►
From YouTube: 5/12/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Chair
howdagy
present
and
please
note
that
we
do
have
assemblywoman
duran
with
us.
She
is
joining
us
virtually
today
from
her
on
the
zoom
screen
and
assemblyman
flores
is
presenting
in
the
senate.
So
please
mark
him
present
when
he
arrives
good
afternoon.
Everyone
members,
those
here
in
person
in
the
audience
and
those
listening
online.
A
We
have
a
pretty
packed
agenda
of
a
work
session
and
bill
hearings.
We're
gonna
jump
right
into
our
work
session.
I
think
everyone's
familiar
with
our
housekeeping
items.
I
am
going
to
be
taking
the
work
session
out
of
order
two
of
the
bills.
We
have
some
of
the
bill
sponsors
here
in
case
anyone
has
questions
and
they
need
to
get
down
to
their
committee
for
work
session,
so
we
will
be
taking
them
first.
A
Just
so
that
the
committee
is
aware
we
were,
we
are
going
to
take
assembly
bill,
I'm
sorry
senate
bill,
196
and
senate
bill
290
and
then
followed
by
senate
bill
209
on
work
session
first
and
then
we
will
go
back
to
the
work
session
document
and
take
them
in
the
order
of
the
work
session
document.
So
members,
let's
go
ahead
and
jump
right
into
it.
I'm
going
to
hand
the
mic
over
to
my
policy.
Analyst
miss
pastel
of
thomas
to
walk
us
through
senate
bill
196.
E
Thank
you,
ma'am,
chair
senate
bill
196
prohibits
the
performance
of
a
pelvic
examination.
In
certain
circumstances,
it
is
sponsored
by
senator
lang
and
it
was
heard
on
may
3rd.
There
is
one
proposed
amendment
by
the
sponsor
and
that
is
to
add
assemblywoman
tolls
and
assemblywoman
dickman
as
sponsors.
E
A
That
came
from
okay,
I
have.
I
have
a
first
by
assembly,
member
kasama,
a
second
by
assembly
member,
told
any
discussion
on
the
motion
sing.
None
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
I
miss
duran.
A
E
E
The
first
is
to
revise
the
provisions
of
the
bill
requiring
an
insurer
to
disclose
the
name
and
qualifications
of
each
person
who
will
review
the
application
for
an
exemption
to
remove
the
requirement
that
the
name
of
each
such
person
be
disclosed
but
retain
the
requirement
that
the
qualifications
of
each
such
person
be
disclosed
and
amend
the
effective
date
of
the
bill.
From
october
1
2021
to
january
1st,
2022.
A
A
Okay
members,
seeing
no
questions,
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
I
have
a
first
by
vice
chair
carlton.
I
have
a
second
by
assemblymember
considine.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Viceroy
carlton.
F
And
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
conversation
about
this
bill
when
we
had
the
hearing
medicaid
was
in
medicaid
was
out
knowing
that
pebb
has
put
a
fiscal
note
on
this.
This
bill
is
destined
for
ways
and
means,
and
we
will
continue
to
have
the
conversation
about
medicaid.
F
I
am
getting
some
numbers
right
now
and
they're
looking
fairly
promising,
but
don't
want
to
guarantee
anything
to
anyone,
but
so
there
is
another
stage
that
this
one
will
go
through
and
we'll
we'll
keep
having
those
conversations,
I
don't
want
people
to
be
apprehensive
because
they
think
we're
providing
care
to
one
group
and
not
another.
That
is
going
to
be
a
continuing
conversation.
F
A
Okay,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signal,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed
and
then
miss
duran
aye
perfect.
Thank
you
motion
carries
since
that
is
going
two
ways:
there's
no
need
to
assign
a
floor
statement.
Okay,
next
item:
we
are
going
to
jump
back
to
senate
bill
two
zero.
Nine,
ms
pascal
of
thomas.
E
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair
senate
bill
209
revises
provisions
relaying
to
employment.
It
is
sponsored
by
senator,
donate
and
heard
on
april
28th.
There
are
two
proposed
amendments
and
there
is
a
mock-up
attached
behind
this.
The
first
is
to
delete
subsection
11
of
section
1
of
the
bill
which
exempts
certain
employers
and
employees
from
the
provisions
of
section
1,
and
the
second
is
to
amend
the
bill
to
add
additional
cosponsors
to
the
bill.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
opposed,
would
the
nays
please
raise
their
hand.
I
have
assembly,
member
o'neal
assembly,
member
kasama
assembly,
member
dickman
and
then
mr
ann,
yes,
okay,
motion
carries.
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
to
assemblymember
considine.
A
E
Senate
bill
103
prohibits
certain
insurers
from
discriminating
based
on
the
breed
of
a
dog
at
a
property.
It
is
sponsored
by
senator
scheible
and
it
was
heard
on
april
21st.
There
is
one
proposed
amendment
and
that
is
to
change
the
effective
date
of
the
bill
from
passage
and
approval
to
january
1.
20-22.
A
E
A
A
E
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed.
Will
the
nays
please
raise
their
hand?
I
have
assembly,
member
dickman
in
the
nay
and
assembly
member
o'neal
as
a
nay
assembly
member
duran,
hi,
okay
assembly
member
duran.
As
an
eye
motion
carries
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
to
assembly
member
martinez
next
on.
Our
agenda
is
senate
bill.
E
E
A
F
And
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
and
I
appreciate
the
sponsor
hearing
hearing
my
concerns
and
addressing
them.
I
think
it's
very
important
that
the
patient
have
information.
It
may
not
be
something
that's
that
deep,
but
at
least
they
need
to
understand
what
the
relationship
is
as
they
move
through
the
health
care
system
and
we've
done
a
lot
in
this
building
for
transparency
sake
and
I
believe,
keeping
this
provision
in,
and
I
just
want
to
thank
the
senator
for
hearing
our
concerns
and
addressing
them
in
the
amendment.
A
Thank
you
so
much
vice
chair
members,
okay,
seeing
then
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
I
have
a
first
by
vice
chair.
