safety
and
deal
with
issues
in-house.
D
It
prevents
accidents
since
employees
feel
confident
talking
to
employers
about
unsafe
working
environments
and
when
an
employee
knows
that
they
can
come
to
their
employer
about
an
issue.
It
creates
a
better
working
relationship,
but
for
the
employee
and
employer
over
the
last
few
weeks,
myself
and
nja
have
worked
diligently
with
stakeholders
on
an
amendment
to
provide
clarifying
language.
D
While
the
amendment
is
not
ready
today,
I
know
that
we
are
close
to
finding
some
type
of
agreement
between
ourselves
and
other
key
stakeholders
and
I'm
confident
that
we
will
be
able
to
get
many
of
our
stakeholders
to
neutral
with
that
language.
So
I
I
really
do
want
to
on
the
record
thank
the
stakeholders
for
continuing
to
collaborate
with
us
and
work
with
us,
so
we
can
have
a
greater
conversation
about
how
this
issue
impacts
employees
and
how
it
impacts
employers.
R
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
and
committee
members.
I'm
jp
kemp
on
behalf
of
nevada
justice
association
here
in
support
of
ab222,
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
torres
for
bringing
forth
one
of
the
most
important
employee
protection
and
workplace
safety
bills.
In
this
session,
ab222
will
fill
an
important
void
that
has
been
left
in
nevada
law
for
a
number
of
years,
when
the
supreme
court
of
nevada
ruled
on
a
case
in
1989
called
wilsey
vs
baby
grand
corporation,
in
that
they
held
that
there
is
whistleblower
protection
under
nevada
common
law.
R
But
it
only
extends
to
the
point
where
an
employee
reports
conduct
about
conduct
in
the
workplace
to
a
government
agency
that
has
regulatory
oversight,
an
employee
who
merely
does
what's
called
internal
whistleblowing
and
reporting
it
within
the
company
within
the
workplace
to
the
employer
has
absolutely
no
protection.
So
it
forces
an
employee
to
if
they're
going
to
have
any
protection
at
all.
If
they
want
to
complain
about
illegal
or
unsafe
things
that
are
happening
in
the
workplace,
they
they
literally
have
to
call
the
police.
R
They
can't
just
go
to
their
employer
and
expect
to
have
any
protection
if
the
employer
gets
upset.
You
know
because
safety
does
often
cost
money
and
employers
get
upset
and
they
turn
around
and
say
well,
rather
than
fix
the
problem
I'll
fire
you
that
that
fixes
my
problem.
For
me,
this
is
a
huge
hole
that
was
left
when
the
supreme
court
said
no
we're
only
going
to
protect
whistleblowers
that
actually
go
to
the
government.
R
This
is
inconsistent
with
the
majority
of
other
states
that
are
out
there
that
do
protect
this
internal
whistleblowing
and
give
protection
to
employees
who
do
bring
the
information
to
the
employer
and
then
get
retaliated
against.
I
want
to
make
sure
we
point
out.
This
bill
is
really
aimed
at
bad
actors.
Good
employers
are
not
going
to
have
a
problem
with
this
because
they
do
the
right
thing.
They
fix
things
they
address
the
employees
concerns.
R
This
is
really
aimed
at
those
bad
actors
out
there
who
would
put
their
employees
safety
at
risk
by
not
only
not
listening
to
what
the
employees
say,
but
not
taking
action
to
correct
problems
in
the
workplace.
So
you
know
section:
one
of
the
bill
basically
provides
this.
This
protection
it
provides
if
an
employee
is
suffers
an
adverse
employment
action
as
a
result
of
the
central
whistleblowing
or
refusing
to
do
something
unsafe
or
illegal
in
the
workplace,
which
is
also
arises
out
of
the
common
law.
R
But
this
would
codify
it
that
they
would
have
protections
they
would
be
able
to
pursue
the
employer
for
remedies
this
when
somebody
gets
fired
under
a
situation
like
this,
it
has
a
great
impact
on
the
worker
and
their
family,
and
this
would
provide
remedies,
including
an
order
of
reinstatement,
lost
wages
and
benefits
of
employment
and
damages
compensatory
damages
for
things
like
emotional
distress
and
harm
that's
caused,
and
in
an
appropriate
case
it
does
call
for
punitive
damage,
and
this
will
create
an
incentive
for
employers
to
make
sure
they
step
up
and
do
the
right
thing
and
for
those
that
don't
there
will
be
consequences
and
it's
very
important
to
workplace
safety
and
employee
protection
in
nevada
there's
another
part
of
the
build.
R
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
real
briefly,
and
that
is
it's
a
it's
a
fix
in
the
discrimination
statutes.
There's
the
there's
a
question
as
to
the
time
limits
to
bring
a
lawsuit
for
discrimination
after
the
equal
rights
commission
or
the
federal
eeoc
finishes
with
its
investigation.
They
issue
these
notice
of
right
of
suit
rights.
The
way
that
the
that
nrs613.430
was
set
up
before
it
only
talked
about
a
right
to
sue
notice
issued
by
nevada,
equal
rights
commission.
R
This
clarifies
that
you
can
still
have
the
90
days
after
the
us
eeoc
issues
its
notice
of
suit
rights,
so
it
basically
harmonizes
and
keeps
the
makes
make
sure
that
you
have
enough
time
to
bring
the
case
under
both
statutes.
By
saying
you
have
90
days
from
whichever
one
is
later,
because
they
aren't
always
issued
at
the
same
time,
there's
very
often
several
weeks
or
or
even
sometimes
months
time,
difference
between
when
those
are
issued,
but
this
will
allow
the
cases
to
be
brought
together.
R
So
there's
that
that
aspect
of
it
as
well-
and
I
would
encourage
the
committee's
support
of
ab222
there
are-
there-
is
still
some
fine-tuning-
that's
being
looked
at
among
the
stakeholders,
we're
continuing
to
work
on
it.
But
this
is
an
important
employee
safety.
R
You
know
employee
rights
and
workplace
safety
statute
that
will
fill
an
important
void
in
nevada
law.
Thank
you.
D
K
K
But
what,
if
there's
like
a
substantial
review
so
typically
like
you,
can
you
can
like
nerc
will
kick
it
out
and
then
you
want
a
substantial
review
to
try
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
proper
procedure
done
at
the
nerc
level
and
then
it'll
go
to
the
eeoc
office,
and
so
will
that
timeline?
D
But
presently
we
have
a
work
share
agreement
that
exists
between
nerc
and
the
eeoc,
and
the
president
agreement
allows
for
the
filing
of
a
charge
of
discrimination,
harassment
and
retaliation
with
one
agency
to
simultaneously
file
with
the
other,
so
that
agreement
already
exists,
but
it's
not
in
statute,
and
so
my
understanding
from
the
attorney
that's
present
with
us
today
that
this
dual
filing
process
has
had
some
issues,
and
I
did
speak
with
the
administrator
for
the
nerc
office
about
regarding
this
issue
as
well,
and
so
right
now
that
exists
with
this
workshare
agreement.
