►
From YouTube: 3/18/2021 - 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.
C
C
D
C
E
G
E
A
President,
thank
you,
mr
secretary.
Please
let
the
record
reflect
all
members
are
present.
We
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Members
hope
you
all
are
doing
well
this
morning
for
those
of
you
following
us
virtually
as
always.
Thank
you
for
joining
our
meeting.
I
want
to
remind
you
that
we'll
be
doing
public
comment
at
the
end
of
today's
meeting
for
those
of
you
wishing
to
participate.
A
Please
wait
till
then
today
on
the
agenda,
we
have
assembly
bill,
253
and,
as
always,
we'll
be
doing
support
opposition
in
neutral
after
the
presentation
of
questions
from
the
members.
As
always,
I
want
to
remind
everybody
to
please
keep
your
microphone
on
mute
unless
you
are
speaking
and
that
you
keep
your
cameras
on
at
all
times.
A
Unless
you
have
an
emergency
or
something
comes
up,
just
give
give
us
a
quick
heads
up
and
we
can
shut
it
off
and
then
just
lastly,
for
those
of
you
following
us
virtually
you
may
see
us
looking
in
different
directions
at
times.
Please
don't
take
that
as
a
sign
of
disrespect,
it's
just
a
unique
setup.
We
all
have
in
our
own
office
as
we
have
multiple
monitors
with
that.
We'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
today's
meeting
with
assembly
bill
253
assemblywoman
concert
on
good
morning
and
welcome
to
your
very
own
committee.
D
Thank
you
thank
you,
chairman
flores,
and
vice
chancellor
vice
chair
torres
for
the
record.
My
name
is
vinisha
considine
and
I
have
the
honor
of
representing
district
18
in
southeast
las
vegas
and
henderson,
and
the
double
honor
today
to
present
ab253
to
the
government
affairs
committee,
one
of
the
committees
that
I
am
on,
so
I
am
doubly
excited.
I
will
be
presenting
ab253
today
with
rosalie
bordelov.
D
D
Since
the
pandemic,
everything
has
gone.
Virtual
public
meetings
have
gone
virtual.
The
technology
has
significantly
improved.
I
don't
know
if
any
any
of
you
have
the
same
issues
that
some
of
us
had
early
on,
where
there
were
hacking
problems
with.
You
know
some
of
some
of
the
virtual
technology
and
those
are
almost
gone
these
days,
technology
has
reached
out
and
they've
moved
up,
and
this
is
something
that
will
be
continuing
to
go
on
into
the
future.
The
courts
are
using
it.
D
Public
bodies
are
using
it,
so
this
bill
is
to
ensure
that
the
use
of
virtual
technology
and
the
use
of
meetings
that
held
that
way
can
continue
into
the
future.
But
we
also
wanted,
with
this
bill,
to
make
sure
that
no
one
is
left
behind,
especially
from
my
district.
There
is
a
range
of
folks
in
assembly
district
18
socioeconomic
across
across
the
the
bandwidth
to
use
that
for
people
who
can
access
technology
and
some
people
just
don't
have
what
is
necessary
to
access
all
of
that
technology.
D
Yet
they
still
should
have
access
to
the
public
bodies
and
those
meetings.
So
this
bill
not
only
lays
the
groundwork
to
allow
for
future
virtual
meetings.
If
public
bodies
choose
to
do
so,
it
also
protects
the
accessibility
for
folks
who
don't
have
the
you
know
the
the
same
access
to
virtual
meetings
that
they
can
call
in
that
they
can
be
assured
that
their
voice
would
be
heard
and
it's
not
lost
as
we
continue
to
move
forward.
D
So
that's
kind
of
the
the
basis
for
this,
but
I
would
like
to
turn
this
over
to
my
co-presenter
chief
deputy
attorney
general
rosalie
bordelov
to
go
through
the
bill
and
the
amendments.
There
were
some
things
that
didn't
make
it
into
the
bill,
so
you
should
all
have
the
amendment
that
was
emailed
out
last
night
and
is
also
available
on
nellis,
and
we
can
answer
any
questions
after
the
presentation.
F
There
we
go,
my
name
is
rosalie
bordelov
and
I
have
I'm
chief
of
the
boards
and
open
government
division
with
the
attorney
general's
office.
F
So
to
give
you
a
little
background
of
myself
and
why
I'm
here
with
this,
the
boards
and
open
government
division
houses,
the
open
meeting
law
enforcement
unit
with
the
attorney
general's
office,
so
within
chapter
241,
nevada's,
open
meeting
law,
the
attorney
general's
office
has
jurisdiction
to
investigate
and
prosecute
complaints
filed
with
our
office
regarding
violations
of
the
open
meeting
law,
so
that
investigation
and
opinions
come
out
of
my
division
and
we
also
represent
numerous
public
bodies
within
the
state.
F
Professional
licensing
boards,
as
as
well
as
many
other
legislated
commissions,
and
so
we
are
very
much
in
the
thick
of
it
and
convene
in
each
interim
session,
we
usually
convene
an
oml
task
force,
which
we
did
this
time
as
well.
That's
comprised
of
representatives
from
the
public
from
other
public
bodies
he's
we
have
an
individual
from
the
aclu.
F
We
usually
have
involvement
from
nevada
press
association.
These
are
similar
voices
we're
trying
to
get
to
get
input
on
how
the
law
is
working
and
not
just
from
an
enforcement
perspective,
but
from
the
perspective
of
public
bodies
following
it.
So
from
that,
we
put
together
this
bill
language
in
in
hopes
to
provide
a
permanent
avenue
for
public
bodies
to
hold
entirely
virtual
meetings
if
they
choose,
because
under
the
current
open
meeting
law
provisions,
a
physical
location
for
a
public
meeting
is
required
at
all
times
for
the
public
to
attend.
F
F
So
the
hope
with
these
provisions
is
that
for
smaller
public
bodies,
as
well
as
when
there
are
special
meetings
that
they
can
utilize,
this
entirely
virtual
option
and
other
and
I'll
go
through
them,
but
other
requirements
regarding
public
participation
will
kick
in
if
there
is
no
physical
location
available
to
the
public.
F
However,
it's
thought
that
once
it's
safe,
a
lot
of
these
public
bodies
will
be
able
to
go
back
to
more
traditional
formats
that
we
do
hope
that
they
will
include
a
virtual
option.
In
addition
to
that
public
option
to
really
increase
public
participation,
and
then
we
added
a
few
other
changes
into
the
law
that
I'll
go
over.
That
are
just
oh
we're
always
trying
to
update
it.
F
I
think
we
have
a
bill
almost
every
session,
to
try
and
update
the
law
to
help
it
keep
be
effective,
as
well
as
be
efficient
and
work
for
enforcement,
as
and
for
the
public
as
well
so
section
one
of
this
belt
bill
tweaks
the
definition
of
a
subcommittee
or
working
group
that
was
added
in
2019
to
require
at
least
two
members
of
the
public
body
that
appointed
it.
F
This
will
allow
public
bodies
to
be
able
to
ask
their
staff
to
research
an
issue
and
report
back
findings
without
their
entire
staff
becoming
a
separate
public
body
that
must
now
hold
public
meetings
it.
The
section
one
also
adds
a
definition
of
the
term
remote
technology
system
to
mean
any
system
or
other
means
of
communication.
F
To
enable
a
person
to
attend
and
participate
in
a
meeting
remotely
and
that
term
is
added
to
facilitate
the
remote
meeting
options
used
later
on
in
the
bill
section
two
of
the
bill
requires
public
bodies
to
provide
either
a
physical
location
or
an
electronic
means
for
public
to
attend
and
participate
in
meetings.
