►
From YouTube: 3/29/2021 - Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
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
B
D
D
D
A
President,
thank
you
secretary.
Please
let
the
record
reflect
that
assemblywoman
dickman
is
absent.
Excuse
should
she
make
her
way
into
the
meeting
later.
Please
mark
her
as
present,
otherwise
than
that
all
other
members
are
present.
We
have
a
quorum
good
morning,
members.
I
hope
you
had
a
great
weekend
and
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
get
some
rest
and
hang
out
with
friends
and
family
for
those
of
you
joining
us
virtually
good
morning.
Welcome
to
your
committee
on
government
affairs,
I'd
like
to
remind
you
that
we'll
be
taking
the
agenda
in
the
order.
A
It
appears.
We
have
three
bill
hearings
and
then
we'll
do
public
comment
at
the
end.
Then
we're
also
going
to
take
the
the
bills
in
the
order
they
appear,
starting
with
assembly
bill
220,
followed
by
assembly,
bill
236
and
then
lastly,
assembly
bill
337.
A
Also,
I
want
to
remind
you,
those
of
you
who
are
joining
us
for
a
first
time
that
you'll
see
members
looking
multiple
directions,
because
everybody
has
a
very
unique
setup
with
laptops,
monitors
and
paper
documents
in
front
of
them.
Don't
take
that
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
with
that
we'll
start
off
with
the
assembly
bill
220.
E
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
on
government
affairs,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
jason
fryerson.
I
represent
assembly
district
8
and
I'm
the
speaker
of
the
nevada
state
assembly.
I
am
pleased
to
present
to
you
today
assembly
bill
220,
which
simply
prohibits
peace
officers
from
using
mobile
applications
that
encrypt
communications
on
official
and
publicly
issue
cell
phones,
I'll
walk
through
the
the
short
provisions
of
the
bill,
but
I
want
to
express
why
I
brought
this
bill
forward
first
off.
E
I
want
to
make
it
very
clear
that
the
bill
is
only
applicable
to
work.
Phones
has
nothing
to
do
with
personal
phones,
and
it
is
certainly
not
intended
to
prohibit
law
enforcement
from
doing
their
jobs
effectively
and
certainly
nothing
to
do
with
them
using
their
personal
cell
phones.
This
is
simply,
I
believe,
an
effort
to
modernize
our
statutes
with
the
advancement
of
technology
and
communications
to
make
sure
that
we
are
still
allowing
transparency
in
law
enforcement,
but
we're
trying
to
be
proactive.
E
This
is
not
pointing
the
finger
at
law
enforcement
accusing
them
of
doing
any
anything
wrong.
This
is
simply
adapting
our
statutes
again
with
the
advancement
of
technology
if
our
peace
officers
are
using
encrypted
encrypted
communications
on
their
work
phones,
those
communications
that
would
normally
be
discoverable
inherently
be
become
hidden
from
the
public
and
the
legal
process
there
are
and-
and
I'm
sure,
we're
going
to
get
into
this
at
some
point
there
there
are
limitations
to
what's
discoverable,
and
this
is
not
intended
to
go
after
that.
E
There
are.
There
are
things
that
law
enforcement
has
to
do
with
with
the
federal
government
some
systems
that
are
encrypted
to
avoid
hacking.
This
bill
is
not
intended
to
impact
that
it's
simply
intended
to
make
sure
that
the
signal
app,
for
example,
allows
for
a
person
to
disappear
messages,
and
this
will
be
designed
to
prevent
law
enforcement
in
the
course
of
their
actual
duties
on
their
work
phone
from
implementing
that
part
of
the
the
app
if
it's
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
it
being
discoverable.
E
So
just
a
little
bit
overview.
Discovery
is
the
formal
process
of
exchanging
information
between
the
parties
concerning
witnesses
and
evidence
that
they
would
present
in
a
court
proceeding.
This
includes
various.
You
know.
Various
types
of
discovery,
whether
it's
records,
you
know,
interrogatories
physical
exams,
various
documents
and
and
communications,
it's
both
civil
and
criminal
in
civil
cases,
as
well
as
criminal
cases,
there's
the
exchange
of
of
discovery
and,
of
course,
in
in
criminal
proceedings.
E
This
revolves
around
the
prosecutor's
obligation
to
provide
the
defense
with
any
exculpatory
or
potentially
exculpatory
information.
It's
reciprocal
between
the
prosecution
and
the
defense
in
a
in
a
criminal
context,
typically,
email
messages,
text
messages,
other
forms
of
electronic
communication
are
discoverable
so
long
as
they're
not
covered
by
attorney-client
privilege
or
covered
by
work.
Product
exemptions
such
as
internal
reports,
documents
of
the
prosecution
or
the
defense.
E
A
peace
officer
could
be
involved
in
discovery
in
several
ways
to
be
a
as
a
witness
as
a
defendant
as
a
party,
especially
in
a
civil
case.
In
all
these
situations,
statements
papers,
documents,
tangible
objects
in
their
possession,
including
emails
and
texts,
would
likely
be
subject
to
discovery.
E
As
technology
advances,
I
think
it's
imperative
on
us
to
update
our
standards
and
ensure
that
we
don't
lose
sight
of
transparency
and
fairness
in
the
process.
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
the
bill
itself.
Again,
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
I
want
to
note,
for
the
committee's
benefit,
that
I
did
reach
out
to
law
enforcement
in
advance
to
talk
about
this
and
to
talk
about
their
practices.
E
I
was
not
aware
that
some
have
started
using
encrypted
technology
because
of
its
convenience
and
and
again
so
long
as
it's
being
used
appropriately.
This
bill
is
not
intended
to
impact
that.
I
do
believe
that
I
I
have
been
speaking
with
metro
in
particular
that
there
may
be
some
language
that
they
want
to
propose
that
I
consider
to
be
friendly.
E
E
So
I
think
that
we
we
understand
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
have
certainly
been
working
towards
some
minor
tweaks
to
to
make
it
clear.
So
with
that
and
the
bills
section,
one
subsection
one
requires
law
enforcement
agencies
to
develop
a
written
policy
that
sets
for
standards
of
conduct
for
using
publicly
issued
and
official
mobile
devices
section.
E
One
subsection
two
a
requires
that
written
policies
include
mobile
applications
that
are
approved
for
use
on
official
mobile
devices
section
one
subsection
2b
prohibits
the
use
of
mobile
applications
not
expressly
approved,
and,
lastly,
the
section
that
I
believe
might
be
subject
to
a
little
bit
of
adjustment
section.
One
subsection
three
prohibits
the
use
of
mobile
applications.
They
use
end-to-end
encryption
that
avoid
discovery,
and
the
intention
is
not
to
not
to
prevent
end-to-end
encryption
from
being
used.
E
If
that
is
an
ordinary
course
of
conduct
for
officers,
that's
approved,
but
if
it's
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
lawful
discovery,
that's
what
we're
trying
to
get
at
and
so
that
again,
that's
the
section
that
I've
been
speaking
with
members
in
the
law
enforcement
community
about
about
making
sure
that
we
don't
have
any
unintended
consequences,
but
simply
advance
our
laws
to
deal
with
this
new
technology.
E
I
believe
that
this
bill
serves
as
a
reasonable
measure
to
protect
public
trust
in
our
law
enforcement
agencies
and
ensure
that
technology
doesn't
prohibit
transparency
and
accountability.
Again,
I'm
agreeable
to
clarifying
language
that
makes
that
intent
clear,
but
that
is
the
bill
and
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
at
this
time.