D
But
it's
not
in
statute.
So
there's
been
some
instances
where
the
workshare
agreement
has
not
been
honored
and
then
they
contact
nerc
and
then
they
have
to
go
back
back
and
to
fix
it.
And
so
I
think
that
the
attorney
can
kind
of
give
some
additional
remarks
on
that.
R
Yes,
that's
correct
for
the
record
jp
kemp
on
the
bench
justice
association.
The
work
sharing
agreement
does
provide
that
when
you
file
with
one
agency
you
file
with
both
of
them
it's
simultaneously
filed
with
both
whichever
one
you
file
with
first
is
generally
the
one
that
does
the
investigation
to
answer
specifically
vice
chair's
question.
R
If,
if,
if
it
does
go
through
the
nevada,
equal
rights,
commission
and
a
decision
comes
out
and
a
substantial
weight
review
is
requested,
this
would
continue
to
toll
the
time
limit
to
bring
a
lawsuit
until
the
equal,
the
u.s,
equal
employment
opportunity.
Commission
finished
its
review
and
issued
its
own
right
to
sue
notice.
R
It's
whichever
one
is
later,
so
it
does
provide
for
the
administrative
agencies
to
do
their
job
without
running
the
clock
out
and
forcing
somebody
to
go
file
a
lawsuit
before
the
administrative
agencies
is
finished,
and
so
so
that's
how
that
works.
I
hope
that
answers
the
question.
K
It
does
I'm
just
you
know,
I'm
kind
of
glad
you
guys
are
getting
into
this
section.
I
know
her.
Some
of
the
women
torres
bill
does
some
other
things,
but
there's
there's
also
an
issue
within
this
within
the
substantial
review
in
terms
of
individuals
who
get
their
claim
clicked
out
of
kicked
out
of
nerc,
and
they
don't
really
know
how
to
do
a
substantial
review,
and
sometimes
that
may
or
may
not.
K
K
This
might
be
an
opportunity
to
at
least
say
that
you
need
to
give
like
a
simple
skeleton
letter
of
how
to
file
a
substantial
review
and
then,
if,
if
the
complainant
needs
to
talk
to
nerc,
that
they're
actually
allowed
to
talk
to
nerd
without
them
triggering
some
kind
of
sanction
against
them,
because,
typically
what
I've
said?
What
I've
seen
is
that
it'll
get
kicked
out
of
nerc
and
then
they'll
send
the
letter
saying
you
can
no
longer
contact
this
office
ever
again
and
you're
like
holy
smokes.
K
I
don't
know
how
to
do
what
I'm
doing
right
and
then
you
understand
what
I'm
saying
like:
that's,
that's,
that's
the
knit
and
grit
that's
happening
in
the
space
and
if
we
have
a
chance
to
like
kind
of
spell
out
a
little
bit
of
that
saying
like
if
a
person
contacts
nerc
after
they
get
kicked
out
for
one
time
for
clarification,
there
should
be
no
sanction
to
that
complainant.
Although
they're
on
another
pathway
to
either
get
it
get
a
lawyer
pursue
in
court
or
go
get
a
substantial
review
so.
R
If
I
could
address
that
yeah-
and
I
agree
it
can
be
an
issue.
My
experience
is
that
mostly
the
equal
rights
commission,
letters
do
mention
that
they
can
file
a
substantial
weight
review.
There
usually
is
some
correspondence
from
the
eefc
also,
but
it
can
be
very
confusing
for
the
uninitiated
and
there
probably
is
room
for
improvement
in
that
process.
R
The
nevada
rights
commission,
when
their
letter
gives,
I
think,
it's
15
days,
it's
a
strict
limit,
though
they
say
it's
a
strict
limit.
I
think
it's
15
days
to
to
file
a
request
for
reconsideration
with
them,
and
then
they
have
the
opportunity
after
that,
to
seek
substantial
weight
review.
I
think
their
letters
do
say
that,
but
again
there
could
always
be
you
know
greater
clarity,
and
perhaps
they
should
have
better
instructions
on
their
website
or
something
like
that,
I
I
agree.
It's
a
room
for
improvement.
D
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we
have
senator
pickard
and
then
senator
sullivan.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I'm
glad
senator
neil
went
first
because
she
went
a
lot
deeper
into
section
four
than
I
would
have,
and
she
resolved
my
question
there.
So
my
other
question
has
to
do
with
section
one
particularly
sub
two
b
d
and
e,
but
backing
up
first
in
sub
one.
We
talk
about
denying
employment
or
promotion,
and
since
this
is
going
to
apply
to
non-union
non-cba
type
employment
as
well,
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
its
intrusion
into
our
right
to
work
state.
H
Now
I
will
say
at
the
outset
I'm
a
member
of
nja.
I
I
certainly
believe
in
people's
seventh
amendment
right
to
pursue
redress
and
and
certainly
the
ability
to
uphold
their
common
law
rights
for
protecting
whistleblowers,
and
I
agree
with
that.
But
this
seems
to
go
much
beyond
that.
Mr
camp,
isn't
it
true
that
punitive
damages
currently
I'm
looking
at
subbie
right
now
are
not
allowed
in
these
types
of
cases?
R
So
senator
pickard
punitive
damages
currently
under
the
common
law
retaliatory
discharge
for
whistleblowing
punitive
damages
are
recognized
common
law
for
this
type
of
case,
basically,
the
full
panoply
of
tort
damages
which
would
include
punitive
damages.
Of
course,
we
do
have
statutes.
Nrs
42.005
is
a
statute
that
governs
punitive
damages,
but
though
punitive
damages
are
recognized
in
these
types
of
retaliation
cases.
R
You
know
at
this
point,
so
I
would
not
see
it
as
an
expansion.
Now.
H
Certain
cases-
maybe
I
I
mean
you're
the
expert
in
this,
so
I'll
defer
that
point
all
right.
So,
even
if
it's
not
it
says,
the
provisions
of
nrs
4207
do
not
apply
to
an
action
brought
pursued
to
this
section.
So
I'm
I'm
interested
in
in
understanding.
You
know
it.
Why
would
we
put
this
in
it?
We
we
say
punitive
damages
if
appropriate
according
to
o5
and
then
007
does
not
apply,
and
yet
007
is
the
broad
05
is
limitations
after
the
proceedings.
So
can
you
explain
how
those
are
different
sure.