Carlton
have
a
second
by
assemblymember,
marzola
members.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
opposed
mr
anne
okay
motion
carries.
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
to
assemblymember
marzola.
E
E
Just
as
a
side
note,
there
was
discussion
to
add
senator
neil
also
as
a
joint
sponsor
legal
looked
into
this
and
it's
already
been
done
in
the
senate,
but
it
was
a
timing
issue
in
terms
of
printing
the
additional
sponsors
on
the
face
of
the
bill,
so
they
are
already
included
on
the
first
reprint
of
the
bill.
A
A
Thank
you,
miss
pazlov,
thomas
and
then
so,
just
to
clarify.
Senator
neil
was
already
amended
on
the
senate
side,
just
omitted
from
the
first
reprint
and
then
the
amendment
is
to
add
assembly,
member
duran,
okay,
members,
any
discussion
on
the
amendment
or
the
bill
before
you
assembly
member
tolls.
Yes
thank.
A
F
E
E
There
is
one
proposed
amendment
by
the
sponsor
and
that
is
to
amend
section
8
of
the
bill
to
provide
that
the
provisions
of
the
section
do
not
apply
to
a
city
if
one,
the
city
has
a
civil
service
commission
that
appoints
a
chief
examiner
and
two,
the
chief
examiner
serves
at
the
pleasure
of
the
commission,
is
not
answerable
to
any
officer
or
body
of
the
city
other
than
the
commission
and
is
not
a
human
resources
director.
Thank
you.
A
G
The
first
part
of
the
bill
dealing
with
the
discriminating
practices
all
related
to
hair
was,
I
will
say,
was
very
enlightening
to
me
and
I
would
like
to
support.
However,
it's
the
second
part,
even
with
the
amendment
that
senator
neil
proposed
on
the
testing
that
I
need
to
hear
more
from
the
rurals.
I
think
it
really
impacts
them
when
they
can't
afford
it
currently.
G
C
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
I'm
completely
in
favor
of
no
discrimination
on
the
hairstyle,
but
but
the
testing,
and
particularly
in
section
seven
three,
where
it's
still
a
it's
a
category
e
felony
and
we're
trying
to
decriminalize
things,
and
so
I
just
thought
that
was
too
extreme
and
unfortunately
I
have
to
vote
no.
Because
of
that.
Thank
you.
A
E
F
A
Okay,
yes,
and-
and
there
are
no
amendments
to
the
bill
vice
chair,
carlton,.
F
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
I
I
opposed-
will
the
nays
please
raise
their
hand?
I
have
assembly,
member
kasama
and
assembly
member
dickman
as
a
nay
assembly
member
duran,
hi,
okay
motion
carries.
I
will
assign
that
floor
statement
to
assembly
member
hardy,
okay
members.
That
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
work
session.
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
miss
patel
of
thomas
for
walking
us
through
those
okay.
A
A
H
Yes,
hello
good
afternoon
chairwoman,
howdy
and
members
of
the
committee,
we
would
like
to
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
introduce
senate
bill
179
on
behalf
of
the
interim
seniors
veterans
and
adults,
with
special
need
for
the
record.
My
name
is
adrian
navarro
social
services,
chief
for
the
nevada,
aging
and
disability
services
division,
and
I
will
be
co-presenting
with
jennifer
montoya
social
services
program
specialist,
as
ms
montoya
is
an
individual
who
is
deaf,
we
do
have
a
sign
language
interpreter
with
us
today.
H
H
I
H
Perfect,
thank
you
so
to
open.
The
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
increase
the
quality
of
sign
language
interpreting
services.
Statewide,
provide
a
pathway
for
interpreters
to
achieve
required,
credentialing
standards,
remove
classification,
specific
language
to
align
with
other
nrs
language
and
establish
specific
classifications
and
requirements
by
regulation
and,
lastly,
provide
standard
qualifications
for
mentors
established
in
2001
nevada.
Revised
statute.
656-A
requires
sign
language
interpreters
to
hold
certain
professional
credentials
to
practice
in
the
state.
H
I
will
now
turn
over
the
presentation
to
jennifer
montoya,
who
will
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill
and
explain
the
changes
throughout
the
bill.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
miss
montoya
is
an
individual
who
is
deaf,
so
I
would
like
to
emphasize
the
importance
for
anyone
speaking
to
please
state
your
name
prior
to
speaking.
H
I
I
Thank
you,
ms
navarro
again,
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jennifer
montoya.
I
am
the
social
service
program
specialist
for
the
nevada,
aging
and
disability
services
department
adsd,
before
I
go
ahead
and
give
you
some
in-depth
information
about
this
bill.
I
wanted
to
take
the
time
to
explain
to
you
the
interpreting
process
and
how
having
a
qualified
interpreter
impacts.
I
Those
who
are
using
the
sign
language
interpreter
interpreting
involves
several
different
processes.
First,
interaction,
linguistics,
the
environment
that
they're
in
and
the
goal
of
what
the
interpreter
is
there
to
do,
and
that
is
to
facilitate
communication
so
that
there
is
equal
access
to
information
and
understanding.
I
A
qualified
interpretation
will
vary
depending
on
the
interpreter's
knowledge
skills
and
experience.
The
minimum
certification
requirement
impacts
deaf
children
and
the
education
that
they
have
access
to,
as
well
as
adults.
Being
access
to
having
access
to
communication,
nrs656a
has
not
been
changed
for
14
years
has
had
no
refinement
and
we
feel
like
it's
very
important,
to
have
a
state
credentialed,
a
state
credential
that
aligns
with
a
national
requirement.
I
Aligning
certification
requirements
for
sign
language
interpreters
not
only
increases
the
quality
for
access
to
education
for
deaf
and
hard
of
hearing
children
and
adults.
It
also
allows
the
state
of
nevada
to
be
able
to
bring
in
more
qualified
interpreters
from
all
over
the
united
states.
This
bill
has
a
three-year
grace
period
that
allows
the
current
registered
interpreters
time
to
meet
the
requirements
that
would
be
instituted
by
passing
this.