A
A
A
F
F
G
Good
morning,
chairman
florida,
flores
and
members
of
the
assembly
government
affairs
committee,
this
is
john
piro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
and
we
are
testifying
and
support
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office
and
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office
on
ab220.
As
currently
written.
Obviously
we'll
have
to
see
what
proposals
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
decide
to
propose
to
see
where
we
stand
after
that
language
is
submitted,
but
as
currently
written,
this
bill
ensures
the
integrity
of
the
record-keeping
process.
We
are
not
an
outlier
in
this
phase.
G
Michigan
has
worked
towards
enacting
steps
to
prevent
police
officers
from
using
the
encrypted
communication.
Apps,
such
as
signal
text
messages
as
part
of
an
investigation
provide
truth
and
transparency
in
the
investigative
process,
and
this
bill
allows
avoidance
of
freedom
of
information,
acts
requests
or
any
attempts
to
subvert
the
truth
seeking
process
in
trial.
A
Thank
you,
mr
pearl.
Next,
caller
in
support
of
assembly
bill
2-2-0.
F
H
Good
morning,
karen
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders,
that's
c-h-r-I-s-t-I-n-e
s-a-u-n-d-e-r-s
and
I'm
a
policy
director,
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada.
Here
in
support
of
assembly
bill
220.
a
plan.
We
seek
to
structurally
transform
nevada's
criminal
justice
system
by
organizing
the
people
who
have
direct
experience
with
mass
incarceration
and
their
families.
H
A
F
H
Good
morning
and
thank
you
chair
for
the
record,
this
is
liz
davenport
l-I-v-d-a-v-e-n-p-o-r-t
on
behalf
of
the
aclu
of
nevada,
in
support
of
ab220,
as
currently
written.
Thank
you,
speaker,
fryerson,
for
bringing
this
bill.
Good
governance
requires
transparency.
It
promotes
accountability
and
provides
information
for
everyone
about
what
our
government
is
doing.
This
is
vital,
especially
to
inform
areas
where
we
should
revise
policy
and
lack
of
accountability
can
create
environments
where
there
are
potentials
for
abuses
of
power
or
secrecy.
H
Transparency
and
accountability
are
critical
while
we
are
in
the
process
of
revising
policing
practices
and
public
trust
is
more
important
than
ever.
Law
enforcement
cell
phone
communication
is
government
related
messaging,
just
like
emails.
Making
that
communication,
transparent,
just
like
emails,
is
vital
to
preserving
and
creating
public
trust
and
importance
in
accountability,
measures
end-to-end
encrypted
messaging,
obviates
accountability
and
transparency
by
fostering
a
culture
of
secret
messages
or
lack
of
accountability.
H
A
F
H
H
L-I-S-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-F-E-N,
I'm
here
this
morning,
to
testify
on
behalf
of
nacj
nacj
supports
ab-220
in
many
instances
in
litigation.
There
are
times
when
we
request
discovery.
We
request
certain
communications
between
officers,
for
example
in
a
some
kind
of
task
force
related
action,
and
we
don't
get
anything
because
a
lot
of
times
the
messages
were
done
on
signal
or
some
other
encrypted
app
outside
of
what
the
department
of
particularly
ldmpd
authorizes.
H
So
this
bill
is
a
good
bill.
I'd
ask
that
you
support
it.
It
merely
requests
that
the
the
apps
that
are
used
are
authorized
by
the
department
and
that
they're
within
the
confines
of
the
control
of
the
department.
These
are
activities
and
messaging
that
goes
on
in
the
context
of
the
job,
but
these
aren't
after
work
texts.
These
are
things
that
are
happening
while
they're
on
the
job.
So
it's
a
good
bill
it.
It
goes
exactly
to
the
heart
of
what
the
issue
is,
which
is
transparency
and
nacj
is
completely
in
support.
F
F
F
I
Hello,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
chuck
callaway
c-a-l-l-a-w-a-y,
representing
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department
for
the
rules
of
committee,
we're
here
in
opposition
to
the
bill
as
written.
I
believe
that,
with
some
recommended
language
that
we've
given
speaker
fryerson
that
we
will
be
in
a
position
of
support,
we
certainly
support
what
he's
trying
to
do.
Lvmpd
currently
has
a
policy
on
the
use
of
mobile
devices,
we're
100
behind
transparency.
I
Currently,
our
supervisors
in
the
field
and
detectives
are
issued
cell
phones.
However,
every
officer
has
not
issued
a
cell
phone
by
the
department.
I
There
is
a
legitimate
use
for
end-to-end
encryption
and
I'm
not
obviously
a
tech
guy,
but
my
understanding
is
that
encryption
protects
the
message
from
sender
to
receiver,
but
it
doesn't
deal
with
retention
of
the
message.
That's
a
separate
issue.
Indian
encryption
is
often
used
to
protect
data
that
might
be
of
a
homeland
security
nature.
I
I
A
F
G
A
E
Sure,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
again
members
of
the
committee.
I
want
to
thank
mr
callaway
in
particular.
He
did
provide
some
language.
I
I
didn't
submit
it
because
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
had
legal,
take
a
look
to
make
sure
that
we
were
all
on
the
same
page,
but
for
the
edification
of
the
committee
and
folks
listening
at
the
risk
of
oversimplifying
it.
I
I
believe
that
the
suggested
changes
would
only
add
some
level
of
intent.
E
So
basically
a
law
enforcement
agency
may
not
approve
for
official
use
on
a
mobile
device
or
any
mobile
application
that
uses
end-to-end
encryption
or
any
other
means
with
the
intent
to
avoid
the
creation,
retention
or
lawfulness
or
in
adding
lawful
discovery
of
records
or
data
relating
to
the
communications.
E
Those
two
components
were
the
subject
of
of
what
mr
callaway
and
and
mr
scratly
and
I
had
had
discussed,
and
I
wanted
to
run
that
by
legal
before
I
submitted
a
formal,
a
proposed
amendment,
and
so
I
still
intend
to
do
that.
E
I
will
continue
working
with
with
mr
calloway
and
mr
spratley
and
members
of
the
law
enforcement
community
to
provide
something
to
the
committee
that
I
I
think,
really
meets
what
what
I
think
is
a
simple
goal
of
of
preventing
the
the
intention
to
avoid
the
creation,
retention
or
or
lawful
discovery
of
of
pertinent
records.
So
with
that,
I
I
I
would
say
that
I
plan
on
continuing
to
work
and
providing
something
to
the
committee
in
the
near
future.
A
And
thank
you
speaker
for
ryerson.
We
look
forward
to
seeing
the
outcome
of
that
conversation
with
law
enforcement
at
this
time,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assemblybill220
and
next
on
the
agenda.
We'll
continue
with
the
speaker,
friars
in
on
assembly
bill
236,
which
discusses
the
qualifications
for
the
office
of
attorney
general.
Welcome
back
speaker.
E
Thank
you
again,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
Again
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jason
fryerson
assemblyman
for
district,
eight
speaker
of
the
nevada
state
assembly,
and
today
I'm
happy
to
introduce
assembly
bill
236
for
your
consideration.
E
Assembly
bill
236
increases
certain
qualifications
for
the
office
of
attorney
general
in
nevada.
A
little
bit
of
background.
Our
state
attorney
general
is,
of
course,
our
top
legal
officer
in
our
state,
representing
our
state
agencies
and
the
public
interests
of
nevada.
E
The
office
oversees
our
our
even
our
district
attorneys,
as
well
as
their
own
deputy
attorney
generals
and
prosecuting
and
defending
cases
in
the
nevada
supreme
court,
defends
our
state
in
the
united
states,
supreme
court
and
other
federal
courts
on
matters
concerning
things
like
water
and
public
lands,
providing
legal
opinions
to
the
executive
branch
boards
and
commissions,
district
attorneys
and
city
attorneys.
