►
From YouTube: 3/23/2021 - 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
C
D
A
President,
please
let
the
record
of
the
woman
durant
is
present.
I
think
she
was
having
some
issues.
All
members
are
present
and
we
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Members,
as
always,
welcome
to
your
committee
on
government
affairs
for
those
of
you
following
us
virtually
good
morning
and
welcome
to
you
I'd
like
to
remind
you
that,
because
of
the
unique
setup
we
all
have
often
you'll
see
us
looking
in
various
directions.
A
Don't
take
that
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
that
we're
not
following
we're
just
looking
at
different
monitors
this
morning
we
have
on
the
agenda
somebody
built
28
and
assembly
bill,
276
we'll
be
taking
them
in
that
order
and
for
the
sake
of
efficiency
and
fairness.
The
way
we'll
proceed
is
allowing
position,
support
and
neutral
position
to
each
be
allotted
a
maximum
of
30
minutes.
A
So
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
those
of
you
wishing
to
testify
and
support
opposition
that
you
be
cognizant
of
that
and
and
that
you
either
say
ditto
and
or
hit
points
that
the
previous
speaker
has
not
hit
and
that
you
may
use
up
all
the
time
that
other
folk
could
have
touched
on
on.
Very
important
points
that
maybe
others
missed
so,
but
that's
up
to
you
the
support
opposition,
how
you
want
to
set
that
up,
but
I
just
wanted
to
preemptively,
give
you
a
heads
up
on
that
members.
A
E
E
As
explained
in
the
memo
I
submitted.
An
inverse
preference
is
a
way
of
essentially
penalizing
out-of-state
vendors
if
they
receive
home
state
preferences.
So
if
a
california-based
business
receives
a
five
percent
preference
in
whenever
they
go
to
get
a
contract
in
california,
they're
penalized
five
percent
in
nevada.
E
It
was
removed
in
2009
when
the
legislature
enacted
the
preference
for
a
business
owned
by
a
a
veteran
with
a
disability.
It's
not
clear
from
the
legislative
history
why
that
was
done.
I
think
there
may
have
been
some
confusion
as
to
how
an
inverse
preference
works
with
a
positive
preference,
like
you
know,
giving
points
to
a
a
business
based
here
in
nevada,
and
it
was
done
kind
of
late
in
the
session
when
things
do
get
kind
of
chaotic.
So
that
may
have
been
one
of
the
one
of
the
reasons
behind
it.
E
There's
we
don't
see
any
problem,
state
purchasing,
mathematically
or
otherwise,
applying
both
the
inverse
preference
and
our
other
preferences,
including
the
nevada
preference,
which
was
enacted
by
the
2017
legislature.
E
I
I
think
that
the
memo
I
submitted,
which
explains
that
you
have
an
out-of-state
vendor
if
they
get
a
preference
in
their
home
state
they're
penalized
by
that
same
amount,
the
nevada
base
vendor
would
be
boosted
by
our
five
percent
preference,
a
vendor
in
a
state
that
doesn't
receive
a
preference,
wouldn't
have
their
score
changed
or
the
amount
they've
been
changed
and
we
would
award
based
upon
the
final
result,
after
applying
the
preference
and
any
effect
of
the
reciprocal
preference
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
And
thank
you
for
for
that.
Quick
walk
through,
and
I
know
a
lot
of
members
did
have
an
opportunity
previously
to
review
those
documents
that
you've
sent
ahead
of
time.
With
that
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions
and
we'll
start
off
with
assemblyman
ellison.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
appreciate
that
I
remember
in
2015
we
worked
on
the
5
veterans
preferential,
so
I
kind
of
shocked
when
I
read
this
bill
somehow
another
that
got
taken
out
since
2015
and
that
kind
of
shocked
me
to
see,
because
I
always
thought
it
was
still
in
there
and
you're
saying
it
was
removed
in
2010.
E
E
I
think
there
was
just
some
confusion
as
to
how
they
would
the
interplay
would
be
there
about
giving
a
five
percent
boost
to
a
nevada-based
business
owned
by
a
disabled
veteran
while
simultaneously
penalizing
out-of-state
vendors,
five
5,
10
or
whatever
conceptually
logically.
We
can
do
that.
So
I'm
not
clear
as
to
why
the
nevada
legislature
removed
the
reciprocal
preference
in
2009
and.
A
Mr
mr
dodie,
sorry
to
interrupt
and
assembly
medicine,
but
just
for
the
sake
of
clarity,
I
went
back
to
the
2009
hearing.
It
was
assembly
bill
223
and
I
believe
at
the
time
it
was
church
kirkpatrick
who
engaged
in
this
conversation
and
just
based
on
the
minutes.
A
My
my
understanding
from
from
that
2009
hearing
is
that
they,
because
we
had
the
five
percent
preference
for
nevada
vendors,
the
la
the
reasoning
or
the
logic
was
that
we
no
longer
needed
to
then
engage
in
this
specific
conversation,
and
I
think
you're
right,
mr
doty,
that
the
logic
was
because
we're
now
giving
a
five
percent
preference
to
to
nevada-based
vendors.
We
no
longer
have
to
apply
this
option,
but
I'm
assuming
there's
other
states
that
do
this
now.
Mr
doty.
E
Kevin
doty
for
the
record.
You
are
correct,
mr
chairman,
there
are
approximately
35
states
that
have
this
inverse
or
reciprocal
preference.
It's
called
either
depending
on
the
state
and
it
it's
a
generally
accepted
way
in
state
procurement
of
trying
to
benefit
home
state
vendors
without
violating
any
any
laws.
F
A
See
I'm
being
known
to
you,
mr
doty,
assemblyman
ellison
is
the
inverse
preference
champion
here.
G
G
My
question
is
then,
with
this
type
of
inverse
provision,
which
I
completely
understand,
are
there
other
types
of
contracting
opportunities
that
would
also
give
preferential
treatment
to
other
types
of
industries
or
organizations
that
are
not
mentioned
in
this
field,
and
and
to
go
back
to
that,
it
would
be
relative
to
my
experience
with
the
nevada's
preferred
purchase
program
right,
which
helps
people
in
certain
industries
have
access
to
contracting
opportunities.
Are
there
others.
E
Kevin
doody
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
brown
may
and
yes,
I
love
our
preferred
purchase
program
when
we
did
our
presentation
at
the
start
of
the
session.
I
mentioned
that
we
spend
about
2.3
million
dollars
a
year
with
opportunity
village
through
that
program,
getting
great
work.
You
know
on
janitorial
and
other
things,
and
it's
it's
some
of
the
the
smartest
money
the
state
of
nevada
spends
and-
and
so
I'm
really
proud
of
that
as
far
as
opportunities
for
other
businesses
in
in
nevada.
E
What
what
the
effect
of
this
law,
the
inverse
preference
law
would
be
to
statistically
increase
the
likelihood
that
we
award
contracts
to
nevada-based
vendors
by
penalizing
out-of-state
vendors
in
certain
situations.
There
wouldn't
be
any.
You
know
special
provision
in
this
law
to
help
certain
nevada
vendors
and
not
others.
It
would
just
be
a
a
a
general
boost
to
the
chances
of
nevada
vendors
by
by
penalizing
out
of
state
vendors.
A
And
thank
you
assemblywoman
members.
Just
for
the
sake
of
clarity.
It
appears
that
maybe
not
everybody
received
that
email
from
mr
dodie
and
or
from
somebody
from
his
office.
So
what
we'll
do
now?
As
the
hearing
proceeds
we'll
get
that
email
to
be
distributed
to
all
the
members?
A
For
the
sake
of
clarity,
I'm
not
sure
who
got
it,
who
didn't
so,
we'll
just
send
it
all
out
again
and
I'll
give
you
a
heads
up
as
soon
as
you
get
it
in
your
inbox
here
in
the
next
couple
of
minutes.
We'll
continue
with
questions.
B
E
Governments
kevin
doty
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair
torres.
This
preference
is
in
chapter
333,
nevada,
revised
statutes
which
govern
state
procurement
in
order
to
apply
to
local
government
purchasing,
it
would
have
to
be
in
chapter
332.
E
I
don't
think
the
previous
inverse
preference
was
part
of
332.
It
was
only
in
333,
that's
obviously
a
a
policy
decision
for
the
nevada
legislature
as
to
how
they
want
this
to
apply.
E
I
can
only
guess
that
one
of
the
reasons
why
this
isn't
has
never
been
applied
at
the
the
local
level
is
that
it
does
impose
a
certain
administrative
burden
in
its
application
that
the
state
has
more
research
resources
to
apply,
and
perhaps
at
the
local
level
it
would
be
too
burdensome
for
them
to
apply,
but
that's
just
speculation
on
my
part.
B
They
get
followed
by
by
may
chair
just
follow.
A
B
Comment,
I
I
I
appreciate
that
that
response
and
I
think
it's
definitely
worth
looking
into
to
continue
to
promote
nevada
business,
and
I
I
I
understand
that
it
might
have
an
administrative
burden,
but
you
know
if
we
can
keep
money
here
in
nevada.
That's
definitely
that's.
Definitely
a
win
for
us
here.
A
Thank
you
madame
chair.
Next,
we
have.
A
A
Questions
seeing
none
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
go
on
to
those
wishing
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly
bill
28,
and
I
have
a
timer
next
to
me
that
I'll
start
for
the
sake
of
fairness
for
this
hearing
and
I'll
do
the
same
for
the
following.
So
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
those
wish
you
to
find
support
of
assembly
bill
28.
We
can
go
to
the
phone
lines
broadcast.
Please.
C
A
Thank
you.