I
Here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
we
have
deaf
and
hard
of
hearing
children
who
are
not
receiving
the
appropriate
education
that
they
deserve,
and
that's
because
they
are
mainstreamed
with
sign
language
interpreters
who
are
under
qualified
or
not
qualified
at
all.
The
interpreters
do
not
have
the
interpreting
skills
needed
in
order
to
work
in
an
educational
setting
to
provide
the
support
so
that
they
can
have
so
that
they
can
develop
as
they
need
to.
I
It
is
really
unfortunate
that
the
students
are
learning
sign
language
and
communicating
through
a
sign
language
interpreter,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
they
don't
have
any
role,
models
or
peers
that
are
deaf
and
hard
of
hearing
that
they
can
learn
from
or
family
members
at
home.
That
use
sign
language
as
their
mode
of
communication.
I
Starting
with
section
one,
we
want
to
have
new
language
to
explain
that
the
post-secondary
educational
setting
should
have
changes
that
include
new
definitions,
and
we
want
to
add
that
to
section
one
section:
seven
we
want
to
waive
sign
language,
interpreters
or
part
providers
that
are
not
that
are
non-profit.
We
want
to
remove
that.
I
We
want
to
remove
the
language
in
section
9,
following
the
changes
to
remove
the
classification,
so
that
the
language
is
the
language
is
in
line
with
the
removal
of
that
section.
10
allows
the
division
to
establish
qualified
professional
mentoring
and
additional
perfect
professional
classifications
for
sign
language
interpreters.
I
I
I
A
C
C
C
I'm
just
curious
is
that
the
process
now
and
then
my
second
question
is:
have
we
ever
had
a
time
where
we
haven't
had
enough
interpreters?
If
you
know
there's
a
great
need,
particularly
in
one
school
versus
another?
How
might
that
work
just
just
for
better
understanding
of
the
current
process?
Thank.
I
You
so
to
your
first
question
about
the
process
of
how
you
request
a
sign
language
interpreter.
It
is
within
the
student's
iep
their
individualized
education
plan.
The
accommodations
are
outlined
there,
so
that's
where
the
interpreter
request
would
be,
it
would
be
in
their
iep,
and
the
school
district
would
follow.
School.
Follow
through
deaf
adults
who
are
attending
a
post-secondary
institution
would
request
their
interpreters
when
they
had
classes
school
events,
meetings
with
their
teachers,
so
on
and
so
forth.
Hopefully,
that
answers
your
first
question.
I
Yes,
the
answer
to
that
is
yes.
Unfortunately,
we
have
a
need
and
we
have
a
need,
even
at
a
national
level,
it's
something
that
every
state
faces
that
there
is
a
need,
but
in
the
state
of
nevada
we
have
gaps
because
of
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
any
qualified
and
we
don't
have
enough
of
qualified
interpreters.
We
have
people
who
know
sign
language,
but
they're
not
trained
in
the
process
of
providing
sign
language
interpretation,
and
so
they
use
people
who
can
just
sign
to
interpret
but
they're
not
qualified.
I
They
don't
have
the
knowledge
of
the
process
of
how
it
works
and
so
they're,
using
that
to
quote
unquote
cover
the
gap.
So
we
have
a
lot
of
gaps
here
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
fix
is
by
making
sure
that
we're
providing
qualified
sign
language
interpreters
for
specifically
for
students
in
a
k-12
setting,
so
they
have
access
to
that
education.
C
Follow-Up,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
explanation.
So
if
we
have
a
shortage,
obviously
the
goal
is
to
make
sure
that
they're
all
qualified.
But
if
we
have
a
shortage,
would
you
still
allow
some
people
that
don't
meet
the
higher
levels
of
credentialing
so
that
we
could
attempt,
maybe
not
in
a
most
ideal
way,
but
still
attempt
to
meet
the
needs.
I
And
this
is
jen
again
the
miss
montoya
again.
These
proposed
changes
where
we
have
temporary
grace
periods
in
this
case
for
three
years
in
order
to
give
them
the
time
to
improve
their
skills,
to
get
that
knowledge
to
take
the
exams
they
need
in
order
to
get
the
results
to
make
them
qualified
interpreters.
So
we
do
have
those
temporary
provisions
in
order
to
cover
the
gaps
if
there
are
needs
that
cannot
be
met.
E
Chair
my
question
has
to
do
with
the
fiscal
notes,
and
I
see
a
lot
of
them
went
away
with
the
first
reprint,
but
clark
county
seems
to
still
have
quite
a
large
one.
Is
that
will
that
go.
E
C
H
I
E
A
A
A
C
C
H
That
up
here,
so
this
is
adrian
navarro
for
the
record.
In
closing,
I
wanted
to
mention
that
this
bill
was
amended.
Oh
sorry,
that's
jen's
part
again,
adrian
navarro
for
the
record.
We
appreciate
the
committee's
time
and
interest
in
hearing
this
bill
as
well
as
all
questions
from
the
committee
members.
A
A
A
K
Thank
you,
chair
had
again
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
elisa
cafareta.
I
am
the
director
of
theater,
I
am
joined
by
our
leadership
team
chris
sewell
jeff,
frishman,
jenny,
castleman,
troy,
jordan,
dave
schmidt
and
linda
parvin
on
the
zoom,
and
we
are
presenting
sb
75
as
amended
on
the
senate
side
before
we
started.
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
sort
of
give
you
a
short
rundown
of
what
sb
75
is
not.
K
K
To
give
you
an
update,
I
wanted
to
be
sure
you
are
aware.
We
have
implemented
most
of
the
recommendations
from
the
special
masters
report
and
the
strikeforce
report
our
budget
closed
last
week,
which
has
several
improvements
and
allocations
that
will
address
specific
issues
that
the
agency
has
been
dealing
with.
K
We
are
working
with
the
governor's
office
to
fund
modernization
of
our
program,
as
outlined
in
the
every
nevadan
recovery
plan,
and
there
are
several
other
bills
making
their
way
through
the
process
that
make
adjustments
and
changes
to
deters
operations
that
you
you
may
be
seeing
before
you
in
the
next
few
weeks.