E
The
attorney
general
investigates
and
prosecutes
offenses
by
state
and
local
officers
and
employees,
crimes
against
older
and
vulnerable
persons
and
medicare
insurance
and
workers
comp
compensation
fraud.
I
believe
it's
time
that
the
job
qualifications
for
a
top
law
enforcement
officer
reflect
the
needs
and
expectations
that
our
state
deserves.
E
Over
the
years,
the
duties
of
attorney
general
have
only
become
more
wide-ranging
and
complex.
However,
the
qualifications
for
attorney
general
have
not,
and
they
have
not
been
updated.
Since
1955.
that's
been
over
66
years
ago,
a
review
of
the
qualifications
in
other
states
found
that
nevada
ranks
below
many
states.
Regarding
the
standards
placed.
E
Currently,
the
only
qualification
to
run
for
the
office
attorney
general
in
nevada
is
the
person
must
be
at
least
25
years
old,
be
a
qualified
elector
and
have
been
a
citizen
or
resident
of
the
state
for
two
years
at
the
time
of
the
election.
There's
no
requirement
currently
that
the
attorney
general
who's
in
charge
of
attorneys
and
the
direction
for
the
state
and
in
legal
matters
actually
have
a
law
degree
or
experience
practice
and
law.
E
According
to
information
published
by
the
national
association
of
attorneys
general.
Currently,
nine
states
have
a
minimum
age
of
26
years
of
age
or
older
11
states
have
a
minimum
age
of
25.
18
have
no
minimum
age
restriction
for
holding
office
as
attorney
general
and
12
states
have
a
minimum
age
of
actually
less
than
25..
E
The
oldest
minimum
age
is
that
we
can
find
is
31
years
of
age
in
oklahoma
and
while
many
states
have
a
minimum
age
of
less
than
25
or
no
minimum
age
bar
membership
requirements
of
up
to
10
years
for
some
states
imply
a
practical,
minimal
age
of
30
to
35
years
old,
depending
on
the
length
of
the
state
farm
membership.
E
So
while
they
don't
expressly
have
an
age
limitation,
they
do
incorporate
a
requirement
that
would
have
a
de
facto
age
limitation
most,
but
not
all
states
explicitly
require
their
attorney
general
to
be
a
resident
of
the
state
state
residential
requirements
range
from
one
year
in
alaska
arkansas,
several
other
states
to
10
years
in
maryland,
oklahoma.
E
The
18
states
that
do
not
require
state
residency.
A
do
require
that
the
attorney
general
be
an
elector,
thereby
again
residency
is
implied.
Many
jurisdictions
have
specific
statutory
constitutional
requirements
for
bar
membership,
while
many
others
don't
have
that
requirement.
14
states
provide
a
minimum
period
of
time
that
one
must
be
admitted
to
the
bar
before
being
eligible
to
serve
as
attorney
general.
That
period
ranges
from
four
years
in
wyoming
to
ten
years
in
connecticut
and
maryland.
E
So
now,
I'll
just
go
through
the
bill
and
review
in
the
text
of
the
bill.
You'll
see
that
the
bill
makes
just
a
couple
of
changes.
It
increases
the
minimum
age
required
for
the
office
of
attorney
general
from
25
to
30
years.
At
the
time
of
the
election,
increases
the
state
residency
requirement
from
two
to
three
years
and
as
a
requirement
that
a
person
be
a
member
of
the
state
bar
in
nevada
in
good
standing
after
reviewing
the
range
of
qualifications
in
other
states.
E
I
believe
that
the
changes
proposed
in
this
bill
are
fairly
modest,
will
still
set
us
a
reasonable
standard
for
future
candidates
for
the
office
of
attorney
general.
That
concludes
my
my
remarks
and
presentation
of
assembly
bill
236.
I
I
thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
attention
and
consideration
I'm
glad
to
take
any
questions
you
may
have.
B
D
Morning,
cheer
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
and.
B
Reference
to
av-236
good
morning,
mr
speaker,
my
good
morning,
my
question
is
section
one
subsection
three,
you
know
here
you
are
saying,
is
a
member
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada
in
good
standing.
What
qualifies.
E
Thank
you
through
you,
mr
chair
to
assemblywoman
charles,
when
I,
when
we
stayed
a
member
of
the
state
bar
in
good
standing,
it
essentially
is
reflecting
that
you,
you
know,
don't
have
any
pending
disciplinary
matters,
that
the
state
bar
has
taken
action
on,
to
suspend
your
ability
to
practice
that
you've
paid
your
dues.
That's
essentially
it.
E
You
know
there
are
attorneys
that
are
are
barred
in
nevada
but
suspended
or
going
through.
You
know
issues
with
respect
to
disciplinary
matters
with
the
state
bar
and,
and
this
simply
says
that
you
need
to
be
a
member
of
the
bar
meaning.
You
need
to
be
licensed
to
practice
law
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
in
good
standing,
meaning
that
your
dues
are
up
to
date
and
you
don't
have
any
issues
with
respect
to
limitations
on
the
ability
to
practice.
The
laws
determined
by
the
state
bar.
B
Thank
you
and
thank
you
speaker,
my
follow-up
question.
Actually
excuse
me.
I
was
just
wondering,
as
you
were
going
through.
B
D
B
Was
wondering
why
you
didn't
go
further
in
stating
that
a
person
that
wants
to
be
the
nevada
state
attorney
attorney
general,
wouldn't
qualify
for
either
five
years
of
practice
or
10
years
of
practice,
as
in
other.
E
States,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
again
through
through
you,
mr
chairman.
You
know
it's
always
a
balance
of
trying
to
not
dissuade
or
disqualify
folks
that
would
be
able
to
do
a
good
job
but
at
the
same
time
incorporate
reasonable
standards
to
to
ensure
that
the
state
is
well
represented,
and
so
I
I
think
this
was
an
intent
attempt
to
strike
some
balance,
and
you
know
we.
E
We
have,
for
example,
attorneys
in
our
state
that
may
be
practiced
for
20
years
in
another
state
and
moved
here
and
have
a
significant
amount
of
experience
and
may
do
well
in
in
leading
that
office.
So
we
wanted
to
keep
it
flexible
and
you
know
just
allow
for
the
greatest
opportunity
for
qualified
candidates
to
to
to
be
eligible.
E
But
you
know
it's
just
been
a
balance
of
of
you
know
how
far
you
go
and
and
what
steps
do
you
take
to
ensure
that
folks
that
are
seeking
this
office
are
able
to
lead
a
team
of
attorneys
and
investigators
on
behalf
of
the
state?
So
this
is
just
where
we
landed,
based
on
comparisons
to
other
states.
C
Thank
you
speaker
for
bringing
this
bill.
My
question
was
actually
asked
by
assemblymember
thomas,
but
since
I
have
a
moment,
I
do
want
to
thank
you
for
building
in
a
little
bit
more
qualifications
for
a
position
as
important
as
the
nevada
attorney
general.
Thank.
C
H
I'm
going
to
say
I
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
speaker,
for
bringing
forward
the
bill.
I'm
in
the
same
boat
as
assembly
member
consonant
assembly,
member
thomas
brought
up
every
single
question
I
had.
Although
reading
it
again
do
you
think
that
there
is
a
possibility
of
some,
and
I
realize
that
I'm
asking
you
to
use
a
kind
of
a
forecast.