F
In
addition,
it
requires
a
means
for
attending
the
meeting
and
requesting
supporting
material
be
included
on
the
public
notice
agenda.
It
removes
the
requirement
that
a
physical
copy
of
an
agenda
be
posted
at
three
separate,
prominent
places
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
public
body,
but
it
does
require
that
a
public
body
designate
a
location
as
its
principal
place
of
business
and
that
its
notice
always
be
posted
there
right
now.
F
The
requirement
is
that
a
public
body
post
at
its
principal
place
of
business
or
the
location
of
the
meeting
plus
the
three
separate
prominent
places,
and
so
this
tweaks
that
language
a
little
bit
but
requires
there
still
be
one
physical
location
where
public
body
always
votes.
F
The
proposed
amendment
to
section
two
that
you
have
in
there
would
add
a
requirement.
Sorry,
I'm
just
plugging
in
mine
would
add
a
requirement
that
a
public
body
could
not
hold
an
entirely
virtual
meeting
without
having
a
website
to
post
its
agenda.
To
this
language
can
appear
a
little
duplicative,
but
the
official
notice
website
of
the
state
which
is
notice.nv.gov
does
not
currently
have
the
ability
to
host
a
document.
F
F
However,
in
situations
where
you
have
a
public
body
that
is
small
enough,
it
doesn't
maintain
a
website.
F
This
amendment
would
require
those
public
bodies
to
either
have
a
physical
location
or
find
a
way
to
post
that
agenda
online
if
they
want
to
hold
an
entirely
virtual
meeting,
essentially
just
trying
to
close
that
loophole
so
that
you
don't
have
a
situation
where
a
public
body
can
hold
an
entirely
virtual
meeting.
Yet
there
is
no
agenda
posted
online
for
public
to
see,
and
that's
and
again
it's
just
it's
a
a
rare
situation
since
almost
any
public
body
in
the
state.
F
At
this
point,
I
think,
has
a
website
or
they're
able
to
use
some
portion
of
another
website.
For
example,
subcommittees
of
a
city
council
usually
would
use
the
city
council's
website.
This
just
closes
that
for
some
of
our
a
lot
smaller
public
body,
section
three
adds
additional
requirements
to
the
conduct
of
virtual
meetings,
including
live
or
recorded
public
comment,
but
it
removes
the
requirement
of
it
of
a
physical
location.
So
long
as
the
virtual
option
is
available.
F
There
is
also
I'll
note,
a
small
typo
in
there
that
we
can
correct
on
in
as
we
go
through
and
work
on
this
bill.
There's
a
small
typo
that
needs
the
the
word
body
added
back
in
section.
F
Three
also
includes
a
requirement
that
an
individual
who
the
public
body
reasonably
ensure
that
individuals
who
are
required
or
entitled
to
attend
because
they
have
an
item
on
the
agenda,
such
as
an
appeal
or
if,
if
they're
disciplinary
action
is
potentially
being
taken
against
them
or
they're
supposed
to
be
presenting
on
an
application,
the
public
body
would
be
required
to
reasonably
ensure
that
they're
able
to
attend
remotely.
If
it's
an
entirely
virtual
meeting.
Now
this
it
is
a
reasonable
standard.
F
This
does
not
mean
that
a
public
body
would
be
required
to
provide
a
laptop
or
broadband
to
individuals.
This
is
again
only
for
those
people
who
have
an
item
on
the
agenda,
and
it
just
would
require
the
the
public
body
to
work
with
them
or
their
counsel.
If
they're
represented
a
little
bit
to
work
out,
some
of
the
logistics
section,
four
defines
the
term
administrative
action
for
purposes
of
the
notice
requirement
for
a
person
against
whom
administrative
action
may
be
taken.
F
Currently,
if
you
are
going
to
make
take
administrative
action
at
all
regarding
a
person,
their
name
must
be
listed
on
the
agenda,
but
if
the
administrative
action
is
favorable,
they
do
not
need
to
receive
notice.
However,
if
administrative
action
against
them
is
to
be
taken
at
the
meeting,
nrs
241.034
requires
that
they
receive
five
working
days
notice
by
personal
service
or
21
working
day
notice.
F
So
this
is
trying
to
define
what
administrative
action
against
and
to
help
clarify
for
public
bodies
when
that
notice
needs
to
be
taken
under
the
definition,
notice
would
be
required
to
make
a
decision
that
is
uniquely
personal
to
the
individual
and
may
result
in
a
negative
change
in
circumstances.
F
The
definition
excludes
applications
where
a
denial
would
leave
the
person
in
the
same
circumstances
as
they
would
before.
Prior
to
this,
there
just
wasn't
a
definition
in
the
law
which
caused
some
confusion.
There's
some
help
in
the
open
meeting
law
manual,
but
we
received
a
complaint
then
a
couple
of
years
ago,
that
required
us
to
do
a
lot
of
research
to
work
around
how
to
define
this
because
the
the
decision
on
the
open
meeting
law
complaint
we
had
really
hinged
on
the
definition
of
administrative
action
against
this
definition.
F
Comports
with
the
existing
interpretation
by
our
office
and
section
five
clarifies
that
a
witness
is
not
absolutely
privileged
to
publish
knowingly
false
information
as
part
of
a
public
meeting.
F
The
law
currently
states
that
a
witness
has
an
absolute
privilege
but
then
qualifies
the
privilege
in
the
same
sense,
so
this
change
was
not
intended
to
change
the
actual
substance
of
the
law.
It
was
intended
to
clarify
that
this
wasn't
equal,
an
absolute
privilege
before
and
clean
up
the
language.
A
little
bit
section.
Six
amends
the
administrative
procedures
act.
F
This
is
actually
nrs
chapter
233d
to
remove
the
requirement
that
a
physical
copy
of
the
notice
and
text
of
a
proposed
administrative
regulation
be
placed
with
a
library
in
every
county
of
the
state,
but
it
does
add
a
requirement
that
the
agency
provide
a
copy
to
a
person
who
requests
it.
So,
along
with
some
of
the
physical
posting
requirement,
changes
in
here
to
241.
F
Many
of
these
same
public
bodies
are
following
the
administrative
procedures
act
when
enacting
administrative
regulations,
and
these
changes
are
just
bringing
us
up
a
little
bit
more
modern
to
move
away
from
physical
paper
wasting
and
copying,
but
it
does
still
require
that
if
an
individual
comes
to
the
administrative
agency
and
requests
a
copy,
that
administrative
agency
needs
to
either
give
them
email
it
to
them.
F
F
So
that's.
What's
in
the
law
right
now
and
the
proposed
amendment,
I
mentioned
the
substantive
change
that
makes
of
adding
that
provision
to
close
a
loophole.
We
also
changed
because
of
that
the
switch
to
the
term
remote
technology
system,
where
there
was
already
some
language
in
the
law
regarding
teleconferencing
and
video
conferencing.
F
A
Perfect,
thank
you.
We
appreciate
you
walking
us
through
that.
I
know
we
do
have
some
questions
for
you,
but
I
very
much
appreciate
the
presentation.
I
think
you
went
through
it
very
thoroughly.
So
thank
you
for
that.
We'll
start
off
with
assemblywoman
anderson.
C
C
My
first
has
to
do
actually
with
section
section
three:
it's
on
page
ten
section:
three,
it's
one
b,
2
c
anyway,
you
know
what
it's
line
23,
much
easier,
just
to
say
the
line
number
on
the
original
language.
With
the
phrase
reasonably
unsure.
Can
you
define
that
a
little
bit
better
or
kind
of
walk
us
through
what
is
meant
by
that
phrase,
because
it's
kind
of
open
to
interpretation?
So
if
you
could
define
that
a
little
bit
better
for
us
in
this
in
this
meeting,
that'd
be
great.