So
we
have
several
programs
and
budget
items
that
are
offering
support
and
assistance
to
the
agency
as
well
as
employers
and
claimants.
K
K
There
are
two
proposed
amendments
today
that
we'll
go
over
at
the
end
that
are
for
your
consideration,
so
I'm
just
going
to
give
a
very
high
level
overview.
I
know
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
of
our
programs
this
session,
so
I'll
give
you
the
high
level
overview
and
then
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
K
So
again,
this
this
bill
provides
changes
that
are
needed
for
us
to
more
effectively.
Do
our
work,
one
of
the
first
provisions
is
that
dieter
was
approved
for
an
additional
attorney
position.
This
bill
would
make
that
an
unclassified
position,
which
is
consistent
with
all
of
the
attorney
positions
in
the
state.
K
There's
a
provision,
the
bill
that
brings
our
confidentiality
requirements
into
alignment
with
federal
law
and
streamlines
our
data
sharing
operations.
This
won't
change
any
of
the
existing
data
sharing
agreements
that
we
have
in
place,
but
it
will
make
it
easier
for
us
to
set
these
up
with
various
local
state
agency
and
federal
governments.
K
K
There's
a
provision
that
would
allow
employers
to
request
refunds
of
contributions
overpayments
for
a
period
greater
than
three
years,
to
respond
to
a
review
that
we
had
there's
a
provision
that
prohibits
charging
fees
to
both
the
state
or
the
claimant.
In
any
appeal
hearing
that
happens,
and
there
are
provisions
codifying
the
charging
relief
that
we
gave
to
employers
in
the
emergency
regulations.
K
So
they
won't
be
charged
additional
amounts
in
any
future
quarters
or
years,
because
we're
codifying
that
relief
and
then,
as
I
noted,
there
are
there's
an
amendment
from
dieter
and
basically
what
that
does
is
follow
the
language
that
was
approved
by
the
department
of
labor
when
it
came
to
the
provisions
regarding
state,
extended
benefits
and
charging
relief.
So
that
just
brings
it
into
compliance
with
what
the
department
of
labor
said
it
would
approve,
and
there
is
also
a
friendly
amendment
from
the
public
defender's
office
regarding
using
dieter
lists
for
jury
selection.
K
A
F
F
G
For
the
record,
jordan
senior
legal
counsel,
the
employment
security
division
in
the
fall
of
2019,
we
were
attempting
to
promulgate
regulations
to
make
that
jury
selection
process.
Our
jury
list
provision
conform
with
the
federal
regulation,
20
cfr
603.
G
G
The
public
defenders
who
are
here
who
have
proposed
this
amendment,
gave
us
a
lot
of
help
in
drafting
that
solution.
G
This
solution,
in
the
proposed
amendment
by
the
public
defenders,
has
been
approved
by
dol,
as
in
conformity
I
if
the
vice
chair
would
like,
I
can
get
into
the
intimate
details
of
that,
but
basically,
what
it
amounted
to
was.
The
department
of
labor
has
ruled
that
a
jury,
commissioner,
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
public
official
of
as
laid
out
in
20
cfr.
603.2.
G
An
agency
member
or
person
in
the
executive
branch
or
a
member
of
an
educational
institution
is
that
comes
with
several
definitions
in
this
state.
We
have
several
jury
commissioners
who
are
actually
employees
of
the
judiciary
and
not
of
the
executive
branch
such
as
under
the
county
clerk,
and
that
is
what
created
the
problem.
G
The
department
of
labor
has
recently
signed
off
on
that
and
actually
made
edits
to
the
language.
In
the
amendment
sent
over
by
the
public
defenders.
F
And
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
the
record
clear.
I
thought
we
had
fixed
this,
but
apparently
there
was
a
glitch
someplace,
so
we
have
to
jump
through
a
few
more
hoops
to
make
the
feds
happy
so
that
that
explains
that
one
and.
A
Madame
vice
chair
before
you
go
on,
if
I
could
just
have
the
gentleman
who
answered
vice
chair's
question,
clearly
state
your
name
for
the
record.
Our
secretary's
just
had
a
difficult
time
getting
that.
F
And
thank
you
so
my
my
my
next
questions
go
to.
I
guess
it's
page
12
of
the
bill
section
six
earlier.
This
session
seems
like
a
very
long
time
ago,
but
we
know
we've
only
been
here
for
about
102
days
but
nobody's
counting.
So
the
legislative
commission
had
passed
a
regulation
that
dealt
with
the
issue
of
school
district
support
staff
not
being
able
to
get
unemployment.
F
They
were
put
literally
in
a
catch-22:
they
were
not
working,
they
were
not
told
they
were
laid
off,
but
they
were
never
given
a
guarantee
of
a
job.
Coming
back.
So
when
I
read
section
6,
I'm
wondering
how
does
this
affect
support
employees
in
the
school
district
being
able
to
access
unemployment
benefits.
K
Yes,
if
you
certainly,
this
is
a
little
bit
confusing
if
you
are
just
reading
one
section
of
the
bill
and
don't
have
the
whole
story
and,
as
you
know,
the
legislative
commission
did
approve
the
regulation
that
we
put
in
place
for
this
summer
only
to
provide
unemployment
benefits
to
education,
support
personnel,
so
specifically
not
teachers
and
administrators,
but
all
the
other
folks
who
support
our
schools
and
classrooms.
K
The
folks
who
work
in
lunchrooms,
the
folks
who
drive
the
buses,
the
folks
who
clean
up
the
schools
in
between
sessions
and
days,
so
that
is
the
regulation
specifically
applies
to
those
support.
Personnel
takes
them
out
of
that
limbo,
as
you
say,
and
provides.
F
If
I
may,
madam
chair,
if,
if
you
could
point
out
the
education
professionals
part
because
I'm
just
seeing
if
a
person
performs
services
in
more
than
one
capacity
for
any
educational
institution,
so
am
I
missing?