H
Do
you
think
there's
a
possibility,
then,
of
this
having
a
trigger
effect
or
a
waterfall
effect
to
impact
all
of
our
different
counties
when
it
comes
to
their
attorneys
that
are
elected
for
through
d.a?
E
Right,
yeah,
that's
that's!
Thank
you
again,
mr
chairman.
Through
the
assembly
woman
anderson,
that's
that's
an
interesting
question
and
it
was
not
something
that
I
contemplated.
I
I
wanna
you
know
I
wanna
just
kind
of
put
out
there
that
I
recognize
that
you
know
you
know.
Nevada
is
so
unique,
it's
not
a
one-size-fits-all
state
in
many
respects,
and
so
you
know,
for
example,
you
know
you
can,
you
know,
be
a
a
judge
in
some
parts
of
our
state
without
being
a
lawyer,
and
that
is
a
reflection
of
you
know.
E
I
think
the
population-
and
I
I
don't
want
to
take
action-
that
really
limits
small
counties.
For
example,
they
don't
operate
like
the
larger
counties.
Do
when
it
comes
to
those
matters.
E
I
am
simply
unaware
technically
of
the
qualifications
for
say,
district
attorney
or
or
city
attorney,
in
every
jurisdiction
to
know
for
sure,
but
but
I
did
see
having
worked
as
a
deputy
attorney
general
myself,
having
seen
the
important
work
that
they
do
and
the
complicated
work
that
they
do,
I
could
not
imagine
someone
who's
not
licensed
to
practice
law,
leading
attorneys
and
investigators
on
securities
fraud.
E
I
couldn't
see
a
non-licensed
person
representing
the
state
of
nevada
with
respect
to
opioid
settlements,
or
you
know
the
volkswagen
settlement
case.
The
things
of
that
matter
that
are
are
complicated
as
nevada
grows,
so
that
was
why
the
focus
was
on
the
state
attorney
general.
I
I
I'm
now
curious
about
local
local
attorneys,
but
that
certainly
was
not
the
focus
of
this
bill.
H
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
next,
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
black.
B
E
I
I'm
sorry
through
you,
mr
chairman,
to
assemblywoman
black.
I
I
have
learned
as
speaker
that
I
have
lots
of
numbers
scrolling
in
my
head,
so
I
don't
know.
I
don't
know
that.
I
understand
what
sjr8
I
don't
know
that
I
understand
how
that
would
be
impacted.
E
I
I
would
welcome
someone
arguing
that
I
mean
I
guess
my
answer
is
there
is
an
age
restriction,
that's
in
existing
law,
so
whether
we
change
the
age
or
not,
someone
could
argue
that
currently,
so
I
don't
know
that
that
sjr8
would
be
impacting
this
bill
any
differently
than
it
would
be
impacting
existing
law.
B
I
have
a
follow-up
on
a
different
like
it's
not
really
a
question.
It's
just
that
from
my
experience.
There
are
a
lot
of
you
know
a
lot
of
jd's
that
never
passed
the
bar.
That
could
be
great
constitutional
scholars.
So
I
guess
I
kind
of
understand
why
you're
doing
that
or
putting
that
in
there,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
I
agree
with
it,
because
you
could
be
a
brilliant,
professor
or
whatever
and
maybe
never
have
passed
the
bar.
So
how
do
you?
How
do
you
address
that?
Or
how
do
you
justify
that?
E
Well,
thank
thank
you
again,
mr
chairman.
Through
you
to
some
of
one
black,
I
I
would
disagree
that
there
are
more
jd's
that
don't
take
the
bar
than
do
again
haven't
been
practicing
a
lot
since
2001.
I
think
it's
a
rarity.
I
I
think
that
being
a
a
professor
is
significantly
different
than
being
in
charge
of
attorneys.
E
I
I
think
that
when
you
are
in
a
position
of
receiving
evidence
as
a
a
a
a
jp,
for
example,
justice
of
the
peace
when
you're
receiving
evidence,
it's
up
to
the
litigants
to
present
their
case
and
then
it's
up
to
you
to
assess
facts
frequently
sitting
as
a
fact-finder.
Well,
juries
considers
fact-finders
as
well
and
they're,
not
attorneys,
but
they're,
also
not
in
charge,
and
so,
I
believe,
being
the
fact
gatherer
and
assessing
what's
presented
to.
E
You
is
a
significantly
different
function
than
being
in
charge
of
the
process
of
presenting
evidence
and
taking
a
position
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
nevada.
So
because
there's
so
many
incredibly
important
issues
that
are
handled
by
the
attorney
general.
But
this
isn't
a
a
case
of
a
speeding
ticket
in
in.
In
you
know
a
small
county
and
a
hearing
master
or
a
justice
of
the
peace
hearing
it.
E
This
is
a
position
in
charge
of
handling
very,
very
complicated
matters
on
behalf
of
the
state,
and
I
don't
know
how
one
does
that
without
understanding
the
intricacies
and
limitations
of
the
practice
of
law,
and
so
I
I
don't
know
that
I
don't
believe
in
modern
times.
This
has
even
been
an
issue.
I
don't
know
that
modern
times
that
we've
had
an
attorney
general
under
the
age
of
30
or
who
I
was
not
an
attorney.
E
So
for
me
it
is
a
safeguard
for
making
sure
that
the
person
that
handles
the
legal
affairs
for
the
state
and
supervises
other
people
who
who
champion
the
legal
matters
for
the
state
is
qualified
to
do
so.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
speaker,
thank
you
as
well
good
to
see
you
this
morning.
Question
that
I
guess
is
somewhat
related
to
the
last
question
asked
by
assemblywoman
black
regarding
subsection
three
and
the
requirement
that
the
ag
be
a
member
of
the
bar.
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
are
aware
of,
or
can
point
to
any
practical
instances
in
our
state's
history,
we're
not
having
that
requirement.
G
You
know
did
did
pose
a
problem
if
we
ever
did
have
an
ag
who
wasn't
a
member
and
that
caused
a
practical
issue
that
arose
or
maybe
instances
you're
aware
of
where
hypothetically
you
know,
maybe
we
did
have
an
a.g
who
was
a
member
of
the
bar,
but
had
he
or
she
not
been,
it
would
have
been
a
particular
issue.
Just
you
know
one
of
those
practical
cases
that
out
of
which
this
need
sort
of
arose.
Thank.
G
E
Sorry
about
that.
Thank
you
again,
mr
chairman.
Through
youtube
matthews,
there
are
lots
of
ifs
in
that
layered
question
that
I
don't
think
are
are
are.
E
I
think
answerable,
because
this
bill
is
attempting
to
increase
qualifications
for
an
important
position.
It's
not
attempting
to
remedy
a
a
historical
issue
is
prevented.
It
is
attempting
to
prevent
a
catastrophe
if
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
was
led
by
someone
who
does
not
understand
the
the
the
rules
of
ethics
for
attorneys,
who
doesn't
understand
the
intricacies
of
the
various
forms
of
litigation
that
the
attorney
general
engages
in
interacting
with
other
states
and
both
the
state
and
federal
government.
E
I
I
find
it
difficult
to
imagine
how
someone
who's
not
licensed
to
practice
law
would
be
able
to
supervise
attorneys
dealing
with
federal,
habeas
corpus
issues
in
federal
court,
which
is
part
of
what
I
did
when
I
was
at
the
attorney
general's
office
against
securities
fraud,
and
so
this
is
something
that
I
have
wondered
for
for
several
years.
E
Since
I
worked
in
the
attorney
general's
office,
why
we
didn't
already
have
a
requirement
that
the
attorney
general
actually
be
an
attorney,
and
so
I
don't
think
that
giving
what
our
attorney
general's
office
has
handled
over
the
years.