F
F
However,
what
our
intent
was
here
was
to
make
sure
that
a
public
body
can't
just
throw
out
whatever
system
they
choose
to
use
and
then
be
completely
hands
off,
regardless
of
how
people
are
how
accessible
that
that
system
is
because
there
are
so
many
different
software
platforms
out
there
right
now
for
meetings
they
they
most
of
them
are
frequently
used,
such
as
you
know,
zoom
webex,
so
we're
using
zoom.
Today,
a
lot
of
these
software
programs
are
commonly
used
and
there
really
shouldn't
be
many
issues.
F
However,
it's
hard
to
know
and
we're
not
going
to
limit
what
software
platforms
could
be
used
in
the
law,
so
the
goal
here
is
that
if
somebody
is
essentially
entitled
to
be
there
or
allowed
to
participate
on
an
agenda
item,
that
is
about
them.
The
examples
I
used
before
such
as
they've
made
a
licensing
application
they
could
be
subject
to
disciplined
by
their
licensing
board.
F
The
hope
is
here
that
their
the
public
body
has
some
responsibility
to
talk
to
them
and
if
the
public
body
is
using,
for
example,
a
system
that
just
does
not
work,
it's
some
obscure
system,
that's
not
real
common
and
this
person's
in
a
rural
area
where
they
have
internet
connections.
But
this
one
requires
immense
bandwidth
with,
and
there
are
many
of
many
other
common
systems
used,
such
as
zoomer
webex
or
live
size.
That
would
work
much
better
work
with
them
in
some
way
to
at
least
acknowledge
what
limitations
there
are
and,
like.
F
I
said
it's
hard
to
define
exactly
how
that
would
work,
but
make
sure
that
a
public
body
can't
just
be
completely
hands
off.
Now.
I
don't
see
it
ever
being
reasonable
to
require
a
public
body
to
provide
equipment
to
somebody
who's
going
to
attend
or
to
send
their
I.t
out
there
to
me
that
would
not
be
reasonable,
but
but
but
what
we're
looking
for
here
is
just
that:
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
requirement
for
the
public
body
to
work
with
those
people
to
ensure
that
they
are
able
to
attend
and
participate
again.
F
This
provision
is
targeted
at
people
who
are
whether
they
be
presenters
or
there's
an
agenda
item
about
them.
It
specifically
says
it
is
not
members
of
the
public
of
member
of
the
public
or
members
of
the
public
body.
It's
members
who,
because
presumably
they've
already
worked
with
members
of
their
own
public
body
and
for
public
comment.
F
There
are
other
requirements
protecting
that
in
here.
Public
comment
needs
to
there.
There
need
to
be
methods
for
public
comment
to
the
extent
it's
a
video
meeting.
There
is
already
a
requirement
that
public
be
able
to
view
the
meeting
to
the
same
extent
as
the
individuals
in
the
meeting,
for
example,
this
meeting
today,
while
not
the
legislature,
doesn't
have
to
comply
with
the
open
meeting
law.
They're
using
some
of
the
same
functions
live
streaming.
This
video,
so
public,
is
able
to
observe,
and
then
public
can
call
in
for
public
comment.
F
This
requires
has
plenty
of
requirements
to
protect
that
public
participation,
but
this
year
is
just
ensuring
an
additional
level
for
somebody
whose
rights
may
be
effected
by
an
item
on
the
agenda.
I.
C
Really
appreciate
that
answer.
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
clarification,
because
I
also
just
it's
not
mentioned
in
here,
but
I
believe
it
was
alluded
to
in
your
answer
as
well
is
that
these
platforms
would
be
free
to
the
public
and
also
to
the
individuals
who
are
participating.
C
F
That
is
at
least
for
public
participation.
That
is
something
we
are
are
definitely
looking
for
in
there.
So,
like
I
said
you
know,
zoom
offers
free
accounts
for
individuals
who
are
participating
in
a
meeting
while
it
is
contemplated
that
the
public
body
may
have
to
pay
for
their
account.
We're
looking
that
this
isn't
something
where
an
individual
who
wants
to
participate
in
an
agenda
item
about
them,
but
they
use
some
obscure
system
and
you
can
only
get
an
account
by
paying
a
whole
lot
of
money
to
get
that
account
and
participate.
F
There
should
be
yes,
it
should.
The
public
participation
should
be
something
where
it
doesn't
cost
public.
They
may
need
to
create
an
account,
but
in
the
instance
of
every
software
I've
used
during
this
pandemic.
If
you
were
not
the
one
hosting
the
meeting,
you
can
create
a
free
account
and
participate,
and
that's
something
we
should
be
looking
for
because
of
the
limitations.
F
That's
why
this
aspect
is
different,
so
this
would
require,
if
they're
supposed
to
be
able
to
attend-
and
it's
a
video
meeting
allowing
this
person
who's
supposed
to
be
able
to
present
to
maybe
have
a
link
to
actually
participate
in
the
zoom,
instead
of
just
being
as
a
presenter
in
the
zoom
to
be
able
to
participate
on
camera
on
the
agenda
item.
That
is
about
them.
F
However,
they
don't
have
to
offer
every
single
individual,
the
public,
the
ability
to
participate
on
camera.
They
just
need
to
offer
that
public
comment
option
and
if
they
aren't
offering
their
ability
to
participate
and
call
in
with
a
a
shared
link,
there
needs
to
be
a
public
broadcast,
so
they
can
see
them.
F
So
that
is
what
we're
looking
for
here,
but
a
slightly
higher
level
for
the
individuals
who
are
being
are
participating
in
a
specific
agenda
item.
More
than
just
public
comment.
C
F
I'm
not
sure
which
specific
other
than
procedures
there
would
know
the
requirement
that
you,
post
in
three
separate
locations
will
be
removed.
That
does
not
in
any
way
mean
you
can't
and
that's
where
I
kind
of
said
any
we're
trying
to
create
this
as
an
option,
but
nothing
if
a
public
body
wanted
to
go
back
to
all
of
their
pre-pandemic
methods,
their
their
format
of
a
meeting
that
was
a
physical
meeting,
all
the
physical
postings,
everything
prior
they
could.
F
They
shouldn't
be
changing
that,
with
the
exception,
the
only
posting
exception
I
can
think
of
in
there
is
before
they
could
post
at
the
location
of
the
meeting.
Instead
of
their
principal
place
of
business.
Now
they
have
to
choose
a
principal
office
and
post
their
instead
of
location
of
the
meeting,
but
that
part
of
that
purpose
of
that
was
because
those
three
other
prominent
places
could
always
change,
and
we
can't
require
counties
or
cities
to
designate
a
posting
location.
F
That
is
where
all
public
bodies
will
post.
So
it
felt
that
we
were
kind
of
off
and
again
physically
wasting
paper
printing.
These
things
and
there's
frequently
we've
had
to
advise
public
bodies
to
cancel
a
meeting
because
they
didn't
succeed
in
making
the
posting
requirements,
which
would
technically
be
a
violation,
and
so
we
can't
advise
them
to
continue
on
if
they
would
be
in
violation.
F
So
it's
kind
of
trying
to
say
look.
This
requirement
seems
a
little
outdated,
I'm
not
sure
what
all
other,
to
the
extent
that
there
are
other
requirements
within
the
law
that
do
require
public
posting.
Those
would
still
be
in
place.
That
doesn't
mean
they
couldn't
be
changed
later.
F
I
don't
know
for
sure,
though,
what
all
they
will
do,
but
to
the
extent
that
there
are
other
requirements
in
place
regarding
posting,
those
would
still
be
in
place.
Those
not
changed
by
this.
C
And
I
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear.