I
thought
everybody
would
be
lining
up
to
have
and
engage
in
this
conversation
about
inverse
preference,
but
maybe
not
they're
all
waiting
for
the
next
hearing.
We
can
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
28.
E
Kevin
doty
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
present
this
bill
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
members
may
have
to
follow
up
when
if
they
look
at
the
memo
I
submitted
or
have
any
other
questions
to
come
up.
Thank
you.
A
Mr
doty,
just
out
of
curiosity
pre-2009,
do
you
recall,
or
are
you
aware,
anecdotally,
of
any
issues
that
may
have
been
raised?
Regarding
this
conversation,
I
understand
and
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
go
through
the
minutes
for
the
2009
education,
but
I
just
wanted
to
know.
If
anecdotally,
you
knew
of
any
situation
or
scenario
that
arose
where
local
nevada
companies
were
being
unfairly
treated
in
in
surrounding
states
because
of
the
current
nevada
law.
A
A
E
Kevin
doty
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
that
that
question,
when
nevada
enacted
its
five
percent
preference
for
nevada-based
companies
in
2017,
that
meant
that
we
started
giving
an
extra
five
percent
when
we
scored
an
rfp
or
reduced
the
the
scoring
on
a
bid
by
five
percent,
and
at
that
point
every
state
in
the
nation
that
has
this
same
bill.
This
inverse
preference
would
then
penalize
nevada-based
businesses
by
five
percent.
They
do
that,
based
upon
the
legislation
that
was
enacted
in
2017.
E
enacting
our
own
inverse
preference
law
would
not
change
how
nevada
vendors
are
treated
in
other
states.
It
would
basically
be
we
would
be
treating
out-of-state
vendors
the
same
way
that
those
states
treat
our
vendors
as
an
out-of-state
vendor,
which
is
to
penalize
them
according
to
whatever
preference
they
receive.
In-State.
A
And
thank
you
for
clarifying
that,
mr
doty.
I
know
that
just
for
the
sake
of
the
the
record
being
abundantly
clear
now,
you
know
10
years
from
now,
when
somebody's
going
back
through
our
minutes
that
they
understand
why
we're
doing
this
all
right.
Thank
you.
So,
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
28,
mr
doty,
can
I
ask
one
question.
F
Sir
simon
ellison,
please
thank
you
and-
and
I
remember
this
and
and
one
of
the
questions
was
and-
and
I
think
it
was
15
that
passed
17,
but
one
of
the
problems
that
they
kept
saying
is
the
brick
and
mortar
businesses
and
our
state
versus
them
not
having
to
supply
that
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
and
they
kept
bringing
up.
You
know
look
we
have
to.
F
A
You
thank
you
assemblyman
and
mr
dodie.
I'm
sure
that
members
may
be
interested
in
engaging
in
the
nrs
332
conversation
as
to
whether
or
not
we
would
like
to
see
this
applying
in
that
particular
section
of
the
nrs
as
well,
but
that's
it
for
a
conversation
to
continue
members
make
sure
that
you
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
continue
open
dialogue
with
mr
doty
with
that.
With
that
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
28.
A
I
This
bill
is
important
and
I
would
argue
necessary
in
order
to
uphold
and
advance
the
cause
of
open
and
accountable
government
here
in
the
state
of
nevada
government.
Transparency
has
long
been
a
real
passion
of
mine,
and
while
it
is
a
cause
that
deserves
strong
support
under
any
circumstances,
that
is
especially
the
case
during
times
of
severe
and
even
historic
challenges
such
as
the
situation
in
which
we
find
ourselves
today.
I
Assembly
bill
276
would
indeed
serve
and
advance
that
cause
and
I'd
like
to
talk
now
briefly
about
how
it
would
do
so,
and
I've
actually
got
two
co-presenters
here
with
me
as
well.
Who
will
each
offer
some
remarks
of
their
own
but,
in
short,
ab276,
would
incentivize
and
foster
greater
government
transparency
by
strengthening
the
penalties
assessed
against
those
that
unreasonably
delay
or
deny
public
records
or
charge
excessive
fees
to
the
requested
documents.
I
This
bill
would
help
address
the
ongoing
problem
of
non-compliance
with
public
records
requests
on
the
part
of
government
entities
here
in
our
state,
which
of
course
undermines
the
cause
of
government
transparency
and
unfairly
denies
nevadans
information
to
which
they
are
legally
entitled.
Regarding
the
operations
of
their
government.
I
I
want
to
stress
something
here:
the
underlying
goal
here
is
not
to
see
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
money
paid
out
in
the
form
of
penalties.
Goal
is
to
avoid
penalties
and
even
lawsuits.
To
begin
with,
by
ensuring
stricter
compliance
with
public
records
requests
assembly
bill
276
is
needed
in
order
to
ensure
such
compliance.
I
J
J
Many
of
you
are
aware
of
our
organization's
work,
you're,
no
stranger
to
the
aclu,
but
I
do
want
to
talk
a
little
about
our
mission
because
I
think
it's
relevant
to
this
conversation
we're
having
today.
We
are
a
non-partisan
organization
that
works
to
defend
and
advance
the
civil
liberties
and
civil
rights
of
all
nevadans.
We're
grounded
in
the
principles
of
liberty,
justice,
democracy
and
equality,
and
we
expose
government
overreach
through
public
education,
advocacy
and
litigation.
J
We
applaud
assemblyman
matthews
for
pushing
forward
in
the
quest
to
put
real
teeth
in
the
public
records
law
to
make
it
as
impactful
and
effective
as
possible
through
public
records
requests.
The
aclu
of
nevada
is
able
to
gather
needed
data
to
address
civil
liberties
violation
and
expose
rights
violations
by
a
number
of
government
agencies,
including
school
districts,
the
nevada
department
of
corrections,
law
enforcement
agencies
and
more.
J
We
have
a
strong
public
records
law,
but
without
an
enhanced
penalty
without
an
enhanced
incentive.
Government
agencies
continue
to
postpone
responding
to
requests
or
they
fail
to
respond
to
requests
at
all.
I
have
a
few
examples
for
you
back
in
2013
we
did
a
public
records
request
to
all
17
school
districts,
because
we
had
information
that
the
sex,
ed
curriculum,
was
discriminatory
on
a
number
of
fronts.
J
We,
although
most
school
districts,
did
comply.
There
were
two
that
took
18
months
and
two
that
just
never
responded
and
we
haven't
received
those
responses
to
this
day.
Despite
you
know,
sending
new
requests
and
trying
to
gather
that
information
in
both
2018
and
again
in
2020
after
we
made
changes
to
the
nevada
public
records
act,
we
submitted
requests
to
the
department
of
corrections
to
gather
information
on
solitary
confinement,
which
is
a
program
and
campaign
that
we
have
been
actively
engaged
in
to
in
that
practice.
In
the
department
of
corrections.
J
Those
requests
remain
unfulfilled,
despite
efforts
to
work
with
the
department
of
corrections
to
fulfill
them.
We
also
recently
filed
requests
with
every
law
enforcement
agency
in
the
state
on
no
knock
warrants
to
see
whether
or
whether
or
not
those
had
been
issued
and
how
many
we
had
a
good
response
from
some
of
the
larger
agencies,
but
there
were
others
that
were
unable
to
to
provide
a
meaningful
response
to
those
requests,
those
requests.
J
We
were
not
in
a
position
to
file
a
lawsuit
under
the
nevada
public
records
act.
These
are
expensive
lawsuits.
We,
you
know,
despite
your
popular
belief,
we
are
not
resource
rich
at
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
have
you
know.
Currently
we
only
have
three
attorneys
on
staff.
I
am
one
of
them
and
I
handle
the
policy
work,
so
it
takes
a
lot
of.
We
have
to
consider
a
lot
before
we
decide
to
file
a
lawsuit.
J
Also,
we
have
to
consider
you
know,
even
though
we
know
that
we
would
have
a
strong
likelihood
of
success
on
most
of
these
requests.
We
have
to
consider
you
know
how
quickly
we
can
get
a
resolution
through
the
courts.
One
case
where
we
were
successful
was
in
the
scott
dozier
case.
Scott
dozier
was
an
inmate
on
death
row
who
had
volunteered
for
execution.
J
J
You
know
fighting
to
compel
that
protocol
without
our
lawsuit,
an
execution
would
have
occurred
in
the
state
of
nevada
after
almost
a
decade
and
a
half.
This
is
hugely
in
the
public's
interest
to
understand
how
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
intended
to
proceed
with
their
execution
protocol
and
what
we
discovered
through.
That
request
is
that
the
department
intended
to
use
pharmaceutical
medications
for
an
unintended
purpose
which
led
to
more
executions
and
ultimately
stopped
the
execution
of
scott
dozier
in
nevada.
J
These
are
issues
that
are
important
to
you
as
lawmakers
to
us
as
a
civil
rights
organization
and
to
the
public
at
large
our
compensation
for
that
lawsuit,
the
attorney's
fees
and
the
time
that
we
had
put
into
that
was
twelve
thousand
dollars.
That's
it's
not
we're
not
receiving
these
large
awards.
Nor
are
we
seeking
these.
You
know
incredibly
large
awards
what
we're
seeking
and
what
we
want
through
both
this
bill
through
the
strength
of
the
nevada
public
records
act,
is
strengthen
the
law
to
compel
the
record.
J
We
really
want
to
avoid
going
to
court
in
the
first
place,
but
we're
not
going
to
because
right
now
the
incentive
for
not
complying.
Is
these
very
you
know
small
awards
that
don't
compensate
organizations
like
ours
that
facilitate
an
incredibly
important
public
function
to
the
people
that
you
all
serve
as
well
there.