It
is
worth
the
risk
of
having
someone
not
qualified
to
oversee
and
supervise
that
conduct
be
in
charge
of
the
office.
E
I
think
that
it
would
be
a
disaster
for,
in
modern
times,
a
non-attorney
to
be
in
charge
of
the
attorney
general's
office,
so
maybe
to
some
extent
this
is
prophylactic
again.
It's
as
the
state
grows
up
and
grows
and
and
encounters
complicated
matters.
I
think
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
our
elected
officials
that
are
in
charge
are
up
to
the
task.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
members,
any
additional
questions,
I'm
going
through
the
chat.
Now
I
don't
think
I
see
any.
However,
if
I
accidentally
skipped,
you
feel
free
to
unmute
yourself
at
this
time,
seeing
none
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
invite
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
236
broadcast.
D
F
F
D
Yes,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
nina
laxalt
today,
representing
myself
as
a
native
nevadan,
with
pretty
much
a
front
row
seat
to
nevada
politics,
my
entire
life.
I
looked
at
this
bill
and
wondered
what
the
history
has
been
through
my
lifetime
on
these
three
issues
of
ab236
and
what
it
would
have
changed.
D
If
you
look
at
what
someone
has
to
go
through
to
be
an
attorney,
they
graduate
at
18,
let's
say
from
high
school,
and
they
go
through
seven
years
of
graduate
postgraduate
they're
25
years
old.
That
would
be
make
them
eligible
at
that
point.
As
a
brand
new
graduate
of
law
school
to
become
attorney
general,
all
of
our
attorney
generals
in
the
past
have
been
well
over
30.
So
moving
this
age
from
25
to
30.
I
believe
and
agree
with
speaker.
Fryerson
is
a
very
modest
change
to
be
in
the
state.
D
So
to
change
it
merely
from
two
years
to
three
gives
those
people
an
opportunity
to
see
what
nevada
is
about
and
who
we
are
and
get
a
feel
for
nevada
as
a
state,
and
the
third
change,
of
course,
is
requiring
that
the
attorney
general
become
not
become
but
be
an
attorney.
I
was
surprised
about,
15
years
ago
to
realize
that
that
position
was
not
required
to
be
an
attorney,
so
it
was
a
kind
of
a
coincidence
that
the
nevada
attorney
general
is
called
attorney
going
back
again
in
history.
D
D
E
Thank
you
again,
mr
chairman
members
of
committee.
I
don't
have
anything
to
add
I
I
I
thank
the
committee
for
their
their
attention
and
and
for
their
questions.
It
always
makes
for
a
more
complete
record,
but
but
I
I
again
would
welcome
any
further
questions
offline
and
think
that
ab
236
is
a
positive
step
forward
for
the
state
and
event.
A
Thank
you
speakers.
So,
at
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
236,
and
I
see
that
we
have
assemblywoman
gorlo,
who
has
joined
our
meeting
and
at
this
time,
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
337
somebody,
woman
gorilla
whenever
you're
ready.
C
Thank
you
and
good
morning,
chair
florist
and
community
members
for
the
record.
I
am
assemblywoman
michelle
gorlow
representing
assembly
district
35
in
clark
county.
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
present
ab337,
which
creates
a
pilot
program
for
one
or
more
state
employee
health
clinics
with
health
care
costs,
continue
to
increase,
while
quality
access
and
satisfaction
with
the
health
care
system
declines.
C
Many
employers
have
decided
to
optimize
their
benefit
dollars
by
offering
on-site
or
nearsight
clinics
to
their
covered
populations.
Primary
care
services
for
employees
can
modify
their
lifestyles
and
move
employees
toward
a
more
optimal
state
of
wellness.
They
can
also
produce
organizational
and
employee
benefits,
such
as
lower
health
care
costs,
increased
productivity,
improve
recruitment
and
retention,
reduce
absenteeism
and
enhance
employee
engagement.
C
C
In
cooperation
with
a
primary
care
provider,
an
employer-sponsored
health
clinic
can
serve
as
a
hub
of
a
worksite
wellness
program,
making
able
to
integrate
and
analyze
all
the
data
from
health-related
programs
and
activities.
At
the
same
time,
the
on-site
clinic
staff
can
increase
the
engagement
of
workers
in
preventative
condition,
management
programs.
C
This
type
of
population
health
approach
may
identify
unnecessary
services,
gaps
in
care,
opportunities
for
savings
and
quality
improvement
in
2017,
the
peb
board
put
out
a
request
for
proposal,
which
is
known
as
an
rfp
to
explore
the
possibilities
of
an
on-site
or
nearsight
primary
care
clinic.
Unfortunately,
the
one
company
that
responded
could
not
commit
to
the
return
on
investment
that
was
expected
in
the
rfp
since
that
time,
the
pep
board
has
not
explored
the
feasibility
of
on-site
or
nearsight
clinics.
C
So,
as
written
assembly
bill
337
allows
the
pep
board
to
the
extent
money
is
available
to
create
a
pilot
program
to
establish
one
or
more
clinics
to
provide
primary
care
services
to
state
employees
participate
in
the
program.
There
is
a
conceptual
amendment
that
will
be
discussed
shortly
if
the
pilot
program
is
created,
this
bill
requires
the
board
to
solicit
feedback
from
employees
that
use
the
clinic
and
also
report
annually
to
the
legislature
concerning
the
pilot
program.
C
A
Members,
I
don't
see
any
questions
that
have
arrived
via
chat.
If
I
have
missed
you
on
accident,
please
feel
free
to
unmute
yourself,
his
name
for
the
record.
L
Mr
chair
is
going
to
prepare,
give
prepared,
remarks
and
discuss
the
conceptual
amendment
as
well.
A
Thank
you,
and
I
did
just
get
a
question
now
sorry
about
that
member.
So
let
me
hold
off
on
that
and
we'll
let
mr
adler
do
his
thing.
First,
please.
L
Okay.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
good
morning,
honorable
members
of
the
assembly
government
affairs
committee
and
honorable
chair
flores
for
the
record.
My
name
is
eddie
ableiser.
L
E-D-D-I-E-A-B-L-E-S-E-R
and
I'd
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
michelle
gorlow
for
her
work
and
the
work
of
executive
director,
laura
rich
from
head
to
craft
language
that
can
create
this
opportunity
for
a
tremendous
benefit
and
value
for
on-site
nearsight,
primary
care
clinics
for
the
state
nevada
employees.
This
bill,
along
with
the
conceptual
amendment,
is
pretty
basic.
L
L
This
bill
in
no
way
commits
the
state
or
peb
to
administer
an
on-site
or
nearsight
program,
but
instead
request
solicitation
responses
to
determine
if
it
can
be
done
to
that
point.
The
conceptual
amendment
does
three
things.
First,
in
subsection
one,
it
adds
at
the
discretion
of
the
board
in
making
determination
of
monies
available.
We
understand
that
there
might
be
more
dollars
coming
from
the
federal
government
or
new
economic
forecasts
that
might
bring
money
to
peb
and
with
the
recent
pub
cuts
and
other
changes
in
their
offering
to
state
employees.
L
We
understand
that
that
those
probably
take
priority
and
we
didn't
want
to
have
language
that
found
their
directive
or
their
dollars
so
providing
discretion
of
the
board.
I
think
satiates
that
point
concerning
being
bound
to
spend
those
monies
new
monies
just
on
this
program.
L
L
Obviously
this
is
all
about
on-site
near
site,
primary
care,
clinics
for
state
employees,
and
so
we
needed
that
into
the
the
bill
and,
finally,
in
there's
a
new
subsection
four
in
the
conceptual
amendment
that
instructs
the
division
of
purchasing
to
assist
pet
in
the
solicitation
of
the
rfp.