I
greatly
appreciate
that
update,
because
I've
sometimes
had
to
like
look
through
a
whole
bunch
of
pieces
of
paper
and
figure
out
what
meeting
is
happening
at
certain
times
on
some
of
those
bullets,
believe
it
or
not.
I
know
that
sounds
weird,
so.
F
C
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I've
got
a
couple
questions
and,
and
I
got
a
bunch
of
them
number
one
is
it.
It
says,
on
the
mayhem,
physical
impact
back
on
the
state
and
on
to
the
dialogue.
Here
it
says,
may
have
an
impact
physical
impact
to
the
state
insurance
system.
Can
you
explain
that?
That's
my
first
question.
F
I'm
not
positive,
I
I
can't
explain,
I'm
not
sure
how
it
would
have
an
effect
on
the
insurance
system.
I
know
our
office
was
requested,
whether
or
not
the
ag's
office.
It
would
have
a
physical
impact
on
us
and
I
we
have
determined
that
it
would
not.
We
are
already
enforcing.
F
We
already
have
an
enforcement
unit
for
the
rest
of
the
law,
and
I
don't
think
this
would
greatly
increase
or
decrease
the
amount
of
complaints
we
get
and
complaints
we
are
investigating,
so
I'm
not
entirely
sure
where
the
physical
or,
where
the
the
fiscal
impact
node
is
coming
from,
because
right
now
state
buildings
frequently
do
a
lot
of
this
posting,
for
example,
and
they
will
be
doing
less
of
it
would
be
the
hope
that
they
would
be
doing
less
posting
to
the
extent
that
state
agencies
have
public
bodies,
and
maybe
many
of
them
are
already
paying
for
a
remote
technology
system
or
incur
costs
for
security
and
other
things
when
it
comes
to
hosting
physical
meetings.
F
If
you
could
clarify
your
question,
because
this
is
changes
to
the
open
meeting
law,
it's
current
requirement,
it
currently
does
have
a
physical
location
requirement,
but
this
would
be
changing
that
requirement
to
be
a
physical
location
or
a
of
meeting
the
where
the
public
can
attend
via
a
remote
technology
system.
F
This
would
change
so
right
now.
What
is
required
for
posting
all
the
timelines
for
posting
would
still
be
the
same
right
now.
What
is
required
for
posting
is
the
principal
office
of
the
public
body
or
the
meeting
location
plus
three
other
places
within
the
state
and
the
state's
notice
website.
F
This
would
remove
the
three
other
locations
and
require
the
principal
office
of
the
public
body
to
it
always
be
posted
there
physically,
and
it
would
require
public
bodies
to
essentially
because
they
can't,
if
they
don't
maintain
a
principal
office,
they
will
essentially
need
to
designate
a
place
as
their
principal
office
for
purposes
of
the
posting,
because
the
location
of
the
meeting
will
no
longer
be
a
posting
location
and
then
it
reque
it
maintains
the
online
posting
as
well
as.
F
If
it's
going
to
be
a
virtual
meeting,
it
adds
an
additional
requirement
regarding
online
posting.
Public
bodies
also
need
to
post
to
their
own
website
if
they
maintain
one.
That
requirement
is
in
existence
when
it
comes
to
the
timelines
and
the
content
of
the
agenda.
F
That's
not
changing,
with
the
exception
of
if
you
are
doing
a
virtual
meeting,
the
means
for
public
to
attend.
The
virtual
meeting
needs
to
be
on
the
internet
and
that's
the
only
change
to
the
content
of
the
agenda
requirements
in
the
law.
E
The
only
reason
I
ask
that
question
a
follow-up,
mr
chair,
please
follow
up
the
only
reason.
I
ask
that
question.
A
lot
of
people
do
not
have
a
computer,
mostly
the
seniors.
They
go
to
the
libraries
they
go
to
the
county
buildings
they
go
to
wherever
they
can
to
where
they
actually
physically
post
a
meeting,
and
if
they
depended
on
a
lot
on
the
computer
system.
You
know,
then
that
might
create
a
problem.
F
If
they
are
regularly
going
to
one
of
those
libraries
or
state
buildings,
the
problem
with
this
was
that
there
is
no
central
location,
so
the
posting
locations
can
change.
Public
bodies
were
never
required
under
this.
Under
the
the
prior
requirements
to
ever
have
a
constant
place,
so
they
could
change
their
posting
locations
at
any
time,
and
there's
was
no
central
place
to
know
that
you
were
seeing
everything,
so
this
would
require
their
own
principal
office
to
be
a
constant
location.
F
We
also
would
hope
that
any
as
with
any
requirement
in
the
oml,
we
could
only
make
so
many
requirements
that
apply
to
all
public
bodies,
but
we
always
encourage
and
hope
that
any
public
body
it
exists
to
serve
its
public.
All
public
bodies
in
nevada
exist
to
do
the
public's
business
and
they
should
be
paying
attention
to
the
needs
of
their
specific
public
and
doing
what
they
can
to
cater
to
those
needs.
E
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
assemblywoman
considine
and
ms
bartolo
for
the
presentation.
I
guess
I
sort
of
a
comment
and
then
a
a
question
sort
of
an
initial
concern,
particularly
particularly
with
section
one
which,
as
I
read,
it,
was
sort
of
weaken
the
trigger
for
the
open
meeting
law.
E
Applying
you
know,
based
on
those
couple
of
criteria
for
the
oml
to
to
kick
in,
and
you
know
mike
is,
I
know
it's
a
modest.
It's
a
modest
lowering
of
the
bar.
Perhaps,
but
you
know
my
concern
is
always
sort
of
anytime.
You
take
even
a
minor
step
toward
lessening
those
transparency
requirements.
It
just
becomes
so
much
easier
to
take
another
one
down
the
road,
and
I
guess
I'm
hoping
that
one
of
you
may
be
able
to
speak
to
the
necessity.
E
F
I'm
I'm
guessing.
Are
you
speaking
to
the
subcommittee
or
working
group
definition.
E
Yes,
yeah,
it
says
in
section
one
you're
under
or
an
under
existing
law.
There
are
the
two
criteria
and
it's
an
one
or
two.
You
know
an
a
or
b
test
for
the
open,
meaning
a
lot
to
apply,
and
this
bill
would
change.
I
it
looks
like
it
changes
the
second
criteria
entirely
and
changes
it
from
an
or
to
an,
and
it
just
seems
to
me
that
it
would
make
the
open
meeting
law
apply
in
more
stringent
or
in
less
frequent
circumstances.
E
In
other
words,
it
raises
the
bar
for
the
open
meeting
law
to
actually
kick
in,
which
would
seem
to
suggest
less
transparency.
Fewer
meetings
would
be
subject
to
the
law
under
these
changes.
That's
my
reading
of
it
at
least,
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to-
why
that
why?
That
needs
to
be
the
case.
F
I
can
yes,
so
this
definition
was
added
in
2019,
and
so
the
reason
we're
tweaking
it
now
is,
as
we've
gone
to
apply
it
it
it.
I
agree
that
it
is
narrowing
it
a
little,
but
it
became
problematic
because,
frequently
public
bodies
will
an
issue
arises
during
a
meeting
and
they
would
like
some
more
information
on
the
issue,
essentially
a
research
project
and
they
go
to
their
staff
and
say:
can
you
look
into
this
issue?
F
Come
back
to
us
during
our
next
meeting,
which
the
next
meeting
would
be
another
public
meeting
and
report
back
on
what
you
found
and
frequently
you
know,
they're
looking
to
a
couple
staff
members
they're
saying:
can
you
research
this
issue
and
under
the
prior
definition,
if
those
two
staff,
if
they
looked
at
two
staff
members
and
said
please
look
into
this
gather,
you
know,
gather
some
information
and
come
back
to
us
with
your
findings.