The
incentive
just
does
not
exist
in
the
law,
so
the
the
more
incentive
that
we
can
provide
in
the
law
for
people
to
respond
and
for
government
entities
to
respond
to
public
records,
requests
the
stronger
that
law
will
be,
and
it
will.
J
I
K
Thank
you
andy
good
morning.
My
name
is
robert
felner,
with
the
nevada
policy
research
institute.
We
advocate
for
free
market
solutions
and
have
been
strong
advocate
for
government
transparency.
K
I
was
making
public
records
requests
to
every
agency
in
the
state
for
over
10
years,
so
I've
personally
made
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
requests-
and
I
can
tell
you
especially
because
we've
seen
kind
of
the
development
of
government
agencies
most
do
a
really
good
job.
I
don't
think
that's
our
problem
here
and
they've
gotten
better
over
the
year,
and
so
we
appreciate
that.
K
But
the
problem
is
as
holly
was
talking
about
and
what
we've
seen
in
the
crisis
over
the
past
few
years,
that
that
when
it
matters
the
most
in
things
like
the
october,
one
shooting
in
the
current
covid
crisis
in
the
child
abuse
case
in
clark
county
where
they
needed
the
autopsies
in
those
really
hyper-sensitive
events.
Unfortunately,
government
has
really
underperformed
and
there's
a
simple
reason
and
it's
what
holly
alluded
to,
and
you
have
a
very
broken
power
imbalance
there.
K
In
terms
of
enforcing
the
law,
there
is
no
mechanism
to
enforce
the
law
other
than
requiring
the
citizen
at
their
own
cost
and
expense
to
initiate
litigation.
Now,
while
you
can
recoup
fees,
if
you
prevail,
that's
not
guaranteed
so
holly
was
saying
we
have
the
same
issue
in
the
review.
Journal
has
the
same
issue
and
we're
fairly
large
organizations.
We
certainly
have
more
resources
than
the
average
citizen.
Many
cases
we
can't
afford
to
file
a
lawsuit
because
of
that
gamble,
and
I
want
to
highlight
one
specific
case
that
I
think
really
drives
this
home.
K
So
the
las
vegas
review
journal
had
to
sue
for
autopsies
of
children
that
were
in
the
care
of
cps
related
to
seeing
if
they
were
being
abused-
and
you
know
how
cbs
handled
that,
so
the
review
journal
won.
The
judge
slammed
the
coroner
saying
it's
so
clear
that
you've
been
stone
walling,
you
know
you're
you're,
just
defying
at
every
turn.
They
did
endless
appeals.
Finally,
they
went
in
four
years.
K
The
review
journal
was
penalized,
forty
three
thousand
dollars
they
incurred
two
hundred
and
ten
thousand
dollars
in
legal
fees
over
the
course
of
that
four
years.
Where
not
only
did
the
court
and
the
supreme
court
on
appeal
find
that
the
coroner
broke
the
law,
but
the
district
court
found
that
they
willfully
did
it
and
we're
in
bad
faith.
K
But
when
the
review
journal
submitted
the
request
for
fees
just
to
be
made
whole
no
one's
profiting
here,
the
court
knocked
that
down
from
the
210
they
actually
incurred
to,
so
it
actually
cost
them
47
000
to
enforce
the
public
records
act.
Is
it
any
wonder
that
governments
aware
of
this
fact
can
delay
records
deny
knowing
that
the
average
citizen
is
never
going
to
take
that
gamble?
K
Saying
you
know,
I
think
I
really
am
entitled
to
this
record,
I'm
going
to
risk
tens
and
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
of
my
own
money
just
to
try
and
get
that
back.
So
that's
that's
the
broken
incentive
structure
here
that
this
bill
would
fix
by
increasing
the
fee
award
you
make.
You
have
two
fixes
occurring
there,
one
like
andy,
the
assemblyman
matthews
was
saying
the
goal
is
just
for
governments
now
to
realize
that
they
can't.
K
They
want
to
know,
what's
going
on
and
they're
being
turned
away
and
they
eventually
just
give
up
but
see
you
know
empowering
those
citizens
to
be
able
to
get
a
lawyer.
Who
likely
would
do
this
on
a
contingency
basis
if
this
penalty
structure
was
in
place?
So
that's
the
problem,
that's
what
this
fix
fix
is,
and
it
really
is
clear
that
until
this
is
fixed,
it's
not
going
to
get
better.
K
You
know
the
review
journal
just
had
an
article
about
the
stonewalling
that
was
happening
to
them
for
data
related
to
covet,
and
that's
really
telling,
because
governor
sisselak
who's
now
in
charge
is
a
champion
of
transparency.
I
mean
when
he
got
elected.
That
was
one
of
the
things
I
thought.
Well,
you
know
we'll
probably
get
good
public
records
law
improvements
he's
always
been
good
on
that
and
he's
still
good
on
that.
K
I
mean
he's
put
in
the
time
he's
clearly
in
favor
of
transparency,
but
the
fact
that
one
of
the
records,
for
example,
they
asked
for
a
copy
of
the
governor's
work
calendar
from
last
march.
K
So
this
fix
is
really
necessary
to
make
the
law
applicable
to
the
average
citizen
who
right
now
again
not
all
the
time
but
in
rare
circumstances,
when
they
get
denied
or
a
lawyer
letter
from
the
government
saying
you're
not
entitled
to
this,
they
just
give
up
and
they
eventually
go
away.
And
that's
you
know,
we
don't
want
that.
You
know
the
citizens
who
were
interested
and
engaged
with
their
government.
K
You
know
we
I
mean
we
want
to
encourage
that,
and-
and
so
I
think
this
would
really
fix
it,
and
I
can
tell
you,
especially
in
the
rurals
we've
had.
I
did
a
request
to
a
public
hospital
just
district
in
the
world.
They
said
we're
not
a
government
entity
we're
just
we're
not
even
complying
with
the
public
records
law.
So
you
know
there
are.
K
There
are
real
issues
that
still
need
to
be
addressed,
that
structural
power
imbalance
is
the
root
of
the
problem.
It's
what
this
bill
fixes
and
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
if
you
don't
fix
that
you're
really
gonna
never
address
this
problem,
so
we
strongly
support
it
and
I
am
definitely
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
guys
have.
I
Thank
you,
mr
felner.
Mr
chairman,
I
will
have
some
closing
remarks
if
I
may,
but
for
now.
That
concludes
our
presentation
and
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
time.
A
Sounds
good
and
thank
you
thank
all
three
of
you
for
your
presentation
this
morning.
We
do
have
quite
a
bit
of
questions.
So
we'll
start
off
with
the
assemblywoman
anderson.
B
Good
morning
and
thank
you
assemblymember
matthews,
for
bringing
this
forward,
and
I
I
really
appreciated
the
discussions
and
the
comments
that
were
made
made
by
both
ms
welborn
as
well
as
mr
felner.
I've
got
two
questions.
One
is
about
the
new
language,
but
then
one
is
also
about
the
records
themselves,
so
I
think
I'll
start
off
with
the
records
themselves.
B
Would
this
also
include
video
and
or
police
footage
from
the
body
cams
when
it,
because
that
is
not
clearly
defined
under
public
book
or
record?
So
it
was
just
wanting
to
get
that
clarification.
I
realize
it
is
not
the
the
language
that
is
being
brought
forward,
but
it
is
part
of
that
nrs
statute.
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
southern
for
the
record
yeah.
As
you
said,
you
know
this.
This
bill
does
not
make
any
or
not
propose
any
changes
substantively
to
what
constitutes
a
public
record.
So
I
I
would
defer
to
mr
feldenram
as
well
born,
perhaps
for
more
information
there,
but
anything
that
currently
under
the
law
is
considered.
A
public
record
would
remain
as
such.
B
I
don't
know
if
either
that
and
then
my
other
question
has
to
or
actually
actually
could
we
ask
legal
or
holly
or
I'm
sorry,
miss
wilborne
or
mr
felner,
if
they
believe
it
should
also
include
the
body
cam
and
the
videos.
J
Thank
you,
chair,
flores,
hollywell-born
aclu
for
the
record.
Yes,
this,
the
the
body
cam
footage
and
negotiations
on
body
cam
footage
would
sorry
I'm
having
technical
issues.
Mr
chairman,
can
you
hear
me.
J
B
Thank
you
for
that
clarification
and
then
my
other
question
actually
is
about
the
language
that's
being
brought
forward
and
that's
the
amount
is
it
just
automatically
double
or
would
it
be
because
I
reading
it,
I
feel
like
there's
a
possibility
of
allowing
it
to
be
up
to
double,
but
the
language
currently.
Is
that
automatically
it
would
be
double
the
cost?
Am
I
understanding
that
correctly
or
is
there
any
sort
of
wiggle
room
where
a
judge
could
make
a
decision,
otherwise.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Andy
matthews
district,
37
assemblyman
for
the
record
and
you're
right.
The
language
is
that
it
would
automatically
it
would.
It
would
be
the
existing
attorney's
fees,
plus
an
additional
penalty
worth
double
those
reasonable
attorney's
needs.
A
And
thank
you
assemblywoman.
Next,
we
have
assemblywoman
concerned.
H
H
My
worry
is
about
like
balancing
the
taxpayer
money,
because
if
these
are
travel
damages
and
just
looking
at
the
example
that
mr
feldman
said-
410
000,
if
that
was
then
the
410
000
and
then
820
000.
On
top
of
that,
that's
taxpayer
money.
So
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
bill
from
2019.
H
I
think
there
was
a
nevada
public
records
bill
back
in
2019
and
my
my
question
concerning
that
is
that
in
the
2019
bill
they
set
up
a
structure
that
if
the
government
entity
willfully
failed
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
chapter,
the
court
must
impose
on
the
government.