We
understand
that
they
are
very
busy
and
overwhelmed
as
a
department,
as
most
departments
are,
and
we
you
know,
there's
value
in
adding
the
division
of
purchasing
to
assist
departments
in
soliciting
and
reviewing
rfps.
L
In
regards
to
the
fiscal
notes
submitted
by
pebb,
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
those
numbers
were
based
on
the
2017
rfp
and
the
only
one
response
that
they
got
back
from
a
potential
operator
passing
this
bill
does
not
bind
pebb
into
engaging
into
this
program
or
compel
them
to
accept
any
vendor.
L
Any
costs
to
have
occur
only
if
the
board
chooses
to
move
forward
with
this
innovative
health
care
effort
and,
moreover,
pep
can
possibly
receive,
should
strong
rfps
be
responded
to
innovative
costs,
saving
measures
that
might
end
up
saving
significant
dollars
in
the
age
of
cobit
19,
when
more
and
more
workers
are
coming
back
to
the
workplace
and
more
and
more
concerns
about
public
health.
Employers
across
the
country
are
turning
to
nuanced
on-site,
primary
care
clinics
to
help
mitigate
the
risks
and
anxiety
that
comes
with
re-entry
to
the
workforce
workplace.
L
These
privileged
clinics
are
perfectly
situated
for
same-day
access,
comprehensive
health
integration
like
pharmacy
labs
procedures
and
giving
state
employees
a
concierge
style
of
health
services,
all
the
while
saving
the
state,
significant
dollars
that
are
associated
with
the
loss
of
an
employee,
to
leave
the
workforce
and
go
to
a
doctor's
office
that
might
be
across
town
generally
days
or
weeks
after
exhibiting
symptoms
in
2019
mill.
Millermann
study
found
that
in
union
county
north
carolina,
their
claim
costs
were
lowered
by
20.
L
L
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
your
time
and
govern
and
assembly
woman
gorlo
for
her
innovation
in
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
executive
director
laura
rich
for
her
collaboration
and
feedback
along
this
process
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions
as
well.
Thank
you.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
We're
trying
to
still
get
the
amendment
to
download.
We
haven't
got
that
yet,
but
one
of
the
questions
I've
got
is,
it
looks
like
this
would
be
a
cost
savings
back
to
pebbs,
but
at
this
point
in
time,
if
ab37
passed
and
and
they
did
get
some
some
people
to
take
a
look
and
bid
and
put
a
program
together
at
that
point
in
time,
would
it
have
to
come
back
to
this
board
or
is
something
that
the
director
can
implement
at
that
point
in
time
from
pims.
C
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question
assembler
michelle
gorlo
for
the
record
to
you,
assemblyman
ellison,
through
chair
flores.
If
I
can,
I
would
like
to
turn
that
question
over
either
to
mr
ablester
or
to
laura
rich.
L
Thank
you,
some
of
the
women
corlo
and
mr
chair.
I
I
would
say
that
the
bill
instructs
heb
and
the
board
to
administer
and
move
forward
with
this
procedure.
The
way
I
read
the
bill
that
does
not
need
to
come
back
to
the
legislature.
Only
reports
about
the
success
or
perhaps
failure
of
the
program
comes
back
to
the
legislature,
but
should
a
vendor
with
a
very
you
know,
competitive
and
strong
proposal
present
itself
to
the
board,
and
should
they
choose
to
move
forward?
L
K
This
is
laura
rich
for
the
record
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees
benefits
program.
Miss
rappler
is
right.
This
does
this
appears
to
give
the
peb
board
the
ability
to
to
move
forward
without
going
back
to
the
legislature.
K
However,
I
do
want
to
go
back
and
just
make
a
couple
corrections
to
statements
that
have
been
made.
There
were
actually
when,
when
pep
did
this
in
2017,
it
was
an
rfq
that
was
that
went
out,
and
we
did
actually
receive
three
proposals.
K
Only
one
of
them
met
the
roi
requirements,
with
only
one
vendor
was
willing
to
meet
the
return
on
investment
requirements
that
had
been
inserted
into
the
solicitation
at
the
time
and
after
after
we
got
into
the
negotiation
phase,
the
return
on
investment
was
the
that
vendor
was
unable
to.
K
L
G
Yes,
I
do
the
chair
and
I
I
think
that,
if
they
put
the
rsv
out
to,
I
think
either
one
way
or
another.
I
think
it
should
come
back
as
a
information,
maybe
not
as
a
bdr
but
at
least
as
a
work
session
to
to
give
the
the
body
an
idea
where
they
went
and
how
they
come
up
with
and
what
they
come
up
with.
At
the.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
assemblymember
gorlow,
for
bringing
forward
a
possible
way
for
us
to
save
some
money
and
help
our
public
employees.
My
question
has
to
do
with
section
1.1,
where
it
states
the
primary
care.
Would
that
include
mental
health
services,
or
is
that
only
the
physical
health
services
and
including
the
pharmaceutical
health.
C
For
the
record
assembly,
one
michelle
gorlow,
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
anderson
to
you
through
chair
flores.
I
believe
that
would
have
to
be
based
on
the
rfp
that
would
be
returned
from
the
provider
on
what
services
they
would
actually
be
providing
and
then
the
pep
board
can
look
those
requirements
over
and
decide
which
vendor
would
be
best
suited
for
the
onsite
or
nearsight
clinic.
However,
I
might
need
some
clarification
from
a
laura,
rich
or
mr
ablester
on
that.
K
For
the
record,
laura
rich,
so
yes,
assemblywoman
gorilla
is
correct.
It
would
depend
on
how
how
intense
you
wanted
to
set
up
that
clinic
and
what
kinds
of
services
now
remember
the
more
services
you
include
in
this
clinic,
the
the
more
the
level
of
expertise
you
have
to
have,
and
you
have
to
understand
that
there's
so
there's
there's
specialty
care
that
occurs
and
so
you'd
need
those
those
specialists
to
be
staffed
at
that
clinic.
K
It
would
the
more
specialty
services
that
are
included
the
the
higher
the
cost
is
and
the
more
engagement
that
pebb
would
require.
In
order
for,
for
this
clinic
to
be
a
considered,
a
cost
savings.
K
Primary
care
is
not
necessarily
a
cost
driver
in
peb,
and
it's
it's
more
on
the
specialty
side.
Access
is
also
an
issue
too,
where
it's
not
an
issue
in
primary
care,
but
it
is
an
issue
in
specialty,
and
so
when
we
originally
looked
at
this
back
in
2017,
that
was
one
of
the
problems
is
that
first
of
all,
is
the
location.
K
Where
do
you
put
this
clinic
to
so
that
state
employees
can
access
it?
So
at
the
time
we
were
looking
at
in
the
las
vegas
market,
we
were
looking
to
pilot
it
in
las
vegas,
because
las
vegas
has
more
access
issues
than
say
northern
nevada,
and
so
we
were
looking
at.
Where
do
we
put
this
this
on-site
location
so
that
state
employees
are
able
to
access
it
and
it
has
a
benefit
to
our
state
employees
and
to
the
cost
of
pep?
K
The
problem
with
that
is
that
our
state
employees
are
widespread,
especially
in
las
vegas,
there's,
no
central
location
where
you
have
a
population
density
of
state
employees.
You
do
at
the
university
say,
but
the
university
already
has
their
own
clinic,
and
so
it
didn't
make
sense
sense
to
do
it
there.