F
If
those
findings
in
any
way
included
a
recommendation,
those
staff
would
now
be
a
public
body
when
the
idea
was
not
to
remove
any
of
the
deliberative
process
outside
of
the
public
eye.
The
idea
by
this
delegation
was
simply
to
allow
the
staff
to
gather
information
that
they
then
bring
back
to
the
public
body,
which
is
discussed
deliberated
and
any
decisions
are
made
during
a
public
meeting.
F
So
the
idea
here,
the
problematic
part
there
was
that
a
public
body
could
consist
entirely
of
or
this
this
subcommittee
could
consist
entirely
of
non-public
body
members
who
maybe
were
a
couple
staff
members
plus
some
people
who
weren't
even
involved
with
the
public
body
at
all,
who
just
were
meeting
to
research,
an
issue
they
would
fit
the
definition
and
all
of
a
sudden,
all
the
open
meeting
law
requirements
would
trigger
which
make
it
virtually
impossible
for
a
time
staff
to
do
this,
and
so
the
reason
we
were
tweaking.
F
This
definition
was
to
look
towards
really
instances
where
the
public
body
is
delegating
some
of
its
power,
and
it's
that
again
that
deliberative
process,
because
what
the
open
meeting
law
is
really
protecting
here
is
not
just
the
decisions
of
a
public
body
but
the
deliberative
process.
The
reasons
behind
those
decisions
are
being
are
being
protected,
so
they're
in
the
public
eye.
F
The
public
knows
not
only
what
their
government's
doing,
but
why-
and
so
the
idea
here
in
tweaking
this
definition
was
so
that
it
really
focused
just
on
those
instances
where
the
public
body
could
be
delegating
some
of
its
decision-making
power
or
just
even
the
deliberative
process,
behind
its
decision-making
power,
which
rests
with
those
members
of
the
public
body,
and
so
we're
trying
to
to
protect
that
with
this
definition,
but
make
it
a
little
bit
more
of
an
effective
definition,
because
the
extent
to
how
broad
another
example
I'll
give
in
general,
there
are
a
lot
of
non-profits
that
raise
money
for
things
like
historical
buildings.
F
Other
causes
that
a
public
body
may
choose
to
something
may
use
that
money
that
is
being
raised
by
the
nonprofit
and
that
non-profit
could
at
times
make
a
recommendation
based
on
the
historical
building.
As
I
use
that
as
an
example,
because
we've
issued
opinions
on
it,
where
a
non-profit
was
existed
for
the
support
of
a
historical
building.
F
The
historical
building
was
owned
by
a
county,
and
the
county
would
receive
recommendations
from
the
nonprofit
at
times
on
ways
to
spend
its
own
money
and
spend
the
money
that
the
nonprofit
had
raised
for
the
upkeep
of
this
building,
and
just
because
a
non-profit
is
not
created
by
statute,
because
it's
a
you
know,
a
501c3
does
not
make
it
absolutely
not
a
public
body,
it
could
be
and
it
under
this
other
definition.
F
There
are
times
when
that
type
of
situation
could
cause
all
of
a
sudden
the
board
of
a
non-profit,
to
become
a
public
body,
because
it's
making
a
recommendation
to
a
public
body.
So
here
we
were
trying
to
narrow
it
a
little
but
narrow
it
to
really
target
the
areas
where
the
public
has
an
interest
in
viewing.
What
happens
so
where
that
subcommittee
or
working
group
includes
members
of
the
public
body
so
that
that
deliberative
process
really
is
what's
staying
in
the
public
eye.
E
Thank
you
quick,
follow
up,
mr
chair.
Oh
please
thank
you
and,
by
the
way,
border
love.
Thank
you
for
using
you
used
the
word
narrow
in
terms
of
the
open
meaning
line.
That
was
the
word
I
was
looking
for,
but
which
kept
escaping
me.
So
thank
you
for
that.
That's
helpful,
not
enough
coffee.
Yet
I
guess
this
morning
just
follow
a
question.
Then
it
says
that
in
this
bill
it
would
be
at
least
two
members
of
the
subcommittee
or
working
group
will
be
members
of
the
public
body.
Why?
E
Two
as
opposed
to
one,
maybe
that's
an
obvious
practical
issue,
but
I
wonder
if
you
could
clarify
that
as
well.
Thanks.
F
We
chose
to
because
one
at
times
again
another
thing:
public
bodies,
instead
of
delegating
to
staff
at
times,
will
assign
tasks
to
single
members.
To
say:
can
you
you
remember
like
each
they'll,
divvy
up
work
and
say
each
member
is
going
to
focus
on
a
certain
thing
and
that
individual
may
go
and
again
research?
I
mean
they're
going
to
go
whether
they're
they're
at
times
getting
public
input,
but
they
may
work
with
staff
as
part
of
their
research,
and
so
the
worry
was.
F
F
It's
frequently
those
research
projects
is
where
I
see
it
the
most
and
the
worry
is
that
we're
going
to
be
triggering
it
and
public
bodies
just
aren't
going
to
be
able
to,
and
we
would
like
them
to
be
able
to
divvy
up
research
projects
like
that
that
work
to
say
go.
Look
into
this
issue
come
back
that
one
member
can
talk
to
staff
and
talk
to
public
can
talk
to
experts,
figure
it
out,
come
back
and
then
report
findings
to
the
meeting
to
the
public
body
and
those
decisions
are
made
in
the
public
body.
F
C
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation
of
this
bill.
First,
I
have
a
statement
and
then
I
I
have
a
question.
I
want
to
commend
your
efforts
to
expand
accessibility
for
populations
who
might
not
be
able
to
go
to
a
physical
location,
and
so
that
is
hugely
important,
and
I
see
really
this
expanding
accessibility
to
all
of
our
public
meetings
and
it
eliminates
many
times
a
possible
need
for
reasonable
accommodation.
C
C
I
believe
that
I
read
a
physical
location
can
still
exist
alongside
in
the
company
technology,
to
allow
people
who
aren't
able
to
be
there
in
a
physical
location
to
participate
through
technology,
and
so
you
can
still
meet
physically
and
and
we're
not
recommending
that
a
physical
location
go
away
right
or
a
body
can
choose
to
meet
solely
electronically,
like
both
are
approved
methods.
Is
that
correct.
F
Yes,
that
is
correct
both
are
approved
under
this
both
would
be
approved
methods.
We
would
hope
that
frequently,
especially
with
the
advancements
in
technology
that
have
happened
over
the
past
year,
as
as
you
know,
as
this
pandemic
has
kind
of
forced
all
of
us
to
to
come
a
little
bit
more
forward
with
this
technology
technology
has
responded.
We
would
hope
that
a
lot
of
times
both
are
offered
because,
again,
if
it,
I
understand
your
your
concerns
with
some
of
the
accommodations.
F
While
the
open
meeting
law
requires
reasonable
accommodations,
often
that
accommodation
can
be
met
by
allowing
for
this
remote
systems,
we
would
hope
often
they're
both.
However,
the
requirements
under
the
law,
the
bare
minimum
would
be
at
least
the
physical
location
or
the
remote
technology
system,
but
they
could
use
either
avenue
they
could
it's
just
when
they
don't
have
a
physical
location.
Some
of
these
other
requirements
are
going
to
kick
in
to
protect
public
participation.
C
Thank
you
sheriff
lars.
Just
one
follow-up,
if
you
don't
mind.
C
Thank
you
I
just
sort
of
want
to
think
and
that
throughout
the
state
right
do.