Entity
is
civil
penalty
and
there's
three
levels
of
penalties.
H
They
range
from
one
thousand
five
thousand
and
ten
thousand
and
then
that
that
money
that
taxpayer
money
would
go
to
is
supposed
to
go
to
the
division
of
state
library,
archives
and
public
records
of
the
department
of
administration
to
improve
access
to
public
records.
So
my
question
is
trying
to
balance
the
need
for
the
enhanced
penalties
in
order
to
get
access
to
those
records
with
the
responsibility
of
use
for
taxpayer
money.
H
Was
there
any
reason
why
it
wasn't,
or
was
it
discussed
in
this
one
that
those
penalties
then
go
into
like
the
archives,
or
you
know,
make
those
2019
enhancements
bigger
to
have
that
sort
of
leverage
over
it,
but
that
taxpayer
money
is
shifted
from
you
know
from
one
area
of
taxpayers
to
another
thing
that
benefits
public
records,
but
is
still,
you
know,
used
for
the
government
as
opposed
to
go
to
a
private
entity.
That's
kind
of
my
my
tension
here
with
this
bill.
Thank
you.
I
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
constandine
for
the
question:
andy
matthews
district,
37
sullivan
for
the
record,
so
a
couple
of
points
in
response
to
number
one.
As
I
I
noted
in
my
my
initial
remarks,
you
know
the
goal
here
really
is
not
to
see
any
money.
Transferring
from
you
know
any
one
entity
to
another.
The
goal
is
to
simply
ensure
compliance
with
the
law
regarding
public
records,
and
that
gets
to
the
second
point,
which
is
it
really
is
a
matter
of
incentives,
even
strengthening
penalties
along
the
lines.
I
For
you
know,
the
request
for
the
records
and
simply
strengthening
those
penalties
would
do
nothing
to
change
that
that
balance
of
power
that
both
mr
founder
and
ms
welborn
spoke
to,
and
so
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
recognize
that,
and
you
know,
send
the
message
to
government
entities
that
may
be
tempted
not
to
comply
with
these
requests.
To
know
that
the
incentive
now
for
the
requester
is
much
stronger
and
that
the
likelihood
of
a
legal
action
is
increased.
I
You
know
significantly
in
the
event
that
there's
non-compliance,
I'm
happy
to
allow
mr
feldner
and
his
wellborn
to
flesh
that
out
further
as
they
see
fit,
but
it
really
is
aimed
at
changing
the
incentive
structure
that
I
think
is
at
the
root
of
the
problem
of
of
public
records
law
in
the
state
today.
Thank
you.
K
Robert
fellner,
for
the
record,
if
I
may
just
to
to
respond
to
that,
so
that
that's
a
great
question
great
concern.
We
are
free
market.
You
know
we're
in
favor
of
lower
taxes,
so
that
really
hits
home
to
us,
because
the
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
to
have
government
spend
more
money
because
that
faults,
like
you,
said
the
burdens
on
the
taxpayer
so
to
andy's
point.
What
this
really
does
is,
I
think,
actually
saves
money
for
two
reasons.
K
K
I
would
strongly
suspect
knowing
that
this
you
know
real
penalty.
Is
there
when
the
government
attorneys
review
this.
They
say
you
know
yeah.
We
have
a
one
percent
shot
of
prevailing
over
four
year
appeal,
but
the
bill
will
be
so
high.
This
is
really
public.
Let's,
let's
just
disclose
the
record,
and
at
that
point
the
legal
fees
would
be.
You
know
two
thousand
dollars
or
something
very,
very
small,
just
for
that
initial
stage.
So
that's
really,
I
actually
think
you're
saving
money
because
you're
not
going
down
this
whole
road
of
lengthy
appeals
unnecessarily.
H
Thank
you
and
thank
you
both
the
assemblyman
matthews
and
mr
felner
for
that
for
that
reaction
or
that
response,
but
I
think
that
at
least
for
me
that
tension
is
you
know,
reading
through
this
bill
and
the
attached
letters
and
and
your
example,
before
over
a
quarter
of
a
million
dollars
of
taxpayer
money.
Although
the
the
public
records
and
all
of
that,
I
completely
believe
there
needs
to
be
transparency,
there
needs
to
be
some.
H
The
the
loss
of
over
three
quarters
of
a
million
dollars
of
taxpayer
money
in
your
example
just
makes
me
a
little
bit
worried
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
if
there
was
any
other
ways
to
to
do
this.
I
do
believe
that
attorneys
fees
and
all
of
those
costs
should
be
returned,
but
that
treble
idea
is,
I
think,
just
something
that
maybe
you
and
I
can
talk
offline
further
in,
but
thank
you
for
your
time
and
thank
you
for
your
responses.
M
Good
morning
cheer,
and
thank
you
very
much
thank
you,
assemblyman
matthews
for
the
presentation
as
a
freshman,
I
commend
you.
It
was
really
good
the
same
for
your
presenters.
I
appreciate
your
time
and
effort,
but
I
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
here.
M
One
big
concern
of
mine
is
attorneys
attorney
fees
when
we
don't
have
you
know
a
remedy
for,
as
mr
felner
said,
for
the
structural
problem
within
the
law
for
public
records
when
there
is
no
remedy
in
that
law
or
no
concise
time
period
that
they
have
to
give
you
public
records.
Is
there
anything
in
the
law
saying
that
they
can
take
seven
months
a
year
or
that
they
can.
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
assemblyman
for
the
record
thomas,
thank
you
for
the
question
and
and
to
get
straight
to
your
point
and
I'll,
let
others
expand
on
this,
but
under
public
records
law
there
are
time
constraints
during
which
a
response
is
required
and
part
of
what
where
these
lawsuits
arise
from
is
non-compliance
with
those
with
those
time
requirements
and
again
in
the
case
that
does
happen.
What
we
see
is
under
current
law.
I
We
still
see
abuse
and
non-compliance,
and
this
is
really
designed
to,
like,
I
said,
change
that
power
dynamic
and
really
provide
those
stronger
incentives
for
compliance
with
the
law.
M
Thank
you,
okay
and
referencing,
the
attorney
fees.
What
is
preventing
an
attorney
from
you
know?
Normally
he
would
charge
a
thousand
dollars
to
write
a
letter.
What's
preventing
the
attorney
from
you
know,
ten
times
that
amount,
knowing
that
this
bill
is,
you
know
an
effect.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Andy
matthews
district
37
assemblyman
for
the
record,
the
attorney's
fees
actually
are
already
awarded
or
in
place
to
be
awarded
under
under
current
law.
So
this
does
not
change
that.
Presumably,
what
you
are
describing
could
happen
under
you
know,
current
circumstances.
Point
of
this.
This
bill
does
not
change
the
attorney
fee
structure
at
all.
We
already
have
that
in
place.
That
leaves
that
in
place,
this
merely
adds
in
addition
to
that,
a
penalty
that
would
be
paid
to
the
bringer
of
the
lawsuit.
K
Thank
you,
assemblyman
matthews,
robert
fountain,
for
the
record
assembly
woman,
thomas
that
is
currently
prohibited
under
existing
law,
so
the
the
law
only
entitles
prevailing
requester
to
quote
reasonable
fees.
So
you
know
the
example
you
posited.
A
judge
will
just
strike
that
down
and
that's
you
know
I
mentioned
earlier
when
the
review
journal
won
and
even
in
a
case
where
the
judge
was
really
unhappy
with
the
government
and
the
reviewed
journal
submitted
their
invoices
that
ended
up
totaling,
210
000.,
the
judge
reduced
that
to
167.
K
You
ain't
getting
that
so
that
that
reasonable
fee
is
the
bedrock
for
everything
else,
and
that
is
entirely
up
to
the
judge's
discretion
and
even
in
cases
where
you
know
you
would
have
caught
the
requests
or
get
their
full
fees,
the
judges
have
still
not
dismissed
it.
M
And
one
more
follow-up,
mr
chair,
please.
M
So,
mr
filner,
when
you
mention
the
rj-
and
I
have
the
letter
here-
we
all
do
and
you
you
mentioned
something
about
profit-
that
the
rj
lost.
So
is
this
bill
to?
M
Will
it
create
a
profit,
for
you
know
news
agencies
and
or
private
citizens,
to
ask
for
public
record,
and
you
know
if
they
don't
get
what
they
want
in
the
time
that
they
feel
that
is
necessary.
M
Then
they
can
sue
and
possibly
win,
and
you
re
you're
saying
that
they
should.
It
should
be
doubled
so
that
they
can
gain
a
profit
at
the
taxpayers,
expense.
K
Robert
feldman
for
the
record
assemblywoman
thomas,
so
you
are
correct
that,
yes,
if
the
double
award
is
is
approved,
you
would
recoup
your
fees
and
then
perceive
to
damage
it.
But
that's
you
know
nobody
profits.
If
the
if
the
government
complies
with
the
law,
you
know
that's
the
the
whole
goal
here
is
not
to
have
anyone
profit.
The
goal
is
to
make
sure
nevadans
receive
transparent
and
open
government
that
their
promise
under
state
law
that
they're
not
receiving
right
now
because
of
broken
incentive
structure
which
is
so
weak.
K
So
that's
that's
the
scenario
and
again
it's
really
important
to
remember.
Even
if
this
bill
is
approved
exactly
as
written,
and
this
is
the
new
law
there's,
it's
still,
there's
still
a
risk
because,
let's
say
you
know,
I
make
a
request
and
it's
speaking
what
I
think
is
too
long.
I
file
a
lawsuit
at
my
own
expense
and
it
turns
out
in
court.