So
you
have
to
centrally
locate
this
in
a
a
population
density
that
is
going
to
be
used
by
state
employees.
K
K
Another
primary
care
option,
and
so
that's
where
we
struggled
with
the
return
on
investment
is
there
was
that
you
have
to
have
high
utilization
and
so
in
that
situation,
if
you
have
high
utilization,
you
have
to
then
motivate
people
to
use
that
clinic,
and
so
it's
either
you're
either
going
to
motivate
them
with
convenience,
which
we
don't
have
or
you
motivate
them
with
a
different
plan
design.
So,
for
example,
maybe
you
incentivize
with
a
lower
co-payment
to
use
this
facility.
What
ends
up
happening
is
we
then
have
disparity
issues.
K
So
if
you
put
this
clinic
in
the
south-
and
you
are
now
you're
offering
a
statewide
plan-
and
we
say:
okay,
if
you
use
this
clinic
in
the
south,
it
will
cost
you
ten
dollars
to
use
a
ten
dollar
co-payment.
The
people
in
the
north
don't
have
that
access,
and
so
you
have.
You
have
disparity
issues
between
between
plan
design
so
that
that
was
another
challenge
that
we
have
as
well.
H
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
realized
that
it's
very
it's
a
very
difficult
area
to
consider.
Has
there
been
any
discussion,
and
this
will
be
my
last
follow-up.
I
promise
mr
chair:
has
there
been
any
discussion
about
telehealth
and
utilizing
that,
possibly
or
since
this
is
coming
back,
I
know
that
it
was
not
very
popular
or
very
well
known
in
the
2016
time
frame,
but
it's
now
becoming
something.
H
K
So
laura
rich
for
the
record
it
would,
it
would
have
to
be
a
part
of
that
of
the
rfp.
I
would
assume
that,
yes,
now
with
the
the
option
of
telehealth
and
the
more
utilized
option,
I
think
people
are
more
receptive
to
using
telehealth
and
I
think
providers
are
more
capable
of
offering
telehealth.
That
would
also
be
a
service
that
would
be
provided.
L
Mr
chair,
through
to
assemblywoman
and
anderson
eddie
alison
for
the
record
to
to
both
of
your
questions,
assemblywoman
many
new
nuanced
on-site,
primary
or
near
site
clinics
have
integrated
mental
health
lab
work
pharmacy.
L
Even
some
certain
specialty
clinics
nearby
are
integrated
into
their
sites.
We've
seen
this
in
colorado
and
new
jersey
to
large
effort
and
tremendous
success,
embedded
in
that
process
and
telehealth,
where
they
have
a
robust
telehealth
offering
you
know
the
the
cool
and
like
sort
of
privileged
ideas
about
these
nearsight
onsite
primary
care
clinics
is
they're
privileged
to
the
employees
and
their
families.
L
No
one
else
accesses
them,
and
so
you
to
director
rich's
point
finding
a
location
that
is
perfectly
centered
and
and
for
enough
employees
and
their
families
to
access
it,
so
that
the
usage
rate
creates
that
roi
that
might
visualize
should
they
get
a
strong
proposal
from
the
rfps
that
are
submitted.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
My
question
is
for
director
rich.
I
was
looking
at
the
the
rfq,
the
bids
that
came
back
in
2017
or
the
numbers.
I
guess
I
should
say
1.3
million
to
set
up
the
clinic
3.75
millionaire
to
run
it.
It
obviously
didn't
make
sense.
Then
I
assume
now
things
are
just
more
expensive
and
then
you
added
another
layer
on
to
this,
which
I
didn't
think
of
which
is
most
people
are
well.
A
lot
of
people
are
not
transitioning
to
working
from
home.
So
I'm
curious.
K
Feasible
for
the
record
law
rich,
it's
there's
definitely
a
lot
of
challenges
with
this
and
whether
it
is
more
feasible
today
than
in
2017.
My
my
opinion
is
that
you
know
there's
there's
different
services
that
have
been
offered
or
that
you
know
again
like
telehealth
is
more
people
are
more
receptive
to
it,
and
costs
are
there's
there's
not
just
in
the
in
the
legislature,
but
also
plans.
K
Self-Funded
plans
are
addressing
the
way
that
telehealth
is
billed
and
things
like
that,
and
so
there's
there
are
there's
some
changes
in
the
market.
I
can't
say
whether
this
would
be
more
beneficial
or
if
things
have
changed
enough
to
change
the
direction
of
the
board
regardless
there's
always
going
to
be
startup
costs.
So
there's
those
implementation
costs
you're
still
going
to
have
to
find
a
physical
space
you're
still
going
to
have
to
furnish
you're
still
going
to
have
to
staff.
K
K
When
we
did
this
a
few
years
ago,
we
determined
because
primary
care
is
again
not
a
cost
driver
where
we
determine
the
the
roi
would
be
is
potentially
in
steerage,
and
so,
for
example.
K
Today,
if
a
person
goes
to
a
primary
care
facility
and
they
go
see
the
provider
and
their
provider
says,
you
know,
you
need
to
get
imaging
done,
and
so
they
just
send
them
to
a
whatever
imaging.
They
feel
that
they
want
to
recommend
them
to
refer
them
to
those
facilities.
Are
there's
a
lot
of
discrepancies
between
pricing
and
imaging
between
one
facility
and
the
other,
and
so
what
pebb
would
do
in
this
type
of
scenario,
is
steer
to
those
high
quality,
low-cost
facilities
versus
the
high-cost
facilities.
K
But
we
were
just
not
able
at
that
point
to
really
get
the
vendor
to
to
come
up
with
methodology
and
and
really
roi
roi
methodology
that
both
pep
and
the
vendor
were
willing
to
agree
on
and
stand
behind.
The
most
we
could
get
was
a
one-to-one,
so
we
would
come
out.
Even
so,
we
were
not
seeing
a
cost
savings
and
that's
why
we
at
the
time
chose
not
to
move
forward.
B
So
I
love
the
idea
of
telehealth,
especially
since
the
rural
community.
I
think
it's
going
to
make
great
differences
in
people's
lives.
However,
at
some
point
we
all
have
to
go
to
an
actual
brick
and
mortar
building.
So
maybe
I
mean
this
is
just
an
idea.
Maybe
pebb
could
implement
at
first
a
telehealth
kind
of
system
to
try
it
out,
but
I
otherwise
I'm
with
assemblyman
ellison.
I
think
that
this
should
have
gone
out
for
an
rfq
and
the
the
body
should
have
seen
if
this
was
even
a
feasible
idea.
A
And
I'll
take
that
just
as
a
general
statement
rather
than
a
question,
I
am
looking
through
the
chat
to
see
if
we
have
any
additional
questions.
A
I
know
some
folks
have
some
questions,
but
I
believe
during
the
back
and
forth
exchange
with
other
members.
Some
of
the
questions
were
addressed
I'll
go
to.
Madam
vice
chair
torres.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
and
co-presenters
for
the
presentation.
I
I
appreciate
it.
I
mean
I
just
wanted
some
clarification.
So
as
I
read
the
ballot,
I
understand
that
there's
an
amendment
that
I
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at,
but
I'm
just
confirming
that
this
is
permissive
language
for
them
to
do
that,
to
the
extent
that
this
is
possible
correct-
and
this
is
not
compulsive
language
requiring
them
to
enact
it.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair
taurus
for
the
record
assembly,
one
michelle
gorlo
and
yes,
this
is
permissive
to
give
them
the
ability
and
also
not
only
to
be
able
to
send
out
the
rfp
or
rfq,
but
also
based
on
any
funding
that
they
may
have
as
well.