Where
am
I
missing
the
professionals
section
if,
if
this
works
in
conjunction
with
another
section.
L
Jeff
freshman
for
the
record
what
we
were
having
a
difficult
time
in
the
prior
language,
in
the
interpretation
of
school
wages
and
what
school
wages
could
be
used,
and
not
this
simply.
This
regulation
is
simply
clarifying
that
language
to
ensure
that
we
don't
have
different
interpretations
within
our
own
program.
L
Basically,
the
appeals
referees
were
interpreting
it
different
than
the
adjudicators.
There
was
a
different
set
of
interpretation,
and
this
cleans
up
the
language
that
it
will
be
interpreted
and
how
those
wages
can
be
applied
moving
forward
so
that
it
brings
consistency
and
ensures
consistency
in
how
we're
issuing
determinations
and
decisions.
K
This
is
alisa
capareta
again,
so
if
you
look
at
section
six
sub
section
one
basically
it
starts
out
with
except
is
otherwise
in
this.
This
section
benefits
are
based
on
service
in
an
instructional
research
or
principal
administrative
capacity
in
an
educational
institution,
so
that
is
clearly
sort
of
the
statute:
language
for
teachers
and
principals,
and
in
section
7
it's
it's
the
same
language,
instructional,
research
or
principal
administrative
capacity,
so
that
that
is
clearly
focused
on
the
the
professional
educators
and
then
the
regulations
specifically
define
education
support
personnel.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
has
to
do
with
the
amendment
section
under
section
three
section,
subsection
ten,
it's
the
first
amendment
section
on
the
top
here.
This
is
just
for
perhaps
an
educational
thing,
but
it
has
to
do
with
the
jury,
trial
or
the
trial.
Jurors
again,
can
you
just
inform
me
why
it
has
furnished
the
name
address
and
date
of
birth,
of
persons
who
receive
benefits
in
any
country?
C
K
K
So
chair,
elisa
cavarat
shareholder,
don't
know
how
you
want
to
present
the
amendments.
Let
you
let
us
know
how
you
want
to
do
that.
A
A
A
Would
you
like
to
present
to
director,
or
would
you
like
the
the
sponsors
of
the
amendment
to
present
it.
K
A
Thank
you
and
members.
You
should
all
have
a
copy
of
the
amendment
proposed
to
senate
bill
75.
It
was
proposed
by
the
clark
county
and
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
B
A
A
Okay
looks
like
maybe
it
was
just
not
released
to
the
public,
but
I
do
see
that
the
amendment
is
posted
to
nellis,
so
we
will
have
our
committee
manager
release
that
to
the
public,
but
members
you
have
to
be
signed
into
your
analysis
in
order
to
see
the
amendments.
Remember!
Okay,
thank
you!
Miss
burchie!
If
you
want
to
proceed.
B
Thank
you,
and
I
appreciate
that,
and
also
just
to
confirm.
We
did
provide
a
letter
in
support
which
does
outline
some
of
the
research
that
we
undertook
in
order
to
get
to
the
conclusion
of
the
amendment
where
they're
at
which
provides
additional
information.
We
did
provide
that.
So
I
also
don't
see
that
uploaded.
So,
please,
let
me
know
if
you
did
not
receive
that.
B
However,
we
understand
that
dieter
has
additional
obligations
besides
just
the
public
defender's
office,
and
so
in
order
to
ensure
that
we
do
have
access
to
this
information.
That's
why
we
proposed
this
amendment
so
for
amendment
number,
one
we're
simply
modifying
who
can
access
and
who
can
request
the
information
from
dieter,
and
so
it's
changed
from
instead
of
the
district
court
judge
or
the
jury
commissioner
to
in
response
to
requests
from
a
court
official
with
subpoena
authority.
So
that's
what
the
changes
that's
necessary
from
my
understanding
from
the
department
of
labor.
B
In
order
to
ensure
that
we
can
have
access
to
that,
so
it's
someone
who
has
that
authority,
the
subpoena
authority,
the
additional
portions
of
the
bill,
is
just
ensuring
that
the
current
law
is
in
place.
So
we
are
not
attempting
to
change
anything
else
from
current
law.
For
amendment
number
two,
it's
just
deleting
that
section.
19.
B
section
19
had
just
indicated
that
the
amendment
or
what
was
in
the
bill
was
just
saying
that
dieter
wouldn't
have
to
provide
this
information
and
that
couldn't
be
used.
So
we're
deleting
that
section
again
to
ensure
that
it
is
being
provided.
So
in
the
question,
I
believe
it
should
be
county
just
in
reviewing
the
statutes.
I
will
double
check
that
and
provide
an
amended
proposed
amendment.
If
that
is
the
case,.
E
K
Alisa
caprada
for
the
record,
that
is
correct.
Federal
law
specifically
does
not
allow
for
unemployment,
for
teachers
who
are
on
a
summer
break
and
expect
to
come
back,
and
nothing
in
this
bill
would
change
that.
E
B
K
Alisa
cafareta
for
the
record.
Typically
support
personnel
have
been
excluded
from
getting
unemployment
benefits.
We
did
because
of
the
unique
situation
of
the
pandemic,
just
past
emergency
regulations
that
would
cover
support
personnel
for
the
summer
of
2021,
so
that
is
bus
drivers,
janitors
lunchroom
folks,
who
are
whether
they're
coming
back
in
the
fall
or
not.
K
E
Okay,
thank
you.
I
guess
my
other
questions
would
be
fiscal
fiscally
related,
so
we
could
maybe
address
that
elsewhere.
Thank.
A
Okay,
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
director
caferetta.
I
want
to
start
with
the
first
one
with
section
2.5-
and
I
know
you
touched
on
this,
but
I
just
in
the
beginning
regarding
the
attorneys,
the
positions
for
attorneys,
but
I
know
this
isn't
statue
saying
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
the
impartial
selection
of
personnel
on
the
basis
of
merit.