No,
they
were
you
know.
K
Whatever
the
length
of
time
would
say
it's
a
month
at
court,
it's
shown
well,
they
were
actually
spending
that
time
to
research
and
for
the
records
the
judge
says
sorry.
I
mean
that
that
was
a
legitimate
delay.
Well
now,
I'm
out
you
know
50
000
or
whatever
it
is
so
it's
yes.
It
is
conceivable
that
if
a
government
breaks
the
law
and
the
person
who
took
that
risk
to
sue
them
demonstrates
they
broke
the
law,
they
will
receive
their
their
costs
and
a
damage
award.
K
But
it's
again
the
goal
is
not
for
anyone
to
prop
the
goals
just
for
the
government
to
comply
with
the
law,
so
there's
no
fees
at
all,
but
the
downs
you
know,
if
you,
if
you
don't
you
err
on
the
side
of
kind
of
the
current
structure,
we
have
the
harms
that
are
being
realized
every
day,
which
is
ordinary.
Nevadas
are
just
shut
out
of
this
process.
I
I
think
this
is
okay,
andy
matthews,
district
37
solomon
for
the
record
just
to
time
in
here
to
drive
the
point
home,
as
mr
felner
said,
I
think
it's
worth
really
reinforcing
every
one
of
these
cases
that
would
arise
would
have
to
be
reviewed.
I
M
Thank
you
assemblyman.
I
really
appreciate
your
answer
and
mr
filner
thank
you,
chair
for
the
opportunity
to
ask
these
questions.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
was
actually
going
to
ask
a
little
different
question,
but
I'm
going
off
of
assembly
lauren
thomas's
question,
I'm
wondering
what
the
current
damages
structure
is.
Is
the
determination
up
to
the
judge?
Does
he
have
discretion
in
you
know
awarding,
whereas
this
would
because
of
doubling
and
paying
the
attorney's
fees?
Would
this
be
different
in
that
way?.
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
is
summoned
for
the
records.
Thank
you
so
many
woman
dickman
for
the
question
yeah
under
this
bill,
as
is
written,
those
fees
would
be
automatic
at
that
at
that
double
amount,
the
attorney's
fees,
so
that
would
be
a
set
at
that
amount.
I
don't
know
if,
as
well
born
of
mr
feller
wants
to
expand
on
that
at
all.
K
Robert
felner
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
dickman,
so
to
to
your
question,
the
base
determination
is
always
up
to
the
judge
as
to
what
what
those
reasonable
eps
are.
So
that's
up
to
the
judge's
discretion.
You
know
the
prevailing
request
will
submit
their
invoice.
The
judge
then,
has
the
discretion
to
modify
that
in
any
way
he
sees
fit
because
the
law
just
says
reasonable,
but
then
from
there
under
this
under
this
bill,
whatever
that
number
that
he
determines
is
reasonable
than
the
amount
that's
doubled
is
set.
It's
just
so.
M
He
still
has
discretion
yes,
so
the
other
kind
of
concern
is,
you
know
a
lot
of
times.
Public
employees
aren't
so
concerned
about
public
funds,
as
they
would
be
their
own
private
funds.
Is
there
any
other
type
of
penalty
you
could
come
up
with?
That
would
make
them
be
more
apt
to
comply.
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
assembling
for
the
record.
I
thank
you,
follow-up
question.
There
are,
you
know
a
variety
of
ways
to
to
come
at
this.
I
know
that
different
states
do
do
things
a
little
bit
differently
and
perhaps
we
can
get
into
that
a
little
bit
deeper
into
the
hearing,
but
the
determination
and
looking
at
this
bill
really
was
that
structuring
in
this
way
is
the
best
way
to
compel
compliance
and
that's
really
what
what
this
is
about.
You
know
what
is
and
I'll
say
it
again.
I
The
goal
here
is
not
to
you
know:
shift
resources
from
one
to
another
is
to
make
sure
that
that
there's
compliance
with
the
law-
and
I
think
it's
just
worth
reminding
everyone
that
this
is
a
law
passed
by
this
legislature.
I
You
know
we
put
this
law
on
the
books,
I
wasn't
serving
at
the
time,
but
you
know
this
is
something
that
our
state
lawmakers
decide
needed
to
be
part
of
law,
and
this
is
a
law
that
we
see
often
is
violated,
and
what
we
need
to
do
is
do
all
we
can
to
incentivize
compliance
and
that's
what
this
bill
would
do.
M
A
N
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
pretty
much
most
of
my
questions
were
answered,
but
I
do
one
that
just
came
up
that
I
was
thinking
about
so
is
there,
for
example,
is
it
going
to
be
up
to
the
judge
if
I
request
a
public
record
and
there's
an
ongoing
investigation,
and
I
keep
going
through,
do
am
I
entitled
to
that
or
do
I
have
to
wait
until
there's
an
investigation
finished,
or
is
this
just
up
to
a
judge.
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
assignment
for
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much
duran.
If
I,
if
I
understand
your
question
correctly
I'll,
take
a
stab
at
answering
it.
This
is
something
that
would
be
awarded
after
a
lawsuit
is
brought
and
in
the
event
that
the
judge
determines
that
the
government
entity
did
in
fact
violate
the
law
in
not
coming
forward
with
the
public
records.
The
judge
would
then
determine,
as
mr
felner
said,
what
the
reasonable
attorney's
fee
amount
would
be.
I
That
would
be
awarded,
and
then
the
additional
penalty
of
double
that
amount
would
go
to
the
one
who
brought
the
the
lawsuit.
But
this
would
all
kick
in
in
the
event
that
the
bringer
of
the
suit
prevails
in
the
lawsuit,
and
that,
of
course,
would
be
as
determined
by
the
court.
N
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
is
someone
for
the
record
if
you
would
be
able
to
bring
that
lawsuit.
If
there's
something
you
requested
to
which
you're
entitled
under
the
law
that
were
not
given,
and
presumably
you
could
bring
the
the
lawsuit
as
long
as
you
feel.
That
way,
you
know
if
you
believe
that
something
to
which
you're
entitled
was
not
supplied
or
if
the
fees
were
the
fees
to
get
those
documents
or
those
records
are
excessive.
I
If
that's
your
determination
that
the
law
has
been
violated,
you're
allowed
to
bring
that
that
lawsuit,
and
then
you
know
we
have
the
legal
process
by
which
the
court
would
determine
the
merits
of
your
case
and
whether
or
not
your
whether
or
not
the
the
government
entity
did
in
fact
violate
the
law,
in
which
case
this
these
provisions
of
this
bill
would
kick
in.
O
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
a
lot
of
talk
about
penalties,
which
I
think
is
a
fair
topic,
but,
to
put
it
into
context,
how
do
these
penalties
compare
to
other
states.
I
Andy
matthews
district
37
assembly
and
for
the
record,
thank
you
assemblywoman
back
for
the
question.
I
know
that
different
states
do
it
differently.
I
also
know
that
mr
felner,
by
nature
of
his
position,
is
quite
familiar
with,
what's
done
on
other
places
across
the
country,
so
I'm
going
to
let
him
speak
to
that.
K
Thank
you,
robert
filner,
for
the
record
to
assemblywoman
black,
so
there's
about
23
states
that
I've
identified
that
have
some
version
of
this
and,
to
be
honest,
most
of
those
I
would
consider
to
be
a
bit
harsher
because
they
include
things
like
allowing
the
court,
in
certain
circumstances,
to
hold
the
individual
government
employee
liable
for
the
fees
or
finding
that
individual
government
employee
who
withheld
records.
You
know
up
to
five
thousand
dollars.
K
There
are
also
states
that
have
penalties
of
100
up
of
your
attorney's
fees,
plus
a
hundred
dollars
per
day,
which
I
think
is
a
pretty
interesting
approach,
because
that
all
still
probably
discourages
unnecessary
appeals,
because
you
know
obviously
that
fee
award
is
increasing
over
time.
There
are
even
states
that
have
it
as
if
the
court
determines
a
willful
violation
by
a
government
employee,
it's
a
it's
a
criminal
or
a
penalty
and
you
could
even
go
to
jail.
K
I
think
one
state
was
up
to
20
days
in
jail,
actually
have
it
here
up
for
arkansas
up
to
30
days
in
jail.
So
there
are
some
what
I
would
consider
to
be.
You
know
even
much
stronger
penalties
and,
interestingly,
the
california,
the
california
democrats
have
just
put
forward
a
bill.
It's
almost
identical
to
this.
It
has
a
double.
It
doubles
your
fees
and
then
it
also
has
up
to
a
hundred
dollars
per
day.
K
On
top
of
that,
and
that's
working
its
way
through
the
various
committees
right
now
in
the
california
legislature,
so
I
would
say
we're
pretty
much
in
line
it's
not
as
severe
as
some
of
these.
You
know,
especially
when
you
talk
about
the
criminal
aspects,
but
it's
it's
fairly
in
line
with
a
lot
of
other
states.
O
I
mean
this
is
a
follow-up
from
mr
felner.
I've
had
my
own
issues
getting
public
records
and
I
know
earlier
you
mentioned
the
rj
and
public
records
issues.
Large
entities
like
that.
Have
you
heard
from
a
lot
of
individual
citizens
that
are
having
trouble
getting
public
records.
K
K
His
frustration
with
transparency-
I
I
remember
one
individual
who
was
from
the
rural
area
and
and
he
was
surprised
that
there
even
was
a
public
records
law,
because
every
time
he
asked
for
something
he
was
denied,
so
even
you
know
that
kind
of
broke
my
heart
a
little
bit
so
yes,
we
I
mean
it
was
consistent
and
it's
really
kind
of
you
know
it's
interesting
that
you
you
mentioned.
