76th (2011) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| SB354 | ||
| - | ||
| For | May-16-2011 | |
| Against | The elimination of a Landscape Architect from the NV State Board of Landscape Architect and replacement with a lay member will change the historic balance of 2 LAs from the North and 2 LAs from the South. Please do not institute these changes as they will also dilute the professional make up of the board. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | I am a practicing Landscape Architect and have worked in the State of Nevada since 1981. This proposed change will unbalance the board that has historically been balanced with two professionals from Northern and Southern Nevada, resulting in less representation. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | Removing a professional from the Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects will remove an expert from being able to make educated decisions based on their knowledge of THEIR field of Landscape Architecture. This will also most likely eliminate the voice of membership from either the northern or southern region of Nevada, where currently we have a professional from each region on the board to provide representation. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | It is important to have a balanced board comprised of professionals familiar with the landscape architect profession. The profession is organized geographically into 2 areas, north and south Nevada. The proposed board make-up will unbalance the board that has historically been balanced with two professionals from Northern and Southern Nevada. This would make one area have less representation than the other. If it is the desire of the legislation to include one non-professional on the board, please vote against this bill and propose to ADD a person to the board, rather than to replace a professional member. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | The proposed board make-up will unbalance the board that has historically been balanced with two professionals from Northern and Southern Nevada. This would make one area have less representation than the other. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | Senator Schneider's bill will eliminate one L.A. from the board and add on public member to replace that position; this proposed board make-up will unbalance the Nevada State Board of Landscape Architecture which has historically been balanced with two professionals from Northern and Southern Nevada. This would make one area have less representation than the other. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | I am against this bill because the proposed board make-up will unbalance the board that has historically been balanced with two professionals from Northern and Southern Nevada. This would make one area have less representation than the other. | May-16-2011 |
| Against | Apr-26-2011 | |
| Against | I call into question the agenda, ethics and morality of the character who originally planned and concieved of this bill. Our national regulatory body is ASHA (American Speech and Hearing Association) that makes sure we adhere to certain ethics and standards in training and in profession. This regulatory body advises that the number of SLPs (speech language pathologists) and public members on a regulatory board are to be equal. By passing this bill we will be allowing a dangerous lowering of standards, and sending the message to all medical professions that standards made by national regulatory bodies in medical professions are not important. Not to mention, public, non-licensed, non nationally certified individuals are prone to unscientific unethical hype, fads, and other trends discussed on internet and parent support groups, whereas an ASHA member in the field might be aware of the actual research that such practices are HARMFUL to the individual involved. | Apr-18-2011 |
| Against | Please leave the current Board for LAndscape Architecture in place. Removing a member of the Profession and replacing with a "civilian" is not in the best interest of the Nevada State Board of Landscape Architecture nor with the continued advancement of our Profession. | Apr-14-2011 |
| Against | The Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech Pathology must be balanced by ensuring that the majority of its members serving on the Board are licensed by the Board and working in one of the two branches of the profession audiology or speech pathology.It is recommended that at a minimum, our Board should consist of 2 speech pathologists and 1 audiologist. It is recommended that the democratic process of voting be given to the Board members when deciding the President/Chair of the Board and salaries of the Board members. | Apr-13-2011 |
| Against | I highly recommend not making these changes to the Audiology and Speech Pathology Board. Consumers are not generally well informed enough about our profession to understand our concerns. We need professionals on the Board. | Apr-11-2011 |
| Against | Apr-07-2011 | |
| Against | If passed, this bill would dilute representation of professionals on their governing boards, a concept in which I do not agree. I am very concerned that a newly appointed consumer would automatically become president of the board and have the authority to make certain decisions after only a non-voting consultation with the board. This subverts the democratic process and places too much power in the hands of an appointed member. | Apr-07-2011 |
| Against | Apr-07-2011 | |
| Against | we need a substantial number of speech language pathologists representing out interests. | Apr-03-2011 |
| Against | The American Speech and Hearing Association recommends the same number of Speech Pathologists be the same as public members. Also this bill calls for only 2 years of experience required to be the SLP board member. I also have concerns regarding only 2 years of experience for the SLP board member. This field is has a vast number of practice opportunities. Two years does not seem to be enough time to gain the amount of experience in this field. I hope you will reconsider this requirement. Thank you, | Apr-03-2011 |