We
then
see
this
helping
to
improve
participation
in
public
bodies
by
allowing
a
technology
by
means
of
meeting
so
that
perhaps
elko
folks
can
meet
with
partnerville
folks
with
southern
nevada.
Do
we
see
that
maybe,
as
being
a
positive
way,
to
engage
more
public
bodies.
F
Yes,
I
mean
that
that
is
a
lot
of
the
hope
here
during
we've
gotten
feedback,
while
I've
gotten
feedback
both
directions
when
it
comes
to
the
exclusive
use
of
remote
meetings
during
the
past
year,
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
would
like
to
be
able
to
go
back
and
speak
in
front
of
their
public
bodies.
There
are
also
a
lot
of
public
bodies
have
reported
to
us
that
they
are
getting
greater
participation.
F
I
don't
know
how
much
of
that
is
to
the
availability
of
the
remote
systems,
the
fact
that
people
can
attend
from
their
houses
and
how
much
of
that
is
some
people
having
additional
time
to
be
able
to
attend
these
things.
But
we
are
hoping
that,
like
I
said,
I
would
hope
that
a
lot
of
public
bodies,
especially
larger
ones,
will
be
using
both
so
that
people
have
that
option
and
can
attend
in
either
way.
F
The
hope
behind
that
is
that
we
would
have
greater
participation
we'd
like
to
see
that
I
I
do
not
want
to
see
this
reduce
participation,
but
we
are
giving
it
an
option
for
both
what
I
envision
happening.
More
than
anything
is
it's
going
to
be
small
public
bodies
or
larger
public
bodies
when
they're
having
a
special
meeting.
That
only
has
one
item
two
items,
because
they
just
need
to
get
something
done:
real,
quick,
whether
that's
a
proven
settlement
agreement
on
short
time
frame,
something
like
that
bill.
F
That's
when
they'll
be
going
completely
remote,
but
that,
once
it's
safe
they'll
be
able
to
open
up
a
little
bit
more
towards
the
the
physical
meetings
but
hopefully
still
offer
some
of
this
under
the
existing
law
they
could
have.
F
They
could
have
members
of
the
public
body
attend.
They
could
also
have
presentations
via
video
conference,
the
remote
systems,
but
they
had
to
have
a
physical
requirement,
a
physical
location
for
the
public,
which
meant
that
public
was
almost
never
offered
the
virtual
option
prior
to
this
pandemic,
occasionally
they'd
be
given
a
call-in
number,
but
usually
public
was
not
given
help
on
the
virtual
option.
Part
of
that
has
to
do
with
everyone's
more
familiar
and
there's
more
excessive
and
public
bodies
now
have
accounts.
F
With
these
larger
platforms,
the
software
platforms
have
evolved
immensely,
so
I'm
hoping
to
see
a
lot
more
use
of
them,
but
that
is
usually
what
we
saw
in
the
past
is
the
physical
location
would
be
all
that
would
be
offered.
Even
if
not
a
single
member
of
the
public
body
would
be
at
that
physical
occasion,
the
public
body
members
would
all
be
called
into
the
telephone,
and
there
would
be
a
speaker
phone
and
it.
C
Thank
you
so
much
mr
chair
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
considine,
for
thinking
of
this
and
and
to
miss
bordelov
for
the
very
detailed
presentation.
C
I
think
what
I
have
is
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question
in
a
way,
but
I'm
thinking
you
know
we're
experiencing
the
first
virtual
legislative
session
and
it's
definitely
difficult
to
form
relationships
and
and
certainly
somewhat
less
effective,
getting
things
done
for
the
people
and
I'm
thinking
with
clarifying
all
of
this,
and
if
we're
going
to
use
this
technology
moving
forward,
we
need
certainly
to
have
standards,
but
I'm
thinking
it's
going
to
encourage
them
and
for
because
it,
for
whatever
reasons,
maybe
because
it's
easier,
some
of
these
bodies
will
probably
see
cost
savings.
C
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
I
I
can
try
to
answer
that.
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
the
purpose
of
the
bill.
To
begin
with
is
that
these
are
expanding
options
for
for
these
meetings
and
for
these
public
bodies
and
for
public
participation
in
this.
D
So
I
think
that
there's
a
larger
technological
discussion
that
might
have
to
happen
as
to
what
you're
talking
about
is
the
tension
between
we
have
all
of
this
technology,
and
it's
happening
so
fast
as
to
whether
or
not
we
as
human
beings
can
kind
of
keep
up
and
how
that
meshes
together
and
that's
something
I
think,
that's
a
larger
conversation
that
we
need
to
go.
D
You
know
really
have
going
forward,
but
for
this
because
of
what's
happened
during
the
pandemic,
and
so
many
more
people
who
and
entities
who
might
not
have
looked
at
a
virtual
as
an
option
because
of
a
belief
that
if
we
do
that
it'll
be
a
separation
from
person
to
person,
I
think
what
we've
learned
is.
It's
opened
another
door.
It's
given
another
option
for
people
to
participate,
so
the
idea
is
to
say
you
can't
have
any
physical
locations
anymore.
That
will
be
up
to
those
public
bodies.
D
Ideally
they
have
the
physical
location.
They
have.
You
know
the
virtual
option
they
have
folks
who
can
call
in
that
if
they
need
to
leave
a
comment
because
they're
working
during
a
meeting,
all
of
that
as
more
participation
and
ideally
that
participation,
you
know
sort
of
overflows
into
the
rest
of
the
community
and
does
build
community
overall.
D
So
I
kind
of
hope
that
that
sort
of
responds
to
your
question
a
little
bit
and
then,
if
I
may
take
a
moment
and
go
back
to
something
that
assembly
min
ellison
brought
up
about
folks
going
to
their
libraries
and
through
their
community
centers
for
those
postings
to
understand
those
again
going
back
to
like
participation
if
they
are
going
to
the
libraries.
Ideally
and
you
know
in
smaller
communities,
those
public
bodies
still
post.
But
you
know,
what's
available
at
a
library
that
might
not
be
available
at
somebody's
home.
D
Is
that
computer
that,
if
they
can't
make
it
to
a
physical
location
or
that
location
is
too
far,
but
they
can
make
it
to
their
library
now?
This
opens
the
door
if
there
are
virtual
meetings
for
them
to
be
able
to
access
the
computer
at
their
local
library
and
participate
as
well.
So
it's
kind
of
a
dovetail
to
your
question,
assemblywoman
dickman,
but
wanted
to
add
that,
and
if
I
have
not
answered
your
question,
please
let
me
know.
C
D
Effective
before
the
record
vinisha
considine
assembly
district
18
to
respond
to
you,
ideally
the
public
bodies
themselves
and
the
communities
will
decide
what
works
for
them.
So
this
isn't
a
mandate
for
anyone
to
do
anything
so
that
they
are
reflective
of
the
community
and
what
the
community
wants
to
see.
Yeah
and.
C
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
members,
any
additional
questions.
I'm
now
checking
the
chat
make
sure
I
did
not
accidentally
skip
over
anyone
wishing
to
ask
a
question.
A
Seeing
none
at
this
time
would
like
to
invite
those
wishing
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly
bill
253,
and
I'm
first
checking
our
video
to
ensure
that
there's
nobody
logged.
In
wishing
to
testify
and
support.
C
B
B
B
B
B
It
was
passed
in
2019.
It
balances
the
need
for
government
transparency
and
public
participation,
while
providing
an
effective
mechanism
to
ensure
that
local
governing
bodies
can
adhere
to
the
spirit
and
letter
of
the
open
meeting
law.
Ab253
provides
common
sense
measures
to
allow
for
virtual
participation
in
our
public
process,
while
not
overburdening
local
governing
bodies,
while
they
conduct
the
public's
business
in
an
open
and
transparent
form.