K
You
have
trouble
yourself,
we've
seen
other
elected
officials,
I
mean
there
was
a
case
down
in
incline
village,
where
the
board
treasurer
of
the
incline
village,
general
improvement
district,
was
denied
access
to
financial
records.
I
believe
it
was
the
chart
of
accounts.
K
It
could
be
the
wrong
term,
but
I
I
know
it
was
a
important
financial
record
and
it
came
up
at
a
board
meeting
and
the
reason
given
to
the
board
treasurer
for
denying
him
access
to
the
district's
financial
records
that
he's
the
treasurer
of
was
well.
If
we
turn
this
over
to
you,
then
it's
a
public
record
for
everyone
to
see.
Well,
yeah,
I
mean
you're
a
public
agency.
That's
so!
Yes,
sorry,
it
went
on
a
little
long.
But
yes,
it's
it's
shocking
and
consistent.
How
many
people
have
had
issues
accessing
vulnerability.
J
O
J
I
was
hoping
to
to
add
to
that.
If
I
may,
and
an
assembly
woman,
holly
well-born
aclu
of
nevada
for
the
record
assembly,
women
black,
we
face
a
lot
of
those.
You
know
same
complaints.
You
know
one
of
our
most
common
complaints
at
the
eclu
of
nevada
is
the
inability
for
individuals
to
access
public
records.
I
mean
we
have
you
know
hundreds
of
complaints
that
come
in,
that
people
put
in
a
request.
They
ask
us
to
review
what
that
request
looks
like
you
know.
J
We
have
a
form
letter
that
we
send
out
to
tell
people
how
they
can
make
those
requests
a
little
bit
more
impactful
a
little
bit
more
effective.
So
I
think
that
this
bill
really
really
gets
at
that
incentivizing
and
compelling
those
records.
You
know
government
agencies
to
come
produce
those
records
for
the
general
public
people
that
don't
have
the
the
legal
skills
and
knowledge
and
expertise
that
we
do
at
either
mpri
or
the
aclu
of
nevada,
so
that
the
public
can
can
get
the
information
that
they're
seeking.
F
O
Assembly,
woman,
black
for
the
record
yeah.
I
think
it's
just
too
easy
for
government
agencies
to
ignore
requests
and
I've
been
on
the
receiving
end
of
that
and
I've
I've
seen
it
in
my
own
life.
So
I
support
this
bill.
I
think
it's
great
bill
and
I
hope
it
passes.
A
Members,
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
more
questions,
but
I
may
have
missed
somebody
if
you
could.
Please
notify
me
hoping
to
ask
a
question.
Yes,
please.
G
Thank
you
thank
you
assembly
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
just
would
like
to
say
I
I
I
appreciate
your
efforts.
I
have
a
freedom
of
information
act
request
the
united
states
department
of
labor
that
has
been
long
delayed
and
so
completely
understand
how
difficult
it
can
be
to
access
public
information
as
a
citizen
and
an
advocate.
So
I
appreciate
that
we're
talking
about
this
issue
today.
G
I
do
have
two
two
questions
and
I
think
I
want
to
follow
up
on
assemblywoman
dickman's
sort
of
thought
process.
How
do
we
is
there
a
way
to
incentivize
individual
employees
in
governmental
agencies
to
actually
deliver
the
information,
because
if
there
is
a
budget
account
that
covers
you
know
legal
fees
somewhere
within
the
government,
then
that
may
not
be
an
a
a
reason
to
make
me
want
to
move
quickly
if
the
administration
says
we'll
just
slow
down.
G
Let's
look
at
this
information
request
right,
so
my
question
would
be:
is
there
a
way
to
incentivize
those
employees
to
actually
follow
through
on
that
request?
That
would
be
question
number
one
and
then
my
second
question
is
who
determines
and
I'm
going
to
believe.
It's
probably
the
judge
what
reasonable
costs
or
reasonable
time
frame
hour
are
for
the
delivery
of
that
information
right,
and
so
we
we've
talked
in
this
committee
long
about
body
camera
footage
for
police
officers
right.
G
I
Thank
you,
andy
matthews,
district
37
assemblyman
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
brownmate,
for
the
question.
I
think
I
touched
earlier
that
under
current
law
I
believe
there
is
and
I'll
let
mr
feldner
mis
wellborn
correct
me,
but
there
is
a
requirement
governing
the
initial
response
time
for
response
to
a
request
to
your
to
your
other
question
in
terms
of
the
reasonable
costs.
I
Yes,
my
understanding
is
that
that
is
something
that
would
be
determined
by
the
judge
and
in
a
particular
case,
and
then
I
think,
going
back
to
your
first
question
in
terms
of
the
incentives
yeah
that
that
really
is
the
the
goal
of
this
legislation
is
to
strengthen
those
incentives
to
comply,
because
I
think,
as
you
as
you
alluded
to
you,
know,
right
now,
it's
much
easier
for
someone
within
government
to
simply
delay
or
ignore
the
requests
adopting
sort
of
the
mindset
of
well.
I
You
know
what
are
they
going
to
do?
You
know
sue
us.
Good
luck!
It's
it's
going
to
be
pretty
cost
prohibitive.
To
do
this,
knowing
that
the
incentive
is
now
much
stronger
to
bring
a
lawsuit
is
what
I
would
anticipate
would
help
increase.
The
likelihood
of
that
compliance,
which,
like
I
said,
is,
is
the
really
the
underlying
goal
of
this
build
and,
as
always
I'll
I'll
defer
to
mr
bellerin
as
well,
born.
If
they'd
like
to
build
on
that
at.
I
A
I
don't
know
if
either
one
of
you
wanted
to
jump
in
I'm
assuming
no
okay.
So
at
this
time
we'll
go
back
to
assemblywoman
consulate.
H
Thank
you,
chair
flores,
and
thank
you
for
being
able
to
ask
this
follow-up
question.
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure,
because
if
I
spoke
incorrectly,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
have
it
correct
on
the
record.
So
in
one
of
the
letters
that
we
got,
it
does
say
treble
damages
three
times
the
cost
of
the
suit,
but
in
the
bill
it
says
an
amount
that
is
equal
to
double
the
cost
of
the
suit,
including
with
that
limitation
etc.
H
So
can
you
just
clear
up
whether
this
bill
means
that
the
you're
entitled
to
all
the
fees
and
costs
plus
plus
that
doubled
or
does
this
mean
that
you're
entitled
to
the
fees
and
costs
plus
twice
that
amount
which
would
be
travel
damages?
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
on
which
way,
because
I
think
I
have
paper
that
says
both.
I
Yeah
and
thank
you,
andy
matthews,
district
37
assignment
for
the
record.
Someone
constantly
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
clarify
that,
because
I
know
it
can
get
a
little
confusing
and
I'll
try
to
try
to
walk
through
it
best.
I
can
the
way
the
bill
is
written.
If
the
bringer
of
the
suit
prevails,
they
would
get
still
as
they
currently
do
under
law,
their
attorney's
fees,
and
then
they
would
get
an
additional
amount
worth
double
those
attorneys
fees
and
the
end
result
of
that
is
that
it's
a
triple
penalty.
I
That's
assessed
so
just
to
give
a
simple
example.
If
you
owe
me
five
dollars
and
you
are
ordered
to
pay
me,
the
five
dollars
and
you're
also
ordered
to
pay
me.
In
addition,
an
amount
worth
twice
that
worth
double
that
is
an
additional
ten
dollars.
It
was
10
plus
the
five
which
gives
us
15
and
that's
why
the
penalty,
which,
of
course
is
you
know
triple
the
five.
So
the
penalty
ends
up
being
tripled
the
amount
and
that's
why
one
of
the
letters
spoke
to
the
tripling
of
the
penalties.
I
One
part
going
to
the
attorney
in
the
form
of
attorneys
fees,
as
this
case
under
current
law,
the
other
two
parts
double
them
out.
You
know
going
to
the
one
who
brings
a
suit,
so
I
know
it
can
get
a
little
confusing,
depending
on
the
perspective
for
which
you
look
at
it,
but
hopefully
that
that
clears
that
up
for
you
and
others
on
the
committee
as
well.
H
A
Thank
you,
members
for
your
questions
this
morning.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
questions
at
this
time,
I'll
invite
those
wishing
to
testify
and
support.
As
previously
noted
at
the
commencement
of
today's
meeting,
we'll
be
allocating
equal
time
to
support
opposition
in
neutral
I'll
set
a
timer
and
we'll
set
30
minutes.
A
I
do
see
that
there's
a
few
folk
wish.
You
speak
it's
in
your
best
interest
that
should
somebody
have
already
touched
the
point
that
you
focus
on
hitting
points
that
have
been
missed
and
that
are
limited
in
time.
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
invite
those
wishes
to
find
support
of
the
assembly
bill
276
and
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines
broadcast.
Please.
C
D
A-N-N-E-M-A-R-I-E-G-R-A-N-T
my
brother
was
killed
by
reno
police
and
marshall
county
sheriff's
office
during
a
mental
health
crisis.
I
sincerely
appreciate
the
sponsor
bringing
this
bill
forward.
There
has
to
be
a
way
for
the
public
to
hold
these
agencies
accountable
when
public
record
requests
are
not
fulfilled
because
I
can
attest
the
current
methods
are
not
working.
After
my
brother's
death,
I
actively
became
engaged
in
public
record
requests
in
nevada
in
2018.
When
I
requested
eight
officer-involved
shooting
reports,
I
was
quoted
1800
plus
dollars.
I
could
not
afford
eight
hundred
dollars.