R
Nrs
42.007
is
a
statute
that
was
passed,
I
think,
primarily
after
the
tail
hook
incident,
which
there
was
concern
that
employers
were
being
held,
vicariously
liable
for
punitive
damages
by
the
actions
of
their
employees,
and
so
that's
what
42.007
addresses-
and
this
is
to
make
make
clear
that
that
doesn't
apply
here
so
the
employer,
because
because
the
employment
relationship
is
between
the
employee
and
the
employer,
so
when
the
employer
fires
the
employee,
it's
the
employer
doing
it,
but
it's
to
make
clear
that
an
employer
couldn't
come
and
say
well
that
wasn't
really
us!
R
It
was
this
road
manager
of
ours.
You
know
the
other
employees,
so
you
can't
get
punitive
damages
against
us.
It's
to
make
clear
that
when,
whenever
employee
gets
hired,
it
is
the
employer
doing
it,
and
so
it's
just
to
make
that
clarification,
that
that
statute
would
not
come
into
play.
In
a
case
like
this.
H
This
is
where
we're
really
intruding
into
right
to
work,
and-
and
so
often
my
concern
is
this-
we've
got
employees
sometimes
that
are
really
difficult
and
and
then
they
make
a
claim
just
to
avoid
being
let
go.
Wouldn't
this
make
it
really
hard
for
private
businesses
to
discharge
the
the
difficult
employee.
D
A
supplement
source
for
the
record,
if
I
could
just
interject
here
so
I
just
want
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
these
pieces
of
legislation
is
aimed
at
targeting
bad
actors
right.
So
this
is
not
going
to
just
impact
your
business
who,
like
let's
go
of
somebody
because
they
have.
You
know
proof
that
the
individual
maybe
has
been
taking
extended,
lunches
or
something
like
that
like
it
doesn't
prevent
that
right.
D
So
this
is
really
aimed
at
ensuring
that
workers
feel
comfortable
and
confident
going
up
to
their
employers
and
addressing
any
unsafe
working
conditions.
That's
what
the
intent
of
this
legislation
is,
and
you
know
I
want
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
too-
that
this
piece
of
legislation
would
still
have
to
go
like
the
the
the
retaliation
like
the
I
guess,
what
they
could
receive.
They
would
still
have
to
file
a
lawsuit
and
a
judge
would
have
to
determine
that
they
should
receive
that.
So
it's
not
like
you
know
any
employee.
D
Any
employee
can
just
come
up
with
like
a
frivolous
lawsuit
and
and
get
there
get.
You
know
the
punitive
damages
or
past
your
future
compensatory
damages,
or
these
other
damages
that
are
are
listed
within
the
the
piece
of
legislation.
I
think
that
the
legislation
is
abundantly
cleared
that
they're
like
it
would
only
be
for
those
bad
actors
that
are
acting
in
bad
faith,
and
you
know
when
an
employee
goes
forward
and
says
you
know
these
working
conditions
are
unsafe.
D
This
ladder
is
not
working
and
I'm
still
required
to
use
it
to
go
up
two
flights,
two
flights,
a
second
story
building
like
that,
then
that
employee
shouldn't
be
fired
just
because
they
went
to
their
employer
and
said
you
know.
This
is
the
condition
this
is
what's
going
on,
and
the
unfortunate
reality
is
that
we're
seeing
that
in
our
communities,
right
and
so
employees
just
don't
feel
confident
that
they
can
come
forward
and
talk
to
their
employers
about
these
unsafe
conditions,
and
that's
not
good
for
employers
or
employees.
D
H
The
point:
well,
I
know
we
need
to
move
on.
I
just
I
I'm
concerned
about
the
flip
side
of
that
coin,
and
I
agree
with
you.
A
Can
you,
I
think,
I
think,
we've
gone
into
a
lot
of
depth
right
here.
Do
me
a
favor
if
you
can
take
the
rest
of
the
concerns
offline
with
the
sponsor?
I
appreciate
that
and
that's
for
just
for
the
record.
I
just
need
everybody
to
know
where
we
are
right.
Now
there
are
people
who
have
to
move
in
and
out
of
meetings
to
present
there
are
a
number
of
committees
that
are
trying
to
extend
their
time
or
move
their
time
forward
or
whatever,
and
so
in
the
spirit
of
fairness.
A
What
I'm
trying
to
do
is
make
sure
those
who
chair
committees,
especially
those
afternoon
committees
that
want
a
little
bit
of
time
to
move
up
beyond
or
before
one
o'clock.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
them
a
chance
to
do
that.
A
lot
of
bills
left
to
be
heard.
We
have
almost
a
thousand
bills
that
were
submitted
this
session
and
really
where
we
are
right
now
is
a
consequence
of
annual
of
not
having
annual
sessions.
We
only
have
120
days
to
get
stuff
done
every
two
years.
A
So
I'm
going
to
ask
committee
members
if
you
will
limit
your
question
and
answers
to
five
to
seven
minutes,
so
pick
your
top
three.
The
things
that
you
know
are
most
important
to
get
into
the
record,
and
that
would
include
your
question
and
your
answer
and
ask
and
get
that
answer
and
that
way
we
can
make
sure
that
anybody
else
in
the
committee
who
has
a
question
or
answer
gets
a
chance
to
to
do
that.
I
want
to
make
sure
we
cover.
A
We
get
a
chance
to
hear
all
the
bills
and
we
get
a
chance
to
do
work
session
on
those
that
are
remaining
and
while
I'm
there,
the
students
tell
them.
I
haven't
forgotten
you
while
I'm
there.
I
just
want
to
explain
to
people
too
that
whenever
we
do
a
work
session
generally,
it
is
not
a
re-hearing
and
we
cross
the
line
on
the
last
bill
and
put
it
into
another
hearing.
So
anyone
who
has
major
concerns
about
senate
bill
45,
I'm
sorry
assembly
bill
45.
A
Please
make
sure
that
you
get
with
the
parties
either
with
the
commissioner
or
mr
wadhams
clear
that
up
and
when
we
come
back
next
week
when
we
bring
it
back
next
week,
we
will
not
have
an
extended
discussion
on
the
bill.
We
will
do
an
up
or
down
vote.
So
with
that
senator
settlemyre,
you
have
a
question.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
that
I'm
looking
at
section
1a
when
it
says
reporting
to
the
employer
or
to
the
appropriate
external
authority.
My
concern
there
stems
from
an
issue
of
safety
in
that
respect.
If
on
my
business
or
you
know
somewhere
else,
if
there
is
a
safety
issue
or
concern,
I
expect
my
employee
to
tell
me
immediately
of
that
safety
issue
and
concern
because
it
affects
the
well-being
of
other
employees
and
individuals
and
the
concept
of
saying
they
can
just
report
it
to
the
external
authority.
G
You
know
calling
osha
could
leave
a
known
danger
that
could
affect
myself
or
someone
else,
and
I
find
that
rather
problematic.
Why
that
isn't
an
and
I
have
no
problem
with
them,
reporting
it
to
osha,
but
that
also
needs
reported
to
the
employer.
So
it
can
be
remedied
if
you
could
address
that
and
then
I
had
an
additional
question
beyond
that.
Madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
question.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
settlemeyer
assembly
on
tours
for
the
record.
I
completely
agree.
We
want
to
encourage
individuals
to
go
and
speak
to
their
employee
and
right
now,
there's
no
protections
for
the
for
good
actors
like
yourself,
for
employees
to
just
go
report
it
to
them
that
there's
no
protection,
no
whistleblower
protection
for
them
right
now.
Instead,
in
statute,
we
have
none
of
that
protection.
D
However,
there
is,
there
is
already
the
protection
for
them
to
report
it
to
the
external
authority,
so
we're
just
putting
we're
codifying
that,
but
that's
all
that
protection
already
exists
and
that's
so
that
we
can
encourage
individuals
to
report
to
osha
if
they
maybe
feel
uncomfortable
talking
to
their
employer,
but
they
they're
still
incur
that
they're
still
encouraged
to
talk
to
that
regulatory
agency.
I
don't
want
to
disempower
employees
from
having
that
avenue.
D
If
that's,
perhaps
the
the
place
where
they
feel
most
comfortable
and
quite
honestly,
I
don't
think
he
was
able
to
make
it
to
to
this
particular
meeting.
But
I've
spoken
with
abraham
kamehameha
who's,
a
small
business
owner
in
southern
nevada
who
works
on
like
providing
osha
training
and
oftentimes.
He
has
individuals
that
go
and
speak
to
him
about
the
issues
because
they
don't
know
how
to
navigate
those
spaces,
maybe
there's
a
language
barrier
or
something
else.
So
I
I
know
that
that's
an
issue
that
exists
right
now
and
I
definitely
agree
with
you.
G
I
appreciate
that
some
of
them,
but
what
I'm
looking
at
is
there's
not
an
and
there
again
this
would
allow
them
to
only
report
it
to
osha
and
not
report
it
to
the
employer,
and
you
have
to
report
it
to
the
employer,
so
the
employer
can
make
it
safe
before
someone
gets
injured.
That's
my
concern,
so
please
take
a
look
at
that
and
maybe
we
can
follow
up
offline
because
the
chair
wants
to
keep
moving.
The
other
aspect
I
have
is
once
they
say
that
the
condition
is
unsafe
about
something.
G
What
if
the
employer
doesn't
consider
it
unsafe?
Does
that
now
create
a
cause
of
action,
because
sometimes
my
daughter
looks
at
things
and
says:
dad
that's
dangerous
and
I
sit
there
and
go
yeah.
That's
just
kind
of
the
way
we
do
things
when
it
retains
to.
You
know
you're
dealing
with
certain
things
with
knives,
branding
and
things
of
that
nature.
There
are
some
things
that
are
just
inherently
dangerous.
R
Thank
you,
j.p
kemp,
with
the
record
and
senator
settlemyre
there.
There
are
always
you
know.
The
world
is
not
a
place.
That's
clearly
in
black
and
white.
There
always
will
be
gray
areas
and
I,
but
I
think
that
you
know
when
you've
got
a
table,
saw
that's
missing
a
safety
guard.
R
You
know
a
lot
of
these
things
will
be
very
obvious.
There
are
some
things
that
that
may
be
more
of
a
gray
area.
It's
only
where
the
employer,
basically
retaliates
and
fires.
The
person
I
mean
the
employer,
you
know,
does
have
the
ability
to
you
know,
fix
things
and
and
and
take
the
appropriate
safety
action
it's
where
they
fire
the
person,
because
they've
raised
the
concern,
that's
going
to
be
the
issue
under
the
statutes
under
this
proposed
statute.
R
So
in
terms
yeah,
as
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
that
most
times
it
will
be
very
clear,
but
there
will
be
gray
areas
there,
just
always
are
in
the
world
and
those
will
have
to
be
dealt
with
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
But
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
G
R
Not
if
the
employer
doesn't
fire
the
employee
or
take
some
other
action
jp
again
for
the
record
senator
settlemyre.
This
is
only
for
those
issue,
instances
of
retaliation,
so
the
other
there
could
be
disagreements.
But
you
know
if
the
employer
doesn't
take
retaliatory
action.
It
wouldn't
there
wouldn't
be
a
cause
of
action,
because
this
only
applies
to
retaliation.
G
Okay,
let
me
be
more
direct,
so
let's
say
that
the
employee
comes
five
times
continually
saying
that
these
are
unsafe
conditions,
I'm
not
going
to
work
under
these
conditions.
Osha
says
no
they're
actually
safe,
and
they
keep
doing
it
and
doing
it
and
you're
an
employer
tired
of
this
type
of
a
situation
you
let
the
person
go.
Does
that
not
potentially
raise
a
cause
of
action.
R
It
potentially
would
the
question
then,
though,
becomes
under
the
statute
whether
or
not
this
was
the
employee's
good
faith.
Belief
and
you
know
if
a
number
of
people
looked
at
it
and
said
no,
this
isn't
the
problem,
then
that
calls
into
question
whether
or
not
the
employee
has
a
reasonable
good
faith
belief
and
so
that
that
would
not.
R
D
A
So
I
was
reading
this
morning,
not
a
question,
a
comment,
I'm
reading
this
morning
in
the
army
times
that
the
criminal
investigation
division
of
the
army
is
going
to
move
away
from
the
current
structure
into
a
different
type
of
structure,
and
it
is
based
upon
the
very
tragic
and
unfortunate
incidents
that
led
to
the
death
to
the
death
of
one
of
the
soldiers,
one
women
soldiers
there
at
fort
hood
and
it
came
about
as
a
result
of
her
being
sexual
harassed
and
mentioning
this
to
her
supervisor
direct
supervisor.
A
Who
did
nothing
and
wanted
to
mention
it
to
someone
else
and
was
told
if
you
do
that,
you've
got
to
make
sure
you
have
make
sure
you
have
some
proof
and
she
told
family
members
and
told
some
friends
what
was
going
on.
I
went
back
to
the
supervisor
the
person
who
was
responsible
for
her
well-being
and
safety,
and
they
did
nothing
eventually
another
soldier,
although
he
completed
suicide
before
he
was
charged.
The
evidence
showed
that
he
was
probably
the
one
who
affected
her
death.
A
I
will
say
this
as
someone
who
experienced
sexual
harassment
in
the
military
as
a
captain
and
the
sexual
harassment
came
directly
from
my
senior
supervisor.
It
happened
to
me
in
panama
in
1986,
and
I
never
told
anyone
anyone
until
1995
when
I
was
promoted
to
lieutenant
colonel,
I
was
deathly
afraid
of
losing
my
career.
A
So
I
I
look
at
this
legislation
and
I
can
understand
the
concern
that
there
would
be
some
people
who
take
advantage
of
it,
but
most
people
that
I
know
are
so
glad
to
have
their
job
and
like
what
they
do,
that
there
would
only
be
a
very,
very,
very
few
people
who
would
who
would
go
down
the
path
of
just
making
up
stuff
just
so
that
they
could
bring
an
employer
down.