A
The
administrator
shall
fill
all
positions
in
the
division
from
the
registers
prepared
by
the
division
of
human
resources,
and
then
you
guys
have
exceptions
like
the
exception
of
the
administrator
and
senior
attorney,
but
then
you've
also
added,
in
the
exception,
for
all
positions
for
attorneys,
so
which
removes
them
from
that
kind
of
protection
for
an
impartial
selection.
So
can
you
walk
me
through
that.
K
Sure
elisa
caparetta
for
dieter,
so
basically,
what
this
language
is
discussing
is
that
most
people
in
state
employment
go
through
the
state
hiring
process
which
provides
these
impartials
impartial
selection
protections
and
they
end
up
in
what's
called
classified
service,
so
they
have
protections
throughout
their
their
service.
K
This
particular
section
in
section
2.5,
is
really
just
identifying
the
positions
that
are
what
are
called
unclassified
positions
in
state
service,
so
the
administrator
and
the
senior
attorney
have
always
been
unclassified
positions.
They
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
the
director,
the
administrator
in
these
cases,
so
we've
never
had
additional
attorney
positions,
but
we
did,
in
this
budget
get
approval
for
an
additional
attorney.
K
All
the
attorney
positions
in
the
state,
whatever
agency
they're
in,
are
unclassified
positions,
so
this
just
would
make
that
consistent
with
keeping
all
the
attorney
positions.
A
A
K
M
Thank
you.
This
is
david
schmidt,
chief
economist
for
eater,
for
the
record
in
effect,
sv3
during
the
special
session
in
the
summer
changed
the
provisions
where
someone
who
has
some
earnings
during
a
week
of
benefits
is
allowed
to
receive
those
benefits,
and
it
raised
a
limit
previously.
If
you
earned
more
than
your
weekly
benefit
amount,
you
were
no
longer
eligible
for
benefits.
Sv3
raised
that
to.
If
you
earn
less
than
one
and
a
half
times
your
weekly
benefit
amount,
then
you
could
still
be
eligible
for
benefit
payments.
M
However,
with
the
75
provision,
what
effectively
happens
is
someone's
weekly
benefit
is
reduced
for
any
earnings
that
they
have
and
reducing
benefits
at
75
percent
with
math
means
that
when
you
get
to
1.33
times
your
weekly
benefit
amount.
Your
your
weekly
benefits
have
been
reduced
to
zero
and
so
by
reducing
the
75
percent
to
66
and
two-thirds
percent.
That
earnings
reduction
would
reduce
someone's
benefits
to
zero
when
they
hit
that
1.5
times
weekly
benefit
cap,
so
that
these
two
provisions
can
come
back
into
alignment.
A
That's
true
do.
Could
you
explain
to
me
again
is
this?
Is
this
enhancing
someone's
benefit
amount
if
they
are
bringing
in
additional
benefits
on
their
own
or
wages
on
their
own,
or
is
this
decreasing
their
benefit
amount
if
they
are
bringing
in
wages
on
their
own.
M
David
schmidt,
again
for
the
record
in
practice,
if
someone
has
a
say,
400
benefit
amount
and
they
have
a
hundred
dollars
in
earnings.
So
they
are
not
in
danger
of
this.
This
little
clip
or
running
out
of
benefits
under
existing
law.
If
you
have
a
hundred
dollars
in
earnings,
your
weekly
benefit
amount
would
be
reduced
by
75
dollars
as
changed
in
in
this
bill.
Here.
M
Your
benefit
amount
would
instead
only
be
reduced
by
66
dollars,
rounded
a
little
bit,
and
so
you,
you
would
end
up
with
slightly
more
benefits
for
people
who
have
earnings
in
order
to
stretch
the
point
at
which
your
benefits
would
be
reduced
to
zero
out
a
little
bit
further
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
the
changes
that
were
made
in
sp3.
K
And
this
is
a
lisa
caprad.
If
I
could
follow
up
the
the
goal
of
the
sb3
was
to
sort
of
give
people
more
options
in
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic
to
allow
them
to
sort
of
put
together
whatever
job
plus
benefits
they
could
and
and
best
support
their
families
in
an
extreme
situation.
K
So
this
this
is
just
trying
to
make
it
consistent
so
that
you
get
the
full
flexibility
and-
and
you
don't
run
into
a
math
problem
and
trying
to
provide
that
flexibility
to
folks
in
an
economic
emergency.
A
Okay,
perfect
thanks.
I
that
was
great
explanation.
I
fully
understand
it
now.
Okay,
now
I
do
have
just
looks
like
one
other
question
and
it's
just
more
expressing
some
com
uncomfort
as
well,
expressing
my
comfort
level
with
a
change
where,
throughout
the
bill,
it's
allowing
dieter
to
either
send
their
notices
to
someone
who
is
receiving
benefits
by
mail
being
served
or
now
by
electronic
transmission,
and
I'm
just
a
little
uncomfortable
with
the
fact
that
the
only
way
dieter
will
get
in
might
get
in
contact
with
someone
is
by
sending
an
email.
A
Not
everyone
has
access
to
email
and
not
everyone
accesses
our
email
every
day,
so
it
it
would
make
me
more
comfortable
if
it
was
by
mail
and
email
as
opposed
to
mail
or
email.
Just
because
again,
if,
if,
if
that
is
a
denial,
there
is
a
limitation
on
how
much
time
someone
has
to
file
an
appeal
and
if
you
send
a
denial
via
email
and
they
don't
check
their
email,
letting
dieter
know
that
I'm
sorry,
I
just
didn't
check
my
email
in
time
to
file
an
appeal.
E
B
K
M
Get
that
david
schmidt
again
to
the
record
effectively
for
someone
who
has
earnings
during
a
week
that
there
is
no
cap
on
the
number
of
weeks
that
someone
can
necessarily
receive
so
someone
who
has
earnings
and
receives
partial
unemployment
benefits
can
stretch
out
the
number
of
weeks
in
which
they
receive
payment.
M
M
There
could
be
a
very
marginal
change
on
the
end.
But
overall,
there's
there's
no
big
impact
on
weeks,
because
the
most
important
thing
is
dollars.