So
if
the
board
determines
that
they
don't
have
the
funding
to
move
forward,
then
they
do
not
have
to
do
this.
B
Think
think
of
someone
just
you
know,
I
think,
with
that
language
that
helps
me
kind
of
just
understand
what
the
where
the
legislation
is,
and
I
think
hopefully
answer
some
of
the
concerns
of
my
colleagues,
because
I,
as
I
look
at
the
legislation
it
kind
of
to
me,
it
seems
to
and
empower
the
board
to
make
that
decision.
Whether
or
not
this
is
something
that
would
be
feasible,
but
I'm
definitely
interested
in
hearing.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
that
presentation,
and
really
just
following
up
on
on
the
questions
of
my
colleagues.
I
I
was
of
also
the
position
that
this
is
enabling
language,
but
further
supports
the
intent
that
it's
the
desire
to
actually
care
for
our
our
folks
that
are
in
this
program
right,
so
that
medical
should
be
a
focus.
H
Is
that
really,
where
I'm
heading
and
then,
of
course,
the
utilization
of
telehealth,
as
we
continue
to
expand
that
potentially
brick
and
mortar
position
would
not
be
as
as
readily
necessary
and
then
working
with
other
partnerships?
Now
I
have
seen
something
like
this
done
in
the
past
in
a
for-profit
organization
working
really
hard
to
support
their
employee
base.
H
So
I
I
think
that
the
utilization
would
be
probably
the
most
necessary
to
ensure
that
folks
could
go
to
this
clinic
or
on-site
or
nearsight
clinic
relatively,
but
but
I
just
want
to
follow
up
again
on
that
language.
It
was
really
this
is
enabling
and
identifies
the
desire
to
support
people
in
medical
care.
Is
that
correct.
C
For
the
record
assemblyman
michelle
gorlow
and
thank
you
for
the
question-
assemblywoman
brownmay.
Yes,
this
is
enabling
again
and
just
allows
the
board
to
look
at
rfps
and
rfqs
to
determine
if
there
is
another
organization
that
might
be
able
to
meet
their
needs
and
what
those
needs
are
again
would
be
determined
by
the
board
on
what
they
decide.
Based
on
employee
feedback.
H
A
Let's
try
it
for
a
second
here,
see
how
how
it
goes
and
I'll
get
some
feedback
from
our
our
team,
see
if,
for
a
minute
purposes,
it
works.
B
B
B
Then
the
board
already
is
empowered
to
react
to
that
by
changing
plan
design
or
putting
suggesting
enhancements
in
the
budget
process
that
would
address
the
needs
of
membership.
So
you
know
to
the
members
who
have
suggested
that
maybe
an
rfq
and
then
putting
it
in
the
budget
would
have
been
the
process.
B
Yes,
that's
absolutely
the
way
the
board
might
do
that,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
on
the
record
that
ford
could
do
this
without
without
this
bill,
if
it
wished
to
do
that.
Really,
the
question
just
comes
down
to
available
subsidy
dollars
to
fund
plan
design
changes.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity.
A
I
appreciate
everybody
joining
us
and
participating
in
that
dialogue
at
this
time,
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
invite
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
337.
A
Thanks
at
this
time,
we'll
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
337.
A
Thank
you
next
we'll
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
assembly
bill
337.
F
F
J
J
J
However,
testimony
referred
that
it
was
optional,
and
so
I
wonder
if
that's
one
area
that
is
contained
in
an
amendment,
but
probably
the
primary
issue,
is
the
cost
of
this
program
at
a
time
when
pebb
is
cutting
benefits
for
seniors
retirees
and
state
employees,
we
do
not
feel
that
this
is
the
time
to
embark
on
a
program
that
would
cost
so
much
money
to
the
state
and
secondly,
this
directs
the
board
to
take
a
specific
course
of
action
which
would
take
away
their
flexibility
of
considering
telehealth
and
other
options
that
may
emerge
in
the
changing
marketplace
of
healthcare,
and
I
was
there
in
2017
when
the
pilot
program
was
presented
before
and
while
we
do
not
oppose
such
a
program
and
would
welcome
additional
access.
J
A
Thank
you,
and
you
know
I
think
I'll.
Let
the
record
reflect
that
that
could
fall
in
opposition.
I
I
understand
that
we
often
walk
cautiously
respectfully
with
bill
and
folk,
and
we
don't
want
to
send
a
message
of
opposition
that
you
don't
want
to
work
with
them
and
or
that
you
somehow
you
know
personally
oppose
a
particular
member
or
anything
like
that,
but
I
I
think,
with
how
the
concerns
were
presented.
I
believe
that
is
opposition,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
that.
A
F
I
Good
morning
share
floridas
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
tom
burns
b-u-r-n-s,
I'm
the
president
of
craig
and
pike
insurance
as
well
as
the
immediate
past
pa
chair
of
the
vegas
chamber
of
commerce,
a
member
of
the
board
of
trustees
and
government
affairs.
I
apologize
mr
chair.
I
had
a
technical
difficulty
when
I
was
trying
to
chime
in
in
opposition,
but
I
will
be
very
brief.
My
remarks
reflect
the
previous
caller's
concerns
and
and
are
really
reflective
of
our
knowledge
without
the
possibility
of
digesting
the
amendment.
I
While
we
recognize
that
some
of
the
bill
337
would
be
a
pilot
program,
and
it
would
be
done
only
if
funds
were
available
with
concerns
about
the
potential
costs
that
would
occur
in
establishing
the
primary
care
facilities.
The
impact
that
would
have
on
pebb's
existing
operating
budget
and
staffing
levels
would
be
another
concern.
Start-Up
costs
for
such
health
care
endeavors
are
costly.
Ongoing
operations
of
those
clouds
of
these
types
of
clinics
are
another
issue
of
concern.
I
A
No
worries,
I
understand
we
have
issues
with
technology,
as
we've
all
become
all
too
familiar
with,
so
just
for
the
clarity
of
the
record
that
was
in
opposition
to
assembly,
bill
337
and
we'll
move
on
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
assembly
bill
337.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair,
flores
and
committee
members.
I'll
be
brief
with
my
closing
remarks,
just
want
to
thank
everybody
for
considering
this
measure
and
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
it.
I
also
want
to
thank
those
who
called
in
I
apologize
for
that
amendment
not
being
up.
However,
in
that
amendment
it
should
say,
may
not
shall
which
is
in
section
one,
and
we
will
continue
to
work
with
everyone
to
make
this
a
better
bill
and
keep
everyone
informed.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Excuse
me
and
thank
you,
miss
lord
freed
and
to
our
director.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
today.
I
appreciate
the
thoughtful
dialogue
so
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly,
bill
337
and
next
we'll
move
on
to
public
comment.
Those
of
you
wishing
to
join
us
this
morning
in
public
comment.
Please
know
that
this
is
not
a
time
to
reopen
the
hearing.
It
is
a
time
for
you
to
join
us
and
speak
in
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
our
committee.
A
I
want
to
encourage
you
to
speak
and
join
us
this
morning,
but
if
you
try
to
reopen
the
debate
on
a
hearing,
we'll
have
to
cut
you
off
so
with
that
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines
for
public
comment.
A
Thank
you
at
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
public
comment.
Members
tomorrow,
tuesday
march
30th,
we
have
three
bill
hearings
we'll
have
assembly
bill,
249
assembly,
bill,
340
and
assembly
bill
378.
Please
make
sure
you
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
review
those
ahead
of
time
and
we'll
be
starting
at
9
00
a.m.
I
appreciate
the
dialogue
this
morning.
This
meeting
is.