A
And
I
think
there
are
there
are
ways
we
can
put
state
cars
into
this
bill
that
that
would
happen
because
we
we
have
to
admit,
although
not
everyone.
A
There
are
still
some
people
who
who
like
to
prey
on
those
who
are
vulnerable
and
if
you
are
in
a
a
position
of
power
over
someone
who
needs
the
job,
and
if
you
are
not
a
scrupulous
person,
then
there
are
opportunities
to
do
that.
So
I
look
at
this
bill
through
through
the
lens
of
my
experience.
There
was
no
way
that
I
could
even
tell
somebody
that
a
fulbright,
colonel
had
just
propositioned
me.
There
was
no
way
that
I
could
even
get
off
the
island
of
panama.
A
There
was
nothing
nothing
that
I
could
do
because
he
held
my
future
in
his
hand
and
if
I
said
anything
to
anyone,
I'm
pretty
sure
I
would
not
be
able
to
say
today
that
I
was
a
retired
veteran.
So
with
that,
is
there
anyone
in
the
room?
I'm
sorry
assuming
if
you
have
any
other
presenters
or
can
we
go
now
to
support.
D
A
Okay,
is
there
anyone
in
the
room
who
is
there
to
support
assembly
bill
222.
A
B
B
B
C
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
paul,
katha,
that's
spelled
c-a-t-h-a
and
I'm
representing
the
culinary
union
and
in
interest
of
saving
the
committee's
time.
I
will
just
say
ditto.
Thank
you.
B
B
C
J
C
C
This
is
a
complex
issue,
especially
since
it
replaced
specifically
workplace
safety,
and
we
want
to
avoid
any
unattended
consequences
that
might
harm
employers
or
employees,
since
we
have
not
yet
come
to
an
agreed
upon
language,
we
are
still
opposed
at
this
time,
but
we'll
continue
in
best
faith
to
continue
to
develop
a
compromised
language
to
the
bill.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
members
of
the.
B
S
Greetings,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
amber
stidham,
that's
s-t-I-d-h-a-m
for
the
henderson
chamber
of
commerce
and
respectfully.
We
also
oppose
the
bill
as
written
and
last
amended.
Our
prior
opposition
focused
on
two
critical
concerns,
and
that
was
within
sections
one
and
three.
We
do
withdraw
our
opposition
to
section
three,
as
the
bill
largely
removed
that
piece.
However,
as
it
stands
as
noted
earlier
section
one
already,
it
is
our
understanding
that
the
federal
law
already
provides
robust
protections
against
retaliatory
employment
practices
aimed
at
whistleblowers
and
also
as
the
digest
notes.
S
As
last
amended,
though,
section
1
now
provides
that
an
employer
employee
who
is
discharged,
discriminated
against
or
suffers
a
quote:
adverse
employment
action
is
not
only
entitled
to
lost
wages
and
reinstatement
damages
equal
to
lost
wages,
but
now
also
past
and
future
compensatory
damages
punitive
damages
all
in
addition
to
attorneys
fees
and
costs
already
provided
for
in
this
bill.
Well,
we
can
appreciate
the
intent
of
the
bill,
and
certainly
our
chamber
does
not
support
bad
actors.
S
The
other
damages
already
provide
a
terminated
whistleblower
with
adequate
protections
for
discharged
employees
to
regain
lost
money,
their
job
and
attorney
fees.
This
proposal
will
put
small
business
owners
in
a
difficult
situation
in
rehiring,
hiring
and
retention.
We
are
also
very
concerned
that
bills
like
these
will
discourage
out-of-state
investment
and
economic
diversification,
both
of
which
are
very
critical
in
helping
our
state
move
forward.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
B
C
Sheriff
spearman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
connor
kane
c-o-n-n-o-r-c-a-I
and
I'm
testifying
in
opposition
to
ab222
on
behalf
of
hca,
I'd
like
to
first
thank
the
sponsor
for
her
willingness
to
work
on
this
bill.
There
have
been
a
number
of
interested
parties,
and
I
know
that
she's
been
trying
very
hard
to
make
sure
she
receives
everyone's
input,
which,
as
all
of
you
know
on
the
committee,
is
no
easy
task.
C
C
B
C
B-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E-R,
I'm
the
senior
vice
president
of
the
retail
association
of
nevada.
I
would
echo
the
comments
from
opposition
that
came
before
me,
but
I
would
also
add
an
addition
that
we
are
gravely
concerned
that
this
bill
ab222
moves
beyond
looking
for
bad
actors
and
instead,
given
the
amount
of
punitive
and
trouble
damages,
would
create
a
system
in
which
businesses
who
are
doing
the
right
thing
are
encouraged
to
settle
these
types
of
lawsuits
in
order
to
not
be
able
or
have
to
defend
them
over
a
long
period
of
time.
C
We
are
encouraged
that
the
sponsor
is
still
working
with
those
of
us
in
the
stakeholder
group
and
we
hope
to
get
to
a
place
where
ab222
is
not
anti-business,
but
at
the
moment
considering
how
it
is
written,
we
do
have
to
view
it
in
such
a
manner.
We
urge
you
to
vote
no
in
the
current
iteration
of
the
bill
and
we
look
forward
to
keep
working
with
the
sponsor
to
find
a
path
forward.
B
M
Morning,
chair
spearman
and
committee
members
and
assemblywoman
torres
misty
grimmer
g-r-I-m-m-e-r
with
the
ferraro
group,
representing
the
nevada
resort
association.
We
are
before
you
today
in
opposition
to
ab222,
with
the
hopes
of
being
able
to
continue
work
with
assemblywoman
torres
in
finding
a
compromise.
M
to
create
an
avenue
for
a
less
formal
complaint
process.
We
believe
a
mechanism
could
be
added
to
the
statutes
using
the
structure
and
punishment
framework
already
in
place
in
rs
613
in
the
miscellaneous
provisions
that
would
be
considered
unemployment
practice,
unlawful
unemployment
practices,
for
example.
In
that
section,
employer
access
to
employee
social
media
accounts
is
addressed,
prohibiting
an
employee
from
having
to
show
up
in
person
to
prove
they
are
sick,
non-compete,
covenants
and
various
other
miscellaneous
provisions
are
in
that
section.
M
Unfortunately,
as
this
bill
is
currently
drafted,
it
does
go
further
and
includes
the
ability,
the
ability
for
an
employee
to
refuse
a
task,
because
they
think
the
task
is
the
task
imposes
a
risk
to
themselves
or
others.
We
are
uncomfortable
with
how
broad
that
language
is,
for
example,
when
the
mass
mandate
is
lifted.