A
Thank
you,
and
I
do
I'm
gonna
come
back
to
myself
around
too,
because
I
did
not
finish
asking
my
questions,
but
I
noticed
that
there
was
also
an
exemption
for
for
dieter
and
I'm
not
sure
and
sorry
just
bring
this
on
my
legal
right
now.
But
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
something
our
legal
counsel
can
answer.
A
But
I
know
that
dieter
is
exempting
themselves
also
from
being
charged
any
fees,
and
so
I
wasn't
sure
if
that
was
something
that
other
state
agencies
also
exempted
themselves
from
and
I'm
going
to
go
to.
I
A
I'm
going
to
start
with
my
legal
counsel,
first
just
to
see
if
he
has
an
answer
on
that.
Second
part
of
my
question:
do
you
know
mr
cost?
If,
if
this
is
common
for
state
agencies
to
exempt
themselves
from
being
charged
fees,.
G
A
Thank
you
and
then
director
caferetta,
maybe
if
you
could
just
address
in
section
18.5
why
dieter
is
exempt?
Has
that
exemption
for
themselves.
G
G
K
And
madam
chair,
if
I
might
follow
up
on
one
of
your
previous
questions
about
your
discomfort
with
email
notices,
just
wanted
to
be
clear
on
the
record
that
the
the
language
in
this
bill
makes
it
an
opt-in
additional
option
for
claimants.
So
mail
notices
will
still
go
out.
This
was
very
strongly
suggested
by
both
claimants
and
especially
employers
whose
businesses
were
closed
and
were
not
receiving
the
mail
notification
that
they
really
wish.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
jordan,
for
answering
that
question
regarding
the
fees
that
explained
it
to
me
and
then
thank
you,
director
caferetta,
but
just
like
in
section
5.
The
way
I
read
it,
it
says
an
assessment
must
be
mailed
electronically,
transmitted
or
personally
served.
So
it
sounds
like
it's
in
it's
an
ore
right.
They
can
either
be
mailed
or
they
can
be
electronically
transmitted.
It
doesn't
sound
like
it
can
be
both
and
I
think
it
would
be.
A
It
would
make
me
more
comfortable
if
notices
were
sent
to
to
claimants
both
by
mail
or
email.
A
For
that
same
reason
stated,
like
you
said,
somebody
might
not
be
checking
their
mail,
but
they
would
get
the
email
and
vice
versa.
Okay,
members,
any
other
questions.
Before
we
go
to
testimony
okay,
seeing
none,
I
am
going
to
move
us
into
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
75.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
carson
city
wishing
to
testify
in
support,
welcome
back,
miss
burchie.
B
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
record
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
Today,
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
my
office,
and
I
believe
that
you
will
also
be
hearing
from
representatives
from
the
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice,
as
well
as
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
We
all
worked
on
this
language
to
ensure
that
we
could
get
it
correct.
As
I
indicated
previously,
we
do
believe
that
the
current
statute
does
work
and
is
proper,
the
way
that
it's
written.
B
As
assemblywoman
carlton
mentioned,
this
negotiations
had
come
out
of
assembly,
bill,
2000
or
207
in
the
2017
session.
I
don't
won't
rehash
the
entire
argument,
but
this
was
a
lengthy
hearing
where
it
mentioned
just
how
extremely
vital
it
is
for
our
criminal
justice
system
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
fair
representation
on
our
juries
you'll
hear
from
the
other
speakers
as
well.
B
More
information
as
to
why
it's
important,
I
can
just
say
as
a
trial
attorney,
it
is
very
scary,
to
go
into
a
trial
and
have
a
black
or
hispanic
or
minority
defendant
and
see
only
white
members
of
the
jury
panel.
So
it
is
our
goal
to
hope
to
make
sure
that
we
do
whatever
we
can
to
try
to
get
a
fair
and
impartial
jury
that
represents
our
community
members.
So
we
urge
your
support
for
these
provisions.
B
I
am
not
here
to
comment
on
any
other
portion
of
this
bill
and
if
our
amendments
are
not
accepted
and
the
and
the
version
of
bill
that
passed
from
the
senate
were
to
be
adopted,
then
we
would
be
moved
into
opposition
just
because
of
how
vital
and
important
this
is.
Thank
you.
A
A
D
Deborah
westbrook
d-e-b-o-r-a-h
westbrook
w-e-s-t
b-r-o-o-k
good
afternoon,
madam
chairwoman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
deborah
westbrook
and
I'm
an
appellate
attorney
in
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
testifying
for
nacj.
Our
support
of
sb
75
is
contingent
on
the
acceptance
of
our
proposed
friendly
amendment
that
was
submitted
to
this
committee.
The
amendment
deals
with
sections
3
and
19
of
sb
75,
and
I
can
confirm
that
the
use
of
the
word
country
in
section
3
was
a
typo.
It
should
say
county
without
our
amendment.
D
Sections
3
and
19
will
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
jury
trials
and
undermine
the
constitutional
rights
of
nevada's
citizens
to
a
jury
that
reflects
a
fair
cross-section
of
our
diverse
community
in
2017
nevada's
legislature,
recognized
that
the
best
way
to
ensure
that
juries
were
reasonably
representative
of
the
community
was
to
increase
the
number
of
sources
from
which
jurors
were
selected.
So
the
legislature
passed
a
law
requiring
dieter
to
provide
jury
commissioners
with
a
list
of
individuals
receiving
unemployment
benefits.
D
D
We
knew
that
several
states,
including
new
york,
connecticut
and
rhode
island,
had
successfully
utilized
unemployment
information
to
create
their
jury
pools
for
years,
and
we
spoke
with
representatives
of
the
judiciary
in
new
york
and
connecticut,
who
confirmed
that
it
was
legally
permissible
to
do
so.
We
gave
dieter
earned
legal
analysis
which
they
shared
with
the
department
of
labor
and
the
department
of
labor,
confirmed
that
the
information
could
be
provided
to
the
courts
when
requested
by
a
court
official
with
subpoena
authority,
and
we
believe
this
is
true,
even
under
our
existing
law.