| Against | Nevada should be in line with ASHA recommedations for make-up of the board (Prof vs Public members) and re: number of years experience (5) | Apr-03-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Apr-02-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | This bill allows extraordinary leverage to the governor to shape industry for political gain. Professionals should be entrusted to oversee the professions due to their insight, experience, and dedication. Boards should seek concensus and not be political and autocratic bodies. | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | We need more professional representation on the board | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | Another step backwards for Nevada from national standards. It is not good judgment to have lay persons outnumber trained professionals to sit on boards of their own licensing. | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | The kind of change proposed in this bill to the regulatroy body of my profession will only hurt a dwindling field, in a area to work that can help grow the economy in a big way. The need for allied health care professionals is hudge, and the number of professionals available in this state are minimal. Making changes to the regulatroy bodies that can further jepordize and make it even harder to function as a professional will only drive the professinals that we do have a way and decrease the amount of ne | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | I wish to oppose the changes as set for in SB 354. I am a speech language pathologist and am concerned that passage of this bill will give too much control to public members without experience in the field of speech and language pathology. I recommend equal representation of professionals and public board members. I also recommend those who serve on the board have at leat 5 years experience in the practice of speech language pathology/audiology. Sincerely, Mark James, MS, CCC-SLP 702-401-4017 | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | I am against this bill. As a Speech Therapist, I do not feel that a non-professional should be a representative for myself and other ST or Aud. A board member must be able to write and pass regulations, policies, and enforce our code of ethics at the State level. A non-professional does not have the knowledge, training of expertise to make those decisions. This has the potential to not only harm other Speech Therapist and Aud but it can also affect the citizens of Nevada who receive our services. | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | It is not in the best interest of the public or Speech/Language Patholigsts and Audiologists to water down the composition of the board of examiners. Another consumer representative will not have knowledge of the complex issues governing our practice. | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | While consumer input to any board is of value this Bill is beyond reason. Boards of every profession are filled with members from the profession with different skill sets, talents and backgrounds. They are a body with many parts that works together for the betterment of their profession. Giving a consumer with little knowledge of the field this kind of authority over the profession is unheard of. I share my opinion as an owner within the field. | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-31-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | This bill dilutes the representation of professionals on respective boards. Opposed to bill mandating the newer consumer appointee ( that has no knowledge of the discipline of speech pathology)automatically be president of every board. this bill subverts the democratic process of government by representation by giving one new appointee absolute authority. Our national association strongly suggests that there be equal representation of professionals and consumers on the board. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | We do not need more members from general public/politically appointed by Gov, but more professionals certifeid/schooled on our field to make good decisions on the board. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | As a practicing audiologist in this state for more than 10 years, I have some serious concerns about the proprosed changes to how the professional boards should be governed. By decreasing the number of professionals on their licensing board, they relinquish the ability to govern themselves. To appoint a second uninitiated, unexperienced consumer with unilaterla decision-making abilities essentially eliminates the need for other board members. No professional would permit someone who does not work in that | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Provisions of this bill would reduce professional representation on the audiology and speech pathology board to the minority. I want my profession governed by a board of my professional peers. I want my profession's board members to have the power to make elections and other decisions by a majority vote. I would be happy to work with bill drafters to make positive adjustments to the audiology and speech pathology board. Thank You. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | The current law was modeled after the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association. The general public should be represented but not given complete control of the Board. To work as a consumer protection law requires knowledge of the field which someone in the general population would not have. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | This bill represents an egregious abuse of power, by destroying the ability of professionals to make decisions regarding many of the basic functions of their board, which is entirely funded by their licensure fees. The average lay person does not have the expertise necessary to make intelligent decisions. Manipulation by politicians or others is likley to occur when one person alone has hiring, firing, contracting, and fiscal power. I fail to understand Mr. Schneider's rationale for proposing this bill | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Please don't replace Speech Language Pathologists. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Speech Pathologists and Audiologists must be governed by individuals knowledgeable in the field. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I am extremely concerned that should this bill pass, then anyone could oversee speech language pathologists and audiologists. With this proposal, then anyone could oversee us, without being mindful of the American Speech/Language/Hearing Association's Code of Ethics. Please reconsider passing this bill. It will keep the integrity of the profession intact. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I strongly suggest that the bill reads: 2 Speech-Language Pathologists, with at least 5 years of professional experience and 1 community/public member. This is the best configuration for the Board of Examiners for Speech Pathology and Audiology. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Against as currently revised. The American Speech Language Association recommends 2 speech pathologists with 5 years or more experience and an equal number of public members. Reducing the Speech Pathologist members from two to one member is contrary to our national standards. My recommendation: Maintain the speech pathologist number at 2 on the board, increase public member to 2. Additionally I would recommend increasing years in practice to 5 or more for the speech pathologists. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No one person especially one not trained in these particular fields should have unilateral decisions. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | We need to have the same number of Speech Pathologists and members of the general public on the board so there is equal representation. Additionally, we need a qualified Speech Pathologist on the board who has practiced for at least five years. Thank you. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Need to keep the current law for the Board of Speech Pathologists and Audiologist as is. This Board has functioned very well. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | The general public and people "appointed by the govener" should not have more say on the running of a professional organization than the professionals in the organization. What do people from the general public know about speech pathology, education, architect, or any other profession. We are the experts of our professions that is why we went to school. I cannot imagine that any intellegent voter would vote into office a professional with limited knowledge of the law and how govenment works. why wou | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I feel ASHA said it best, "Under SB 354, conditions are applied to the Boards of Examiners in a blanket manner without taking the needs of individual boards into consideration. This bill would replace a professional board member with a public board member resulting in the dilution of professional knowledge within a uniqueboard which governs two related but very different disciplines. If this bill passes, the Board would be comprised of only one professional member representing each of the two professions | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I am a BC-HIS licensed in 5 States, MO TN FL KS NV.,( 25 Years Experience ). NEVER have I seen such Bull Shit as this Insanity, SB354. Obviously whomever created this is NOT knowledgeable of the HA Industry. We don't need more Amatuers, just more Professionals. Randall Ruegge BC-HIS NV. #257 | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I am a Doctor of Audiology and have practiced in Nevada for the past eleven years. I am against the proposed SB354 because is limits my voice by reducing the number of my peers from two representive to one. This would effectively eliminate a check and balance system from the very board that represents my profession by only allowing one practicing member of the profession on the board. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | This bill subverts the democratic process and eliminates government of licensees by representation, replacing it with political maneuvering and an autocratic power play. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | According to American Speech-language and Hearing Association (ASHA), which is the primary governing body for speech-language pathologists and audiologists, the model bill language, recommends that the number of SLPs and public members on a Board are to be equal as opposed to what SB354 is suggesting. Also, note that ASHA recommends five years of experience practicing whereas the current Nevada law calls for two years of experience. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | This bill eliminates the democratic process of selecting a chair or president by the board members voting. For the governor to appoint a chair or president from the public sector is ridiculas. The public person has no vested interest in the board or its licensees, their appointment is a voluntary position. This bill needs to be stopped before it creates something that does not serve the health and safety of the consumer! Please vote no on SB354! | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Keep the integrity of this professional board. The number of SLPs should be equal to or greater than the number of public representatives. ASHA recommends equal representation. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Since it is a Speech Pathology Board, the number of SLPs should be equal or greater than public members. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I am against this change to the State Boards in Nevada. A new member would have no experience with that board and not know procedures, past events and results, and the scope of the board responsibilities. Decreases the representation of the professionals on their own board. Consumer has limited knowledge in a field. A president for life is inappropriate. One person controlling everyone under them forever or as long as he lives. The boards are to protect consumers as well as professionals. How | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | In this bill, the number of speech pathologists on the Board is reduced from 2 to 1 and the number of public members is increased from 1 to 2. According to the ASHA (the national organization that governs speech-langauge pathologists) model bill language, recommends that the number of SLPs and public members on a Board are to be equal. Also, note that ASHA recommends five years of experience practicing whereas the current Nevada law calls for two years of experience. Nevada should pride itself on keepi | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Our national organization, ASHA, requires that the number of board members should be equal to public members. Reducing the number of board members from 2 to 1 while increasing public members from 1 to 2 is not equitable and will have a significant impact on future decisions of certain professions. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I served on a board for 21 years, half the time as president. The is proposed model does not meet national accrediting association standards. It is very difficult to find outside members to serve. Outside members do not have sufficient expertise in the area to serve as president. This bill would not protect the public, but could end up hurting the consumer. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I am the Director of the only accredited speech and hearing training program in Nevada. I have worked with the Licensure Board on many occasions. Reducing professional membership will paralyze function. We actually need more professional members on the Board not less. This bill is just wrong. Please vote against it. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | The number of Board members should be equal between professionals and general public. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Currently the Board has the authority to elect it’s President. The Board, composed of professional peers except for one general member, is in a much more knowledgeable position to select an appropriate President who would best represent the professions. The selection of a lay person/consumer to serve as President would cause a loss of efficiency and effectiveness of the board and deter it from fulfilling the statutory, professional, and ethical obligations to promote the protection of consumers. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Representation by consumers and professional on boards governing issues of licensure and regulation for health care professionals should remain equal. It is illogical to assume that a consumer not trained or experienced in the field of audiology or speech-language pathology could have the authority that this bill would allow. Please do not allow the changes to this bill to pass. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | The ideas and opinions of SLPs and Audiologists are valuable. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | Representation of licensed professionals and public members should remain equal with 2 members of each. Please put a stop to this bill!!! | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | How can people that are not educated in a dicipline make judgements about regulations regarding it. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | This bill is crazy. Why would I want to have my professional board of my profession be run and determine what is best for my and my practice by those that know really nothing about what I do. I don't think our best interest will be at heart if we give the reigns of my professional board to someone who will not likely carry my best interest. The democratic way of selecting our licencing board should remain as it currently is. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | According to the ASHA model bill language, recommends that the number of SLPs and public members on a Board are to be equal. Also, note that ASHA recommends five years of experience practicing whereas the current Nevada law calls for two years of experience. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | 1. This bill dilutes the representation of professionals on their respective boards. 2. This bill gives the Governor the authority to appoint the new consumer/public member as President of the Board. 3. The new president-for-life can hire, fire, and contract simply in "consultation with" the remaining board members. 4. This bill subverts the democratic process of government-by-representation by giving one new appointee absolute authority. 5. This bill removes authority given by the Legislat | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I am the board chair for the State of Nevada Board of Hearing Aid Specialists. I am also an audiologist. When reviewing complaints made by the consumer or hearing aid specialists in our field i consistently rely on my experience and knowlegde in my profession to understand complaints made to the board. I simply do not believe these types of decisions could be made without an understanding of the profession. I feel like because of the team we have assembled on our board we have been able to take comp | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | I respectfully ask that you vote "No" on SB354. I am a licensed Hearing Aid Specialist, overseen by the Board of Hearing Aid Specialists. I have many years of experience, training, education and other various requirements needed to be successful at what I do. There is value to what I do and by implementing a sole consumer to be head of the board takes away from that value. I feel that it is important to have those with the knowledge, experience, and educational requirements to oversee the board in tan | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | The govenor should not have right to decide who heads our board. ASHA our National Assoc. requires equal representation by professional and public persons; whom we decide on; and therefore requires a higher level of expertise (in the profession) than 2 years. New 2 year folks don't know enough about our issues to regulate us. Public persons should only have equal say. OUrs is a regulating and governing body with right of deciding wrong doing and disciplinary actions in addition to deciding licensure. | Mar-30-2011 |
| Against | It is important to keep the current balance of membership intact on the Board of Examiners for Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology in order to maintain its integrity. Public members do not know or understand the intricacies and special needs of our profession and their number should not increase or outnumber the number of knowledgeable professionals representing us. The proposed bill gives the newly appointed “president-for-life” too much power and undermines the democratic process by giving the ap | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | Why would anyone in their right mind place a public citizen a "chair" for a particular committee when that person does not have any expertise in that discipline or profession. That is one of the most crazy ideas I have heard lately. That's like asking my neighbor to be my doctor and treat me for something he probably has no understanding of...??? | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | This bill dilutes the representation of professionals on their respective boards. For the Audiology and Speech Pathology Board it would result in the majority of board members being individuals not working in the fields of audiology or speech pathology. Professional members are essential to ensure appropriate professional depth of knowledge when addressing ethical and licensure issues. Good professional decisions, in turn, ensure the safety and welfare of Nevada citizens receiving audiology and speech pat | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | The majority of the Board of Examiners of Audiology & Speech Pathology should be comprised of professionals in these specialties........no need for more public members. Also, President of Board should be voted for by the Board members and this privilege should not be granted to any one out of these fields regardless of their position.....i.e., the Governor. Please respect the importance of this issue to our professions and maintain the quality of the work of this Board by including a minimum of individu | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | I oppose this bill as it allows for someone with no education or experience in our field to make decisions that impact our profession. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | Our national certification comes from the American Speech-Language & Hearing Association for speech pathology & audiology. ASHA enforces its Code of Ethics. Our governing board needs to consist of professionals who are knowledgeable in our fields of speech pathology and audiology, and who are versed in our Code of Ethics and truly understand the daily workings of our professionals. Changing this governing body, serves to only water down the process, and makes a mockery of those who have worked hard to | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | First of all the hearing aid board is self sustained. It requires no assistance or compensation from the state. The dues from the individuals with licenses pays for everything. The president of the board does not make money from his position. In saying that who is most qualified to answer complaints and make responses than someone that actually understands the field. It scares me to think that a consumer with no license and possible no education in the field might have complete power over the field. Right | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | Our regulatory body needs to be staffed by people who are knowledgeable in the field of speech pathology and audiology, who are versed in the American Speech and Hearing Association Code of Ethics and understand the nature and challenges of our professions. Changing this governing body only serves to water down the process, making a mockery of those who have worked so hard to maintain the integrity of the field. I strongly oppose the change to this bill. There are so many things in our state that need | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | This proposal actually reduces the majority of the members working in the respective learned professions and increases the majority to 2 public representatives and 1 related medical professional. The three (3) members who would be the majority are NOT working in the respective professions of audiology and speech pathology. The majority of members who do not have the depth nor breathe of knowledge and skills of those practicing in the fields of audiology and speech pathology but would be overseeing and e | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | Your changes conflict with the recommendations of our national organization, american Speech and Hearing Association, which states there should be equal number of people on the speech pathology board from the public sector and the profession. and that aprofessionals should have a minimum of 5 years experience. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | I would not want anybody who doesn't know about a particular subject making decisions that will impact members of my community. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | This bill takes away the professional expertise of licensing boards and puts it in the hands of the public, who have limited knowledge of the subject area. Also, this bill gives the govenernor through his appointed public participants to make decisions without a vote of the board. Non professional, public members would make up the majority of licensing boards. It is scary to think that someone who has no experience in my field would have the majority say on my license. This is ethically wrong. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | I am a practicing Speech-Language Pathologist. I am against some of the revisions: In the bill, the number of Speech Pathologists (SLP) on the Board is reduced from 2 to 1 and the number of public members is increased from 1 to 2. According to the ASHA model bill language, recommends that the number of SLPs and public members on a Board are to be equal. Also, note that ASHA recommends five years of experience practicing whereas the current Nevada law calls for two years of experience. I feel it is nece | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | We need professionals not lay people governing our board. Those who understand our profession, our eductation and what we do to help the hearing impaired. the board is best served by a mixture of professionals and related professionals to govern our board. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | I feel that it is necessary to have consumers on the board but to have them represent our field in front of legislation is pathetic. The person or persons representing what I do should be affiliated with hearing healthcare. I want someone going in there that knows what they are talking about and that can represent our profession properly! | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | This bill would severely limit the representation of professionals on their respective boards. Even the most informed consumers very often get false information from the internet and comr to the professional confused and misinformed. it is best for everyone, especially the consumer, that the professional on their respective boards maintain a strong presence. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | For Audiology/Speech Pathology this would not be good. I agree there should be a public voice, but they should not run the board or outnumber the professionals. Our field is medical in nature and I would not want someone without the necessary education making medical decisions for me or a family member. Would you want someone who knows nothing about heart surgery deciding if you should get surgery on your heart? This could be a safety/health risk allowing those without the adequate education making th | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | As a past member/ president of a NV. Board this bill dilutes the representation of professionals on their respective boards. Hence, this subverts the democratic process and eliminates government of licensees by representation. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | Too much power w the President instead of a consensus of the Board. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | To much power to one person,government by a group not a person | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | This bill dilutes the representation of professionals on their respective boards and this bill mandates the newest consumer appointee automatically be president of every board. This gives too much control to one board member | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | I'm opposed to this bill, the public should not be able to run a board of which they know nothing about. These boards need to be run by the profesionals that actually work in the field. | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | No Comment | Mar-29-2011 |
| Against | Adamantly against this! Do not allow this change. It doesn't serve the boards well at all to give them less power. | Mar-28-2011 |
| Against | I am strongly opposed to this bill as it would decrease the voting member of speech pathologists form 2 to 1 and allow the consumer to come in and take over! Let's rethink things please! Linda Ganz | Mar-28-2011 |
| Against | 1. this bill dilutes the representation of professionals on their respective boards. 2. this bill mandates the newest consumer appointee automatically be president of every board. 3. the new president-for-life can hire,fire,and contract with only "consultation with" the remaining board members. Overall, this subverts the democratic process and eliminates government of licensees by representation, replacing it with political maneuvering and an autocratic power play. | Mar-28-2011 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|