This
could
allow
a
person
to
still
refuse
to
work
next
to
a
fellow
employee
if
that
employee
is
not
wearing
a
mask
because
the
person
is
worried
about
getting
covered.
M
Finally,
the
penalty
provisions
in
the
current
law
go
far
beyond
what
we
generally
see
in
statute
for
unlawful
employment
practices.
As
drafted,
this
bill
would
allow
recovery
of
future
wages,
I'm
not
entirely
certain
what
that
means
or
where
the
limits
on
what
that
would
be.
Additionally,
the
bill
allows
for
employee
the
employees.
M
C
S
B
C
Begin,
thank
you
sheriff
spearman
and
committee
members.
This
is
brian
reader,
v-r-I-a-n
r-e-e-d-e-r
with
ferrari
public
affairs.
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
contractors
association.
First
of
all,
we
want
to
thank
the
build
sponsor
for
meeting
with
us.
We
had
a
good
discussion
about
the
bill
this
week
and
we
hope
to
keep
working
with
the
build
sponsor
to
remove
to
remove
our
opposition.
C
Unfortunately,
we
are
opposed
today
and
for
the
reasons
previously
stated,
but
madam
chair,
if
you
don't
mind
without
sounding
cliche,
I
want
to
say
that
we
do
take
safety
very
seriously.
The
ncaa
celebrates
working
in
a
safe
environment,
they
honor
contractors
for
having
a
strong,
robust
safety
and
compliance
record
at
their
annual
contractor
of
the
year
award
ceremony.
C
The
ncaa
has
a
safety
committee
that
meets
on
a
regular
basis
to
discuss
best
practices
and
methods
that
they
they
see
in
the
field
to
keep
employees
safe
at
all
times.
Many
of
our
companies
also
have
a
full-time
safety
professional
on
staff
and
in
the
field,
walking
job
sites
to
ensure
compliance
with
all
safety
standards
and
that
employees
are
working
safely,
and
we
do
all
these
things
not
out
of
concern
for
legal
liability,
but
just
to
make
sure
that
the
men
and
women
in
our
industry
go
home
safe
every
night.
C
So
we
would
like
to
keep
working
with
the
build
sponsor
to
to
get
to
place
where
we
are
not
in
opposition.
But
unfortunately,
today
we
are
opposed.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
In
broadcast,
we
have
three
minutes
left,
so
we
either
have
two
two
people
on
the
line,
who
will
not
take
more
than
a
minute
and
a
half
or
one
person,
the
last
calling
will
be
if
they
take
two
minutes,
that'll
be
the
end
of
it.
B
C
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
mike
cathcart
representing
the
city
of
henderson.
That's
mike
m-I-k-e-c,
cathcart,
c-a-t-h
c-a-r-t,
simply
put
this
bill,
turns
the
whistle-blower
law
from
a
shield
to
protect
employees
from
retaliation
into
a
process
to
superseded
employers
disciplinary
processes.
C
In
addition,
this
bill
creates
another
issue
by
allowing
punitive
damages
punitive
damages
against
a
government
employer,
not
a
common
remedy
in
nevada
law.
This
creates
a
disincentive
to
discipline
and
hold
accountable
employees
who
have
filed
any
complaint
also
by
accepting
the
applicability
of
nrs
42,
which
limits
monetary
awards
against
the
government.
This
change
to
the
law
could
prove
problematic
for
local
government
budgets.
Finally,
we
look
forward
to
seeing
future
amendments
and
working
further
with
private
sector
community
and
the
bill
sponsor.
Thank
you.
B
C
Good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
mindy
elliott,
representing
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce
to
respect
the
time
I
will
just
say
ditto
to
all
of
my
peers
and.
S
A
Thank
you
just
in
time,
15
minutes
neutral,
two
minutes
per
individual.
Thank
you.
B
B
A
Thank
you.
Some
woman
taught
us
you
have
any
closing.
D
Statements
you
chair
assembly,
on
tours
for
the
record
and
I'll
keep
my
closing
statements
pretty
brief
here
today.
I
just
want
to
thank
the
stakeholders
for
coming
to
the
table
so
that
we
can
address
some
of
the
issues
in
this
piece
of
legislation.
I'm
committed
to
continuing
to
work
with
them
so
that
we
can
kind
of
fine-tune
some
of
the
language
that
I
know
miss
misty
grimmer
addressed
today.
D
I
don't
work,
I'm
I'm
committed
to
ensuring
that
we
continue
to
collaborate
on
future
amendments
to
this
piece
of
legislation
and,
like
senator
sediment
said,
I
agree
that
employees
should
feel
comfortable
talking
to
their
employers
about
unsafe
working
conditions,
and
the
unfortunate
reality
is
that
there
is
no
protection
for
employees
to
talk
to
their
employers
about
unsafe
working
conditions
right
now,
and
so
I
think
that
this
legislation
is
very
much
aimed
at
resolving
that
very
issue
that
I
think
that
employers
want
to
have
those
conversations
with
their
employees
and
we
need
to
encourage
that.
D
We
need
to
encourage
employees
to
have
those
conversations
to
prevent
any
any
danger
to
the
employee
or
the
employer,
and
this
doesn't
exist
right
now,
and
so
this
legislation
is
aimed
specifically
at
that
I
additionally,
I
want
to
address
some
of
the
remarks
made
by
the
opposition.
Today,
somebody
stated
that
there
perhaps
was
still
opposition
or
some
opposition.
Maybe
he
remains
in
section
three.
D
I
want
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
section
three
was
removed
with
the
in
the
revised
version
of
the
piece
of
legislation
on
the
assembly
side,
so
there
should
be
no
opposition
to
section
three,
because
it's
non-existent
opposition
stated
claims
that
this
will
lead
to
frivolous
lawsuits
if
apollo
asked
for
other
reasons,
so
perhaps
they
would
let
go
of
somebody
for
a
different
reason.
D
Nonetheless,
I
just
want
to
make
it
abundantly
clear
that
courts
know
how
to
address
legitimate
firing
if
somebody
was
let
go
for
a
different
reason,
if
there
is
a
legitimate
non-retaliatory
reason,
the
employee
wouldn't
have
a
claim,
and
this
legislation
makes
that
pretty
explicit
employers
use
pretext
to
hide
real
motives
and
the
courts
have
ways
to
address.
This
ab2
ensures
that
hardworking
nevadans
have
the
ability
to
work
in
safe
conditions,
and
I
urge
your
support
for
ab22.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
and
just
before
you
leave
I
I
wanted
our
lcp
council
to
comment
on
the
safety
concerns.
I
think
senator
sotomayor
brought
up
or
made
a
statement
that
I
guess
looks
to
that
distinction.
His
daughter
said
that's
unsafe
and
he
said
that's,
no,
that's
just
what
we
do
so,
mr
king,
can
you
address
the
safety
concerns?