B
Finally,
naco
would
like
to
thank
the
sponsor
assemblyman
consonant
and
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
for
presenting
ab253
nako
has
been
a
participant
in
the
attorney
general's
open
meeting
law
task
force,
and
we
appreciate
the
attorney
general's
office
for
bringing
together
such
a
wide
range
of
interested
stakeholders
and
including
counties
on
this
task
force.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
committee
members
for
hearing
the
bill
this
morning
and
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify
in
support
of
ab253.
A
B
G
My
brother,
thomas
purdy,
was
one
of
three
men
affixiated
to
death
at
the
washoe
county
jail
in
reno.
How
appropriate
this
bill
is
being
heard
during
sunshine
week,
when
my
brother
thomas
was
killed
by
deputies
at
the
washoe
county
jail.
The
washer
county
commissioners
were
neglecting
their
duties
under
nrs
211.020
to
ensure
the
safety
of
the
inmates.
Of
course,
I
wanted
to
make
my
feelings
known
and
be
a
voice
for
my
brother
during
their
weekly
county
commissioner
meetings,
because
I
do
not
live
in
your
state,
I'm
from
boston.
G
I
don't
know
if
you
notice
the
accident,
I
could
not
physically
attend
the
meeting.
I
would
email
my
public
comment
to
the
county
clerk
the
day
before
the
meeting
at
first.
They
would
acknowledge
it
during
the
meeting
only
stating
that
they
had
received
an
email
that
would
be
placed
on
the
record
from
me,
but
they
would
not
include
the
contents
or
the
substance
of
my
remarks
onto
the
record,
I
filed
an
open
meeting
complaint
70
plus
pages
long.
I
had
contacted
the
aclu
nevada
about
this
issue.
G
They
submitted
a
letter
of
support
with
my
complaint.
For
me,
the
washer
da's
response
to
the
complaint
was
that
I
wasn't
attending
in
person
physically
and
therefore
they
did
not
have
to
put
the
substance
of
my
remarks
in
the
minutes
and,
sadly,
the
ag's
office
concurred
fast
forward
three
years
to
cobra
19.
washout
county
now
conducts
meetings
via
zoom,
and
it
now
allows
me
to
have
a
voice
for
my
brother
and
address
the
shortcomings
of
the
commissioners
and
the
sheriffs
whose
budget
they
oversee
they
did.
They
did
not.
G
They
did
start
accepting
email,
public
comments
and
voicemail
public
comments
when
they
were
playing
them
into
the
chamber.
Truth
be
told
myself
and
my
brother
dianne
were
the
only
ones
either
emailing
or
leaving
a
voicemail
for
public
comment.
This
went
on
for
a
couple
months
with
the
emails
voicemails
being
played
into
the
chambers
when
county
commissioner
bob
lucy
suddenly
stated
on
the
record.
He
was
changing
the
rules
and
they
would
not
read
the
emails
or
play
the
voicemails.
G
I
fully
believe
it
was
an
attempt
to
silence
my
brother
and
just
like
it
was
three
years
before
this
bill
will
prevent
that
during
remote
meetings.
Not
only
do
remote
meetings
help,
but
they
will
also
allow
and
encourage
more
of
your
community
members
who
perhaps
wouldn't
have
participated
in
the
meeting
to
do
so
from
home,
whether
it
be
because
they're
disabled
have
a
scheduled
conflict,
have
no
means
of
transportation
to
attend
in
person,
etc.
Elected
officials
are
so
supposed
to
be
the
voice
of
the
people.
G
No
one
wins
when
the
government
business
is
conducted
in
the
dark
without
opportunity
for
review,
I
am
invested
in
your
local
state
and
government
if
that
is
where
my
brother
was
murdered
by
police.
Well,
I
think
nevada
has
some
great
open
meeting
laws
compared
to
some
states.
This
is
a
needed
improvement
in
the
year
2021.
I
only
wish
it
were
mandatory
language
for
remote
access
for
all
meetings.
Thank
you.
A
B
C
Chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
callie
wilson
with
the
city
of
reno,
that's
c-a-l-l-I,
w-I-l-s's
and
sam
ey.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
today.
We
appreciate
assemblywoman
constant
meeting
with
us
yesterday
and
the
various
conversations
miss
bordelov
has
had
with
me
on
this
bill.
We
are
here
in
opposition
today,
simply
related
to
the
definition
of
the
definition
of
administrative
action.
C
In
section
four,
we
understand
the
need
to
provide
a
definition
and
clarity
on
this
term,
but
we
feel
the
definition
in
the
bill
is
introduced
makes
it
more
confusing
than
it
is
now.
We
remain
committed
to
working
with
the
bill
sponsors
and
appreciate
them
working
with
us
on
this
technical
issue.
Otherwise,
we
appreciate
the
bill
detailing
the
expectations
of
optional
virtual
meetings
in
the
future
and
we
remain
committed
to
ensuring
access
to
and
public
involvement
in
all
of
our
public
meetings
in
an
open
and
transparent
way
and
in
compliance
with
oml.
Thank
you.
A
B
Caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
of
666,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
warren
hardy
w-a-r-r-e-n,
last
name.
Hardy
h-a-r-d-y
today
representing
the
urban
consortium
which
is
made
up
of
the
cities
in
reno,
sparks
las
vegas
and
henderson.
B
Again
we're
we're
also
signed
in
in
opposition.
Simply
because
of
the
rules
we
do
have.
We
did
have
a
great
conversation
with
the
sponsor
yesterday
and
appreciate
her
willingness
to
addre
what
was
pointed
out
by
miss
wilson
from
the
city
of
reno.
We
also
have
some
concerns
about
the
language
in
section
three
relative
to
reasonable
efforts.
The
sponsor's
aware
of
these
concerns,
and
we
look
forward
to
continue
to
work,
continue
working
with
her
so
that
we
can
update
this
statute
and
bring
it
into
current
times.
A
B
H
I
our
coalition,
has
two
broad
concerns
with
assembly
bill
253.
First
much
like
assemblyman
matthews
expressed
earlier
in
today's
meeting.
We
are
concerned
that
section
one
unduly
narrows
the
definition
of
what
constitutes
a
public
body.
Well,
we
certainly
recognize
that
not
all
discussions
meet
to
the
public.
You
know
there
are
instances
like
internal
staff
meetings
and
deliberative
discussions
that
do
not
need
to
be
open
to
the
public.
It
is
still
important
that
the
public
have
access
to
meetings
where
important
policy
discussions
are
taking
place
and
any
limitation
on
what
constitutes
a
public
body.
H
Much,
like
mr
matthew
said,
opens
the
door
to
additional
limitations
on
to
public
participation,
which
is
contrary
to
the
spirit
of
the
open
meeting
law.
The
second
concern
that
we
have
is
with
the
amendments
in
section
three,
and
certainly
we
applaud
the
use
of
the
creative
use
of
technology
to
improve
public
participation.
Over
the
past
year.
H
Switching
to
a
total
remote
public
meeting
will
have
the
inevitable
effect,
no
matter
how
hard
we
try
of
leaving
members
of
the
public
behind
sort
of
like
what
mr
assemblyman
ellison
was
referring
to.
There
are
a
lot
of
older
people
who
have
limited
access
to
technology
that
they
would
need
to
participate
in
it
or,
quite
frankly,
they
may
be
confused
by
even
people
like
me
are
confused
by
technology.
Sometimes,
there's
also
people
who
lack
reliable
internet
access
or
people
who
live
on
the
margins
of
our
society,
for
example,
homeless.
H
There
is
really
no
replacement
for
personal
contact
with
people
who
serve
on
public
bodies,
as
we've
all
learned
during
this
pandemic,
that
there
really
is
no
substitute
for
having
members
of
public
bodies.