D
I
took
it,
took
them
an
extended
period
of
time
to
even
respond
to
me.
To
begin
with,
I
have
extensive
documentation
of
the
public
records
requests.
I
have
made
the
extended
length
of
time
they
took
to
even
respond
and
then
most
due
to
the
crazy
fee.
I
couldn't
then
pay
for
when
I
came
to
nevada.
Last
summer
I
held
a
banner
many
days
outside
the
washoe
county
jail
demanding
justice.
For
my
brother,
my
family
was
surrounded
by
multiple
deputies.
D
I
put
in
a
public
records
request
for
the
footage
on
february
17
21
in
cc,
washer
sheriff
darren
balaam.
I
received
confirmation
218.
They
received
my
request
and
acknowledged
receipt
of
it.
I
then
heard
nothing
from
the
sheriff's
office.
Regarding
my
request
on
3-4
I
emailed
requesting
per
nrs
239.0107
the
date
I
could
expect
my
request
to
be
fulfilled.
On
march
9th,
I
received
a
reply
stating
your
request
is
being
processed.
D
I'm
hopeful
that
we'll
be
able
to
complete
your
quest
your
request
within
the
next
two
weeks,
but
I'm
not
able
to
provide
an
exact
date.
Requests
are
handled
in
the
order
received,
and
it's
often
necessary
for
us
to
contact
other
departments
for
information
requested.
As
of
today,
I
have
yet
to
receive
an
expected
date
or
have
my
request
and
the
follow-up
email
has
been
sent
by
me
for
an
update.
I
realize
the
current
nrs
allows
me
to
file
food
in
the
district
court
currently
to
compel
relief.
However,
financial
constraints
have
always
been
the
barrier.
D
Access
to
public
records
is
so
important.
It
was
through
public
records.
I
was
able
to
obtain
the
video
footage
of
my
brother
being
associated
at
the
jail.
The
current
public
records
nrs
has
has
not
been
a
detractor.
The
government
to
government
entities
to
not
comply
this
bill
would
incentivize
the
average
citizen
to
hold
government
agencies
accountable
and
discourage
the
agencies
from
not
complying
with
the
nrf
and
the
request.
Please
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
C
P
Thank
you,
chairman
flores,
and
the
members
of
the
committee.
I
am
richard
carpell,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
press
association
and
I'm
also
today,
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
open
government
coalition,
which
mr
filner
and
and
ms
welborn
are
members
of.
Under
the
public
records
act.
Government
agencies
are
required
to
construe
the
provisions
of
the
act,
liberally
and
they're
required
to
construe
exceptions
to
the
act
narrowly
so,
in
other
words,
they're
required
to
err
on
the
side
of
releasing
information
to
the
public.
P
C
A
A
Perfect,
thank
you
and
if
you'd
like
to
state
your
comments,
one
more
time,
you
were
cutting
off.
P
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
We'll
continue
with
those
wishing
to
testify
and
support
next,
caller
in
support
of
assembly
bill
276.
C
M
M
A
A
C
Q
L-I-F-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-S-E-N
good
morning,
chairman
flores
members
of
the
committee
and
assemblyman
matthews,
my
name
is
lisa
rasmussen
and
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
nacj
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
Nacj
supports
this
bill
and
thinks
that
it's
a
really
important
bill
because
it
gives
teeth
so
to
speak
to
the
public
records
request
scheme.
Q
We
believe
that,
with
additional
measures
that
the
bill
proposes,
that
it
would
help
strengthen
our
ability
to
obtain
records
that
are
necessary
to
pursue
litigation
on
behalf
of
our
clients.
So
it's
strongly.
We
strongly
support
the
bill
and
request
that
the
members
of
this
committee
do
the
same.
Thank
you
so
much
for
hearing
me
this
morning.
A
A
L
L
Yet
here
we
are
again
having
the
same
debate
as
yogi
berra
famously
said.
It's
like
deja
vu
all
over
again,
we
were
told
the
law
needed
a
penalty
which
was
added
in
2019
and
yet
now
that
is
simply
not
enough.
18
months
later,
we
still
haven't
even
given
the
chance
for
the
new
law
to
really
be
tried,
but
we're
here
again
having
this
debate
over
whether
or
not
we
need
to
ratchet
up
that
penalty.
L
The
law
already
allows
for
the
recovery
of
costs
and
court
fees
by
someone
who
brings
a
lawsuit.
So
why
do
we
really
need
the
bill
being
proposed
today
and,
in
fact,
while
the
benefits
of
ab276
are
questionable,
in
my
opinion,
the
potential
negative
consequences
must
be
carefully
weighed
if
this
goal
is
to
be
reached,
if
the
goal
is
to
avoid
litigation,
why
does
this
bill
not
just
only
invite
but
literally
reward
those
who
file
lawsuits
by
turning
this
into
a
money
making
enterprise?
L
L
The
average
response
time
was
less
than
one
day
and
the
average
time
it
took
requesters
to
receive
their
records
was
less
than
two
days
as
governments.
We
also
have
a
duty
to
protect
sensitive
information
entrusted
to
us
by
the
public,
and
this
can
require
at
times
defending
matters
of
privacy
in
court.
We're
talking
social
security
numbers,
hipaa,
protected
health
care
info
names
and
info
regarding
victims
of
harassment
and
many
other
sensitive
records.
Ab276
also
creates
a
bounty
system
that
incentivizes
court
cases
to
be
filed.
It's
literally
an
invitation
to
litigation.
L
L
Instead,
as
you
heard,
civil
penalties
assessed
for
non-compliance
are
given
to
the
nevada
archives,
to
further
public
access
to
records
and,
most
importantly,
to
remove
any
financial
reward
for
abusive
requesters.
If
passed,
a
majority
of
payouts
under
this
bill
will
be
rewards
for
those
bringing
lawsuits.
L
That
is
because
no
willful
finding
is
needed
in
ab276
or
punitive
damages
to
be
assessed,
as
is
required
an
existing
law
for
a
fine
to
be
levied
by
a
judge
for
failure
to
be
bought.
This
bill
only
increases
the
time
it
will
take
to
fulfill
records
requests.
That's
because
government
entities
will
require
even
return,
even
the
most
routine
requests
to
receive
a
greater
level
of
scrutiny
due
to
potential
litigation
costs,
compounded
by
the
punitive
damages
included
in
ab276.
L
Also,
it
would
add
no
clarity
to
existing
public
records
law,
which
already
results
in
litigation
due
to
the
vagueness
of
existing
provisions.
Changes
in
the
act,
as
I
mentioned,
were
just
it
just
went
into
effect
in
october.
19
of
excuse
me
in
october
of
2019,
with
the
addition
of
fines
up
to
ten
thousand
dollars.
L
We
have
seen
a
few
anecdotal
instances
referred
to,
but
I
would
have
you
compare
that
to
the
extreme
numbers
of
cases
that
we
fulfilled
at
the
city
of
henderson
in
very
short
time,
with
very
little
cost
to
the
individual
who
is
receiving
records
that
they've
requested
in
less
than
the
two
days
on
average,
and
with
that
I'd
like
to
also
thank
the
committee
for
the
time
today
and
to
turn
it
over
to
matt
christian,
with
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
A
Good
morning,
sir,
welcome.
R
Yes,
good
morning,
chair
flores
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
having
me
here
today
again.
My
name
is
matthew
christian.
I
am
assistant
general
counsel
for
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
Yeah.
In
my
role
as
assistant
general
counsel,
I
do
provide
advice
with
regard
to
public
records.
Among
other
things,
I
try
to
keep
my
comments
short
because
I
know
there's
others
waiting
on
a
line,
but
to
start
I
really
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
exactly
how
the
npra
currently
works
when
it
comes
to
attorney's
fees
and
costs.
R
The
court
will
hear
from
both
sides,
of
course,
and
if
the
court
agrees
with
the
requester
that
records
should
be
provided
then
under
the
current
system
the
requester
can
ask
for
attorneys
fees
right
there
and
then
the
requester
does
not
need
to
wait
for
an
appeal
but
right
there,
and
then
they
can
ask
for
attorney's
fees.
Also,
the
requester
does
not
need
to
demonstrate
that
the
public
entity
is
acting
in
bad
faith.
R
R
So
that's
why
sometimes
you'll
see
that
courts
do
have
to
cut
an
attorney
bill,
because
if
the
fees
were
not
actually
incurred
or
if
they
were
not
incurred
in
a
reasonable
way,
then
the
court,
that's
the
only
discretion.
The
court
has
now
on
the
flip
side
of
that,
if
a
public
entity
is
the
party
that
prevails,
then
there's
no
parallel
provision
in
the
npr
npra
that
allows
the
public
entity
to
recover
its
fees
from
the
non-prevailing
requester.
R
Public
entities
do
not
want
to
engage
in
litigation
because
there's
always
going
to
be
a
cost
to
the
public
entity
win
or
lose.
There
will
be
a
cost
and
again
I
think
there
might
be
misperceptions
about
that
again.
The
law
already
has
teeth.
There
are
very
sharp
teeth
and,
as
mr
cherry
explained,
those
teeth
became
sharper
after
2019
and
the
penalty
provisions
that
were
introduced
two
years
ago.
R
So
that
leads
me
to
address
another
couple
of
misperceptions
that
I
think
may
exist.
Despite
the
impression
that's
been
created
here
today,
there's
really
not
a
lot
of
disputes
and
there's
certainly
not
a
lot
of
litigation
over
public
records,
not
in
my
experience
and
even
when
there
is
litigation.
R
R
I
think
in
part
the
reason
that
there
is
not
a
lot
of
disputes
is
because
of
the
changes
that
were
made
in
2019.