D
J
Okay,
my
name
is
sharon
dickinson,
it's
about
s-h-a-r-o-n
dickinson
is
d-I-c-k-I-n-s-o-n
and
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
I'm
a
chief
deputy
public
defender
having
worked
in
criminal
trial
and
appellate
practice
for
over
30
years.
On
behalf
of
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
we
believe
nrs,
6.045
and
nrs
612.265,
as
initially
enacted,
do
not
create
legal
problems
and
no
changes
needed
to
be
made.
However,
due
to
deters
concerns.
Our
office
is
testifying
in
support
of
the
proposed
friendly
amendments,
as
accepted
by
dieter
that
changes
sections
3
and
19..
J
We
have
no
opinion
on
the
remaining
sections.
If
the
amendments
are
not
adopted
for
some
reason,
then
we
oppose
sp75.
I
first
became
aware
of
dieter's
first
graph
of
sb
75
after
it
already
passed
through
the
senate.
I've
been
working
on
several
cases
in
our
office
involving
the
under
representation
of
minorities.
On
juries,
I
subpoenaed
deter
statistics
for
an
upcoming
evidentiary
hearing,
and
at
this
time
I
was
told
by
a
detailer
representative
that
sb
75
that
is
currently
written
would
eliminate
peter's
obligation
to
provide
the
court
with
list
for
the
jury
pools.
J
J
I
immediately
contacted
our
office's
legislative
representative,
john
piero.
I
reviewed
the
law
in
this
area
and
found
a
way
to
avoid
the
problems
peter
mentioned.
I
worked
with
the
nacj
legislative
committee
with
miss
westbrook
and
we
put
together
some
changes
in
the
statute.
We
met
with
dieter,
we
listened
to
their
concerns
and
they
submitted
the
proposed
amendments
to
sections
3
and
19
to
the
department
of
labor
and
department
of
labor
in
deter
subsequently
approved.
A
C
L
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
john
mccormick,
john
mcc
or
mick,
I'm
the
assistant
court
administrator
at
the
nevada
supreme
court
administrative
office
of
the
courts.
I'm
calling
in
a
limited
capacity
here
to
indicate
that
we
support
sb
75
with
the
public
defenders
amendment.
L
Currently,
we
think
that
there's
an
exception
in
in
federal
law
and
that
this
would
be
possible
under
the
existing
statute,
as
ms
burchie
indicated.
However,
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
courts
are
able
to
access
these
lists
for
the
important
the
important
activity
of
jury
selection,
we
support
the
amendment
and
we'll
be
submitting
those
administrative
subpoenas
as
soon
as
this
becomes
effective.
Thank
you.
C
During
this
pandemic,
I've
had
friends
and
family
go
through
the
unemployment
process
and
I'm
still
helping
many
navigate.
This
broken
system,
section
18.5,
carving
out
that
deter,
can
never
be
charged.
Any
fees
is
unfair,
as
it
looks
like
they
are
trying
to
be
above
the
lawsuits
and
accountability.
People
have
been
working
towards.
C
C
H
N
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
committee
members
for
the
record,
I'm
jp
kemp,
it's
jp
kemp
here
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association
and
we
are
in
opposition
of
sb
75,
is
currently
drafted.
N
We
are
encouraged
by
the
friendly
amendment
put
forth
by
the
public
defenders,
as
that
would
alleviate
our
concerns
about
the
the
jury
pool
aspects
of
the
bill,
but
I
also
wanted
to
speak
to
section
13.5,
which
provides
for
a
the
agency
to
designate
a
specific
office
for
the
service
of
process
on
petitions
for
judicial
review
that
are
filed
by
claimants,
who
are
appealing
denial
of
benefits.
N
This
needs
to
be
amended
as
currently
as
this
is
currently
done.
Service
of
process
like
this
could
be
deemed
to
be
jurisdictional
mandatory
and
someone
could
have
their
petition
for
judicial
review
dismissed
if
they
didn't
serve
the
right
office.
N
This
should
be
amended
so
that
it
corrected
so
that
the
court
would
have
the
ability
to
direct
corrected
service
on
the
proper
office
if
the
wrong
office
were
initially
served.
Many
petitions
for
judicial
review
in
a
number
of
different
administrative
proceedings
are
filed
by
people
pro
se
without
attorneys,
and
they
often
make
mistakes
like
not
serving
the
exact
correct
office
and
they
end
up
getting
their
cases
dismissed
on
jurisdictional
grounds.
N
A
K
A
Thank
you
so
much
director
caferetta
okay.
At
this
time,
I
will
close
the
bill
hearing
on
senate
bill
75.
Our
last
item
on
the
agenda
is
public
comment.
While
we
give
those
listening
over
the
internet
time
to
call
in,
I
will
quickly
run
through
our
po
public
comment.
Housekeeping.
Remember
public
comment
is
opportunity
to
discuss
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
of
commerce
and
labor.
If
your
remarks
are
outside
of
that,
I
will
ask
you
to
redirect
them
or
terminate
them.
A
The
public
has
already
been
given
time
to
support
or
oppose
specific
legislation.
So
therefore,
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
a
bill
hearing.
We
limit
public
comment
to
30
minutes
and
two
minutes
per
caller.
I
would
remind
everyone
we
do
not
make
personal
attacks,
please
be
respectful
to
members
and
other
witnesses,
and
if
you
would
like
to
submit
your
written
remarks,
we
would
strongly
encourage
you
to
do
so
for
inclusion
in
the
meeting
record
broadcasting.
A
Thank
you
so
much
any
other
comments
from
members
on
the
committee.
Okay,
members,
we
will
be
meeting
friday,
please
be
on
the
lookout.
We
won't
have
any
bill
hearings
that
I
know
of,
but
we
will
be
conducting
a
work
session
so
just
be
on
the
lookout
for
the
agenda
and,
as
always,
please
note
the
meeting
start
time.
Thank
you
so
much.
We
are
adjourned.