Look
members
of
the
public
in
the
eye
or
having
to
interact
with
persons
whose
lives
will
be
impacted
by
the
decisions
those
public
bodies
are
making,
and
so
we
would.
We
are
very
concerned
with
changes
to
the
open
meeting
law
that
would
limit
the
public's
access
to
members
of
public
bodies.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
My
name
is
patrick
donnelly,
p,
a
t,
r
r,
I
c
k
d,
o
n
n
e
l,
l
y,
I'm
nevada
state
director
with
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
There
are
a
number
of
provisions
being
evaluated
in
this
bill
and
it's
true
that
the
open
meeting
law,
maybe
need
to
knee
may
need
to
be
updated
to
accommodate
a
reality
of
virtual
participation.
B
But
there's
I'm
we're
really
only
speaking
in
opposition
about
one
provision
in
particular,
because
it
truly
strikes
at
the
heart
of
the
open
meetings
law
and
do
do
appreciate
the
line
of
questioning
from
assemblyman
matthews
earlier
section,
one
of
ab253
redefines
the
term
public
body
to
exclude
many,
if
not
most
subcommittees
or
working
groups,
even
if
they
are
making
substantive
policy
recommendations
to
a
public
body.
B
Anyone
who
has
participated
in
the
functioning
of
a
significant
public
body
in
nevada
knows
that
much
of
the
real
work
occurs
in
the
subcommittees.
Who
then
make
recommendations
to
full
public
bodies
who
often
just
tend
to
you,
know
in
a
de
facto
way
rubber
stamp
the
work
of
the
subcommittees,
and
I'm
not
saying
that
pejoratively.
B
B
A
D
D
We
have
been
working
with
some
of
the
folks
who
called
in
for
with
opposition,
and
we
continue
to
want
to
work
with
them
to
come
up
with
something
that
is
a
good
balance
that
they
will
support
as
well,
including
reaching
out
to
a
couple
of
folks
that
I
haven't
spoken
with
before.
So
thank
you
for
everyone
for
participating
in
calling
in.
I
don't
have
any
other
last
moment
last
minute
comments,
unless
anyone
has
any
last-minute
questions.
Thank
you.
A
And
before
we
close
out
the
hearing,
thank
you
assemblywoman,
we'll
go
to
assemblyman
allison.
E
Well,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
The
only
thing
I
have
is
a
comment
and-
and
the
comment
is,
is
technology
is
expanding
and
and
it's
getting
better
by
the
day,
but
the
problem
we
have
is
that's.
Why
we've
been
trying
to
see
about
seeing
this
building
open?
E
Is
we
had
two
testimonies
today
that
were
speaking,
but
they
broke
up
so
bad
that
I
couldn't
hear
most
of
the
conversation
in
the
office
and
that's
what
concerns
me
about
these
seniors
in
other
areas
that
we
might
have
this
problem
down
the
road,
but
thank
you
for
letting
me
put
that
on
there
about
how
the
system
some
places
will
not
work
in
some
places.
They
will.
Thank
you.
A
And
thank
you
assemblyman,
but
I
appreciate
the
thoughtfulness
and
dialogue
this
morning.
I
think
we
all
agree
that
technology
at
times
can
be
our
worst
enemy
and
our
best
friend,
but
at
the
same
exact
time
we
saw
somebody
that
called
in
for
boston.
A
I
mean
how
could
they
have
participated,
but
for
technology
being
available
now
and
we
we
see
that
there's
a
whole
host
of
folk
that
can
participate
from
their
homes
that
participate
from
different
places
that
never
could
because
of
technology,
and
I
know
that
some
of
the
criticism
we've
heard
in
the
past
is
that
the
building
was
not
accessible,
because
only
people
that
lived
around
this
area
had
access
to
it
or
because
you
had
to
go
to
a
specific
building
and
that's
the
only
place
you
could
engage.
A
So
unfortunately,
it's
just
such
a
complex
dialogue
and
it's
a
double-edged
sword,
no
matter
what
way
we
go.
So
I
appreciate
assemblywoman
constantine
working
on
trying
to
to
find
the
comfortable
medium,
so
that
access
is,
is
the
focus,
so
thank
you,
assemblywoman
and
I'm
sure
the
members
will
continue
to
reach
out
and
work
with
you
on
finding
that
perfect
language.
A
So
that
we
can
make
it
a
little
bit
better
and
if
we
got
to
come
back
every
two
years,
we
will,
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
253
and
I'd
like
to
invite
those
wishing
to
participate
in
public
comment
to
please
do
so.
As
always.
I
want
to
remind
those
of
you
who
intend
to
call
for
public
comment
that
this
is
not
a
time
to
engage
and
reopen
a
previous
debate
on
a
previous
hearing.
A
This
is
a
time
for
you
to
participate
and
provide
any
comment
that
you'd
like
to
this
committee.
That
falls
within
the
purview
of
this
committee
and
it's
just
a
general
matter.
It's
a
time
for
you
to
be
heard,
but
please
don't
re-engage
in
a
previously
discussed
matter
in
this
committee,
as
those
hearings
have
been
closed
at
this
time,
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
for
public
comment,
broadcast.
B
F
G
Remember
if
I
already
spoke
about
him
to
your
committee,
I
call
a
couple:
lisa
was
52
years
old
and
suffering
from
terminal
stage.
4
breast
cancer,
her
16
year
old
daughter,
was
also
present
when
sparks
police
shot.
Johnny
bonta
on
10
22
2017
at
4
am
in
the
morning
I've
become
close
with
his
wife
who
sadly
passed
away
and
his
daughters,
the
daughter
and
lisa,
were
placed
into
an
ambulance
with
johnny's
body
laying
feet
away.
G
G
The
entire
time
at
the
station,
her
oldest
daughter
jill,
was
trying
to
get
reno
police
to
give
her
lisa's
medications,
and
they
refused
that's
just
the
way
they
treat
people
when
your
loved
one
is
killed.
They
get
you
while
you're
in
shock
and
grief,
because
they
did
that
to
my
family.
They
didn't
bother
to
call
us
to
tell
us.
My
brother
was
brain
dead
up
at
the
hospital,
but
they
short
showed
up
to
try
to
interrogate
us.
G
Please
please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability,
not
only
from
law
enforcement,
but
from
elected
officials
support
bills
like
ab276,
should
it
come
before
this
committee?
Thank
you.
A
And
thank
you
again
for
joining
us.
We'll
continue
on
with
the
next
member
of
the
public
wishing
you
participate
during
public
comment.
A
Understood,
thank
you,
members.
I
know
that
we
previously
posted
an
agenda
for
for
next
monday
to
to
start
at
10
a.m,
but
at
the
request
of
the
presenter
and
to
ensure
that
we
allow
access
to
some
co-presenters
that
are
essential
to
the
the
bill
hearing
we're
going
to
be
starting
at
9am
on
monday,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
told
you
as
early
as
I
could,
as
you
may
have,
to
make
some
travel
arrangements
and
or
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
I'll
repeat
it
again
tomorrow.
A
But
again
I
don't
want
anybody
to
be
caught
off
guard
by
that.
We
just
realized
that
it
was
really
important,
so
we'll
be
starting
at
9am
on
monday,
and
I
want
to
remind
you
that
tomorrow,
we'll
be
having
a
bill
presentation
on
assembly
bill
258,
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
review
that
and
reach
out
with
any
questions.
Should
you
have
any
other
than
that
members
again.
I
appreciate
the
thoughtful
dialogue
today
and
I
appreciate
all
the
questions
and
and
thank
you
to
the
sponsor
and
co-presenter
with
that.
This
meeting
to.