I
don't
remember
who
it
was,
but
someone
mentioned
working
next
to
a
person
without
a
mask.
L
L
This
bill
brings
together
those
protections,
as
has
already
mentioned.
The
whittlesea
case
provides
protection
for
whistleblowers
who
report
to
an
external
authority,
but
not
to
their
employer.
Federal
statutes,
also
provide
whistleblower
protections,
but
only
in
very
specialized
cases,
and
they
don't
always
apply
to
private
employees.
For
example,
the
sarbanes-oxley
act
has
been
determined
to
provide
to
apply
to
private
employees,
but
those
are
very
specialized
and
also
there
is
a
provision
in
chapter
618
about
reporting,
workplace
conditions
and
preventing
the
employee
from
being
discriminated
against.
L
Because
of
that
that
once
again
is,
is
narrow
and
specialized
to
chapter
618
and
does
not
have
the
same
sort
of
remedies
as
in
this
bill.
What
this
bill
does
is.
It
brings
together
all
of
that
and
allows
an
employee
to
have
one
section
that
they
could
rely
on
for
for
all
those
different
types
of
reportings.
As
far
as
the
refusing
to
engage
in
activity
that
they
feel
is
unsafe.
L
This
statute
does
allow
for
that,
but
they
have
to
reasonably
end
good
and
in
good
faith,
suspect
that
the
condition
would
violate
local
state
federal
law
or
regulation,
and
it's
certainly
possible
that
somebody
would
not
have
a
good
idea
about
what
is
unsafe,
but
certainly
after
the
appropriate
authority
has
said
that
it's
uns.
That's
that
it's
fine.
L
That
would
undercut
that
employee's
argument
that
they
have
a
reasonable
and
good
faith
problem
with
what's
going
on,
but
but
to
be
to
be
clear
as
far
as
safety
conditions
that
are
covered
by
the
current
statute
in
chapter
618,
there's
already
in
that
limited
context,
the
ability
of
an
employee
to
file
an
action
it
would
be
with
it
would
be
with
a
dir
not
with
not
with
nurk,
but
it
it
would
already
allow
an
employee
to
proceed
if
they
thought
something
was
wrong,
and
if
the
employee
was
wrong,
then
the
employee
would
not
be
protected.
A
A
Okay,
we're
back
so
we
thank
you.
Thank
you
assembly,
mentors
for
that
presentation
and
those
of
you
who
participated
will
now
officially
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
222
and
let's
go
to
the
workstation
on
our
last
bill
and
after
this
work
session,
vice
chair
I'll
need
you
to
take
over,
because
I
need
to
move
to
another
to
another
meeting,
real
quick.
But
let's
do
the
work
session
on
our
last
bill,
mr
madejo.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Vice
chair,
neil
stepped
out
of
the
room
for
a
second,
but
she
is
coming
back.
If
you
want
to
wait
for
us
for
a
minute
or
two.
A
A
So
I'll
tell
you
what
we'll
do,
let's,
let's
go
on
back,
then
we'll
hear
our
final
bill
and
mr
marijuana,
let's
move
the
last
work
session
to
next
week
and
I
hope
that
doesn't
inconvenience
those
who
have
been
waiting
to
hear
it
today.
A
So,
let's,
let's
open
the
hearing,
I
believe
our
last
bill
is
assembly
bill
436.
T
T
Most
of
you
know,
I
see
a
number
with
glasses,
like
myself,
that
you
may
have
vision
a
vision
plan
as
part
of
your
as
an
add-on
to
your
health
insurance
vision
plans
like
dental
plans,
provide
sort
of
limited
benefits,
often
prepaid.
For
example,
you
know
when
you
go
in
to
get
your
annual
vision
exam,
you
pay
a
set
price
and
every
so
often
you
get
a
discount
on
a
new
pair
of
glasses
in
the
united
states
about
200
million
people
have
vision
plans
as
a
part
of
their
health
care
coverage.
T
Two-Thirds
of
them
are
covered
by
just
two
different
companies.
What
that
has
done
is
limited
to
some
extent,
choices
for
consumers
and
the
options,
and
also
created
a
very
difficult
bargaining
environment
for
the
independent
doctors
of
optometry
in
our
state
and
other
places.
T
Dental
plans
have
been
regulated
in
this
in
this
state
since
1983
in
chapter
695d,
rather
than
try
to
do
an
entire
chapter
around
vision
plans.
We
look
to
streamline
this
and
put
some
very
basic
protections
for
consumers
and
for
providers
here
in
chapter
686,
a
which
is
trade
practices
and
frauds
and
insurance
and
I'll
quickly
go
through
section
one
of
the
bill
section.
T
T
Number
four
is
a
prohibition
on
advertising
that
you
provide
reimbursement
for
things
that
you
in
which
you
don't
so
it's
a
somewhat
complicated
language
and
I
know,
there's
an
amendment
that
we
consider
friendly
from
reagan
comas,
who
represents
the
national
association
division
care
plans
to
change
or
that
in
line
23
to
if
and
I'll.
T
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
questions
and
again,
while
our
members
are
very
interested
in
the
bill,
we
knew
that
because
of
the
time
today,
we
didn't
have
room
for
a
lot
of
support
testimony,
so
you
may
hear
from
some
of
them.
After
the
hearing
reaching
out
to
you
directly
but
I'll,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
may
have.
J
T
Absolutely
madame
vice
chair
I'll,
let
you
direct
the
committee
and
your
staff.
K
Okay,
so
vps,
can
you
call
the
last
three
numbers
of
268.
B
Yes,
I
can
check,
please
stand
by.
She
is
the
only
caller
I
have
on
the
line.
Give
me
one
second
to
connect.
You.
K
S
And
if
you'd
like,
I
would,
I
was
intending
and
neutral
to
to
explain
our
amendment,
but
senator
lange
would
likely
do
so
now.
I'm
happy
to
do
so
so
go
ahead.
S
Thank
you
so
currently,
under
our
plans,
we
are
able
to
offer
certain
rebates
on
contact,
lenses
and
frames
for
going
through
providers
that
are
in
network,
and
so
we
just
want
to
be
able
to
continue
to
have
the
ability
to
advertise
those
benefits
to
our
enrollees.
J
So
your
amendment
is,
let
me
see
if
I
have
this
right,
because
I'm
trying
to
see
how
it
fits
in
here,
but
it's
to
allow
you
to
currently
do
the
advertising
that
you
do
with
your
members.
J
That
is
correct,
senator
lange
and
then
on
that
we
thought
it
was
a
technical
change.
Go
ahead,
no
go
ahead!.
S
I
would
say
it
it
just
we.
Our
understanding
was
that
the
way
that
it
came
out
of
the
assembly,
we
were
not
intending
to
prohibit
us
from
being
able
to
make
advertisements
if
there
is
the
ability
for
a
discount
to
be
done.
