S. B. 206 Case Analysis

Words: 1107
Pages: 5

S.B. 206 was presented by Gwen Braimo and John Davis via satellite from Las Vegas. The primary sponsor of the bill, Senator Atkinson, could not testify due to a prior obligation with testifying on another bill in another committee. The purpose of this bill is to change provisions governing the State Barbers’ Health and Sanitation Board. Additionally, the bill, along with the amended language, states that the board shall consist of the Chief Medical Officer (or a designated representative by the CMO) and three licensed barbers who are appointed by the Governor for terms of four years. The amended language of the bill also includes a term limit provision and prevents an appointed member from serving more than three terms on the Board. Another …show more content…
256 was presented by Senator Settelmeyer. The purpose of this bill is to require the Board of Dental Examiners of Nevada to appoint a panel of three people [two members of the board and one dentistry or dental hygiene license holder] “to review an investigation and informal hearing conducted by an investigator appointed by the Board.” For the record, this bill was a recommendation on behalf of the Sunset Subcommittee of the Legislative Commission. All Boards are required to submit their financial records, minutes/meetings, budgets, etc. to the Sunset Committee. In December of 2015, the Dental Board was under review by the Sunset Committee. Throughout the meetings, dentists and hygienist commented on the controversial process used by the dental board. After closer examination by the Sunset Committee of the Dental Board, several committee members expressed strong concerns on the amounts that were allocated for “legal and investigatory purposes.” As a consequence, the Sunset Committee recommended to the Legislative Commission that an audit should be completed on the Board’s finances for FY 14 & 15. The audit revealed several problems with the management of the Dental Board and included 18 recommendations to solve those problems. Although the Board accepted most of the recommendations, they refused to accept the recommendation “to institute an independent review process regarding complaint investigation resolution” on the basis that the Dental Board did not believe they had the statutory authority to implement that process. Furthermore, the Sunset Committee issued another recommendation that revises current NRS to include a panel for a review of the Dental Board’s investigations.If passed, this bill would require the Boards to appoint a panel to review the findings and investigations [including files and records] and submit the Dental Board with their recommendations. The Dental Board is required to accept or deny their recommendations. Senator Settelmeyer