If
there
is
no
discount
offered,
we
agree
with
the
proponents
that
we
should
not
be
able
to
advertise
that
there
are,
and
so
we're
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
clarification
is
there.
J
Okay,
so
one
of
the
things
I
like
about
the
bill
is
that
on
the
advertising
part
they
cannot,
they
have
to
disclose
if
it's
going
to
cost
an
additional
co-pay
or
an
additional
out-of-pocket
expense.
So
did
you
say
that,
where
is
that
again.
S
T
B
B
S
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
again,
this
is
reagan,
comes
with
r
r
partners
representing
the
national
association
of
vision,
care
plans
and,
as
we've
stated,
we
appreciate
mr
hillaby
working
with
us
to
make
this
technical
change
and
and
accepting
our
amendments,
and
so
with
that
we
are
in
neutral.
Thank
you.
F
A
We
should
we
we
should
we
should
have
done
them
first.
I
I
think
mr
hillary
made
that
purposefully,
because
there
is
another
bill
that
we
had
an
extended
conversation
on.
So
thank
you
real,
quick
question.
We
had
one
more
work
session
bill,
I
believe
was
437.
A
Mr
memoryhole,
can
you
check
to
see
if
they
are
still
available
for
questions
in
the
event
that
there
are
questions
from
the
committee,
and
I
want
to
stress
again
we're
hearing
the
work
sessions?
Are
not
a
rehearing
they're,
simply
an
opportunity
for
us
to
ask
specific
questions
that
were
not
covered
during
the
previous
hearing
or
in
any
amendment?
So
we
will
not
have
an
extended
discussion
on
this
bill,
but
if,
if
the
people
or
the
opponents
are
still
here
the
agency's
still
here,
then
we
will
session
that
bill.
F
Madam
chair,
this
is
our
montgomery
hill
for
the
record.
The
proponents
of
this
bill
stated
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
attend
today's
meeting
because
of
a
important
scheduling
conflict.
However,
they
send
their
apologies
to
you
for
not
be
able
to
be
president,
but
there
were
no
amendments
to
this
measure
and
they
there
was
no
opposition
that
has
been
approached
to
them.
A
Okay,
so
let's
go
on
a
work
session,
this
bill
there
will
be
one
less
we
have
to
do
next
week.
Okay,.
F
All
right,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
cesar
montgorejo
community
policy.
Analyst
assembly
bill
437
revises
provisions
relating
to
embalming.
This
bill
is
sponsored
by
the
assembly
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
on
behalf
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission.
For
the
sake
of
time,
I'll,
just
reiterate
that
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
A
Second?
Is
that
advice
to
you?
Yes,
ma'am?
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
is
there
further
discussion.
Madam.
A
I
C
I
H
A
A
Thank
you,
sir,
and
with
that
we'll
move
now
to
our
last
agenda
item
public
comment
broadcast.
Do
we
have
anyone
on
the
phone
lines.
B
B
B
A
Okay,
so
with
that,
we
will
adjourn
the
meeting.
We
may
have
a
meeting
on
monday
still
trying
to
work
through
to
see
if
there
are
some
amendments
for
some
of
the
bills
that
we
still
need
to
hear
and
a
couple
of
the
items
that
could
be
work
session.
A
I
hope
you
know
that
before
two
o'clock
today
and
as
soon
as
I
know
that
I
will
make
sure
that
we
relay
that
to
our
committee
manager
and
policy
analyst
so
that
we
can
get
it
posted
and
get
members
of
the
committee
notified
with
any
additional
information
that
you
may
need
to
peruse
over
the
weekend
committee
questions
or
comments.
J
Madam
chair,
will
we
be
meeting
an
extra
day
next
week
like
we
did
this
week,
and
I
know
that
there's
no
floor
on
tuesday
and
wednesday.
So
would
we
meet
longer.
A
We're
still
trying
to
work
that
out.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
lang
and
the
thing
that's
driving
us
right
now
is:
we've
got
a
couple
of
bills
that
are
still
in
limbo
where
people
are
still
working
trying
to
work
both
sides.
A
We've
got
some
things
that
some
amendments
that
still
haven't
come
in,
and
so
it's
a
very
fluid
time
as
soon
as
as
soon
as
I
am
notified,
or
as
soon
as
I
need
to
make
the
call
that
we
will
hear
the
bill
either
a
work
session,
the
bill,
I
will
be
sure
to
let
you
know,
I
know
wednesday,
we
will
have
an
extended
meeting.
A
Most
of
that
will
be
for
work
session,
so
the
bills
that
will
will
be
posted
for
work
session.
I
would
encourage
all
committee
members
to
get
with
the
sponsors
get
with
the
proponents
and
the
opponents,
and
if
there
are
any
detailed
questions
that
you
might
have
that
you
need
answered,
please
make
sure
you
get
that
done
prior
to
the
work
session
and
whatever
the
results
are
of
the
conversations
you
have
with
opponents
and
proponents.
A
If
they
need
to
be
added
to
the
record,
please
make
sure
that
you
do
so
at
that
time
work
sessions.
We
will
not
have
another
rehearing
like
we
did
this
morning
on
a
previous
bill.
So
whatever
questions
you
have
whatever
issues
you
have
with
either
the
bill
or,
with
the
amendment,
make
sure
that
you
get
with
the
the
opponents
or
the
proponents
of
the
bill.
I
hope
that
I
answered
your
question
center
line.
This
is
about
as
clear
as
I
can
be
right
now,
because
everything
is
still
rather
fluid.
A
It's
all
good!
Okay,
rest
assured,
by
this
time,
next
week,
when
we
adjourn
all
all
the
bills,
it
is
my
intention
that
all
the
bills
that
we
can
here
we
will
hear
in
all
the
bills
that
we
can
work
session.
We
will
do
so.
Okay
again,
I
will
ask
committees,
committee
members
that,
as
we
move
into
this
last
week,
if
you
can
please
keep
your
questions
and
your
answers
to
answer
period
to
five
minutes.
A
Give
me
your
first
give
us
your
most
important
question
that
you
need
the
most
important
answer
to
that
will
allow
us
an
opportunity
to
hear
more
bills
and
get
more
people
on
the
record.
It
will
also
give
us
an
opportunity
to
make
sure
that
whatever
clarity
needs
to
exist
prior
to
closing
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
make
sure
that
that
that
that
is
indeed
fact
so,
with
that
we
will
close.
A
We
will
adjourn
this
meeting
and
as
soon
as
I
am
clear
on
what
we
can
and
cannot
do
next
week
because
of
waiting
on
agendas,
we're
waiting
on
people
to
get
things
worked
out,
I
will
make
sure
it's
posted.
We
may
not
meet
on
monday,
but
I
will
let
you
know
as
soon
as
as
soon
as
I
do.
Okay,
thank
you,
and
so
with
that
we
are
adjourned,
have
a
great.