After
that,
after
the
penalty
provisions
were
introduced,
I
think
a
lot
of
public
entities
redoubled
their
efforts
to
make
sure
that
requests
were
being
timely,
responded
to
and
responded
to
appropriately.
R
So
I'll
give
you
the
example
of
what
we
did
here
at
lvmpd
two
years
ago.
What
we
did
was
we
stood
up
a
whole
new
unit
to
respond
to
records
requests.
We
currently
have
13
full-time
employees
who
do
nothing
other
than
respond
to
records
requests
that
includes
some
commissioned
law
enforcement
officers.
R
R
These
records
requests
do
include
body-worn
camera.
I
think
there
was
a
question
about
that
earlier.
But
importantly,
a
vast
majority
of
those
requests
were
fulfilled
with
no
problems,
no
controversies
whatsoever.
R
R
So
our
records
contain
things
like
criminal
history,
information
details
about
allegations
and
accusations
that
are
being
made
admissions
that
could
be
embarrassing
to
people.
Our
body-worn
camera
shows
the
inside
of
people's
houses,
which
we
have
to
protect
bodywork.
Camera
may
also
show
graphic
images
we
possess
records
that
contain
the
identities
of
confidential
informants.
R
R
G
P
R
Obligated
to
balance
the
public's
right
to
records
and
transparency
with
other
individual
rights
like
privacy,
rights,
victim
rights,
witness
rights.
R
We
are
also
obligated
to
redact
records,
for
instance,
maybe
only
part
of
the
video
is
confidential,
but
the
other
part
is
not.
Maybe
part
of
a
record
is
confidential,
but
the
other
part
is
not
so
when
we
balance
out
all
of
these
interests.
If
redactions
are
required,
that's
that's
a
complex
process
and
it's
time
consuming.
R
We
are
very
proud
of
this
new
unit
that
we
stood
up
of
the
5000
requests
that
we
received
in
2020.
Again,
a
vast
majority
were
not
a
problem.
R
When
disputes
do
begin
to
arise,
we
try
to
work
them
out,
always
keeping
in
mind
the
nevada
supreme
court's
balancing
tests
that
we
are
obligated
to
implement
to
demonstrate
our
success.
I
can
tell
you
that
lvmpd
has
been
sued
just
three
times
in
2020
out
of
those
5000
requests,
one
of
those
I
was
able
to
work
out
with
out
any
problem
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
requester
with
regard
to
the
other
two.
R
R
Now
you
don't
hear
about
those
cases
in
the
news,
but
the
the
reason
that
metro
prevailed
is
again.
The
courts
do
recognize
that
there's
these
interests
that
have
to
be
protected
not
only
privacy
but
law
enforcement
interests,
especially
when
we
have
records
about
a
pending
case
and
the
case
hasn't
even
gone
to
a
criminal
trial.
R
R
We
do
everything
possible
to
avoid
disputes,
but
sometimes
the
issues
are
complex
and
in
those
rare
cases
when
disputes
arise
and
cannot
be
resolved
between
the
parties,
then
yes,
ultimately,
it
is
up
to
courts
to
resolve.
That's
just
like
a
dispute
over
a
contract
or
a
dispute
over
employment
or
a
personal
injury
action.
If
the
parties
can't
resolve
it,
that's
why
we
have
courts.
R
It's
not
going
to
eliminate
the
need
for
courts,
it's
just
not
going
to
be
effective
and,
frankly,
it's
just
not
fair
to
penalize
the
public
taxpayer
when
public
entities
are
acting
in
good
faith,
asserting
privileges
that
they
are
entitled
to
assert
under
the
law.
So
with
that
said,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
That
concludes
my
testimony
and
I'm
more
than
happy
to
take
any
questions
that
anyone
might
have.
A
C
B
Good
morning,
chair
and
committee,
this
is
jamie
rodriguez,
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county.
That's
spelled.
B
J-A-M-I-E-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z,
I
don't
want
to
be
repetitive
of
what
has
already
been
said.
We
do
have
strong
concerns
with
the
bill
as
drafted.
B
What
has
been
discussed
this
morning
already
that
I
do
want
to
highlight
again
is
that
there
was
a
pretty
substantial,
substantial
overhaul
of
public
records
law
that
was
done
last
session.
A
lot
of
that
was
done
with
great
help
from
this
committee
and
chairman
flores
himself.
We
support
those
measures
and
those
changes
to
help
clarify
some
of
the
law
and,
as
the
proponents
of
the
bill
now
state
give
that
law
some
more
tea.
B
However,
we
do
have
to
weigh
what
the
request
is
of
to
whether
or
not
it's
really
appropriate
to
be
released
to
the
public.
We
do
get
requests
for
gruesome
crime
scenes
pictures
of
victims
and
we
have
to
weigh
their
their
privacy
and
their
rights
as
to
whether
or
not
that
should
really
be
released.
We've
had
cases
that
have
gone
to
court
because
we
redacted
portions
of
those
pictures.
B
While
we
have
been
successful
in
those
cases,
these
are
some
of
the
examples
of
public
records
requests
that
we
do
get
and
some
of
the
information
that
we
do
not
automatically
provide,
because
we
have
to
weigh
that.
We
feel
that
it's
hard
to
feel
that
measures
like
this
are
not
trying
to
really
force
us
to
just
release
the
data.
B
However,
just
releasing
that
data
can
equally,
as
governments
make
us
liable
for
improperly
releasing
people's
personal
information,
and
so
while
we
do
submit
or
respond
and
provide
99
of
the
public
records
requests
that
we
receive.
I
want
to
clarify
that
the
one
percent
that
we
highlight
is
not
that
those
requests
are
outright
denied.
It's
that
certain
portions
of
those
requests
are
withheld
or
redacted
to
protect
public
and
individual
information.
B
We
feel
that
the
bill
last
session
gave
peace
to
this
law
and
that
these
types
of
measures
that
would
be
substantial
hits
to
public
funds
is
not
appropriate
to
move
forward.
Thank
you.
C
Q
Q
P
c-r-o-m-p-t,
o
n,
the
city
of
las
vegas,
is
in
opposition
to
ab276.
As
written
and
echo
the
comments
of
my
colleagues
that
have
spoken
before
me.
The
current
public
records
laws
work
and
the
overhauls
done
last
session
have
helped
to
make
to
make
the
laws
better.
The
city
of
las
vegas
takes
our
duty
to
provide
these
records
seriously,
has
dedicated
staff
that
are
assigned
to
respond
to
public
records
requests
and
almost
every
time
arrest
is
filled
quickly
and
without
charge
to
the
requester.
Q
Q
That
prompt
gives
you
step-by-step
instructions
on
how
to
submit
a
request.
You
can
also
check
the
status
of
your
request
and
search
frequently
asked
questions
on
records.
Requests.
Most
complications
usually
come
from
an
individual
that
does
not
know
the
agency
to
request
a
record
from,
for
example,
high
percentages
of
our
records.
Q
Requests
at
the
city
of
las
vegas
are
actually
meant
for
clark
county,
the
clark
county
school
district
and,
most
recently
for
deter
the
city
of
las
vegas,
spends
the
time
to
direct
individuals
to
the
proper
agencies
and
provides
contact
information
to
those
agencies
just
to
ensure
that
requesters
get
the
information
that
they
are
actually
looking
for.
In
fact,
supporters
of
this
bill
have
publicly
acknowledged
the
city
for
our
efforts
to
provide
transparency
on
january
30th
of
2020.
Q
The
editor
of
the
las
vegas
review
journal
in
his
email
to
his
readers
praised
the
city
for
their
efficiency
in
providing
public
records
by
stating
quote,
our
coverage
of
the
alpine
fire
has
relied
heavily
on
public
records,
and
I
am
happy
to
report
that
the
city
of
las
vegas
has
worked
with
us
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
access
to
those
records
that
you
pay.
For.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and,
as
I
said,
we
are
in
opposition
of
this
bill.
S
S
The
league
is
respectfully
but
resolutely
in
opposition
of
ab276.
We
do
appreciate
the
discussion,
the
work
of
the
sponsor
to
bring
this
bill
forward
and
the
distinguished
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
government
affairs
for
hearing
it.
It
is
the
information
of
the
leak
that,
with
few
exceptions,
public
record
requests
are
routinely
and
overwhelmingly
processed
and
granted
this
bill,
while
seeking
a
laudable
outcome
is
constructed
to
create
wide-ranging
negative
consequences.
S
A
proposed
statutorily
mandated
penalty
such
as
this
is
typically
intended
to
punish,
willful
and
pernicious
conduct.
We
assert
that
this
type
of
penalty
is
best
determined
by
the
court
based
upon
the
specific
facts
and
demonstrated
conduct
in
each
case.
It
is
a
blind
and
blunt
mechanism
for
the
legislature
to
predetermine
that
bad
faith
was
the
cause
for
the
denial
order.
The
delay
of
a
public
record
request.
S
S
S
S
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
Next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
276.
C
P
Mr
chair
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
government
affairs,
my
name
is
vincent
guthro.
That's
v,
like
victor
I-n-s-o-n,
last
name
is
guthro
g-u-t-h-r-e-a-u
I
serve
as
the
deputy
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
counties
or
naco,
whose
members
are
all
of
all
17
of
nevada's
counties.
I
don't
want
to
be
redundant
for
the
committee.
You've
heard
great
reasons
already
of
why
we're
testifying
in
opposition
to
ab276.
P
We
do
appreciate
the
sponsor
reaching
out
to
local
governments
to
help
us
understand
his
intent
and
goal
of
this
legislation,
but
a
more
than
doubling
of
fines
could
incentivize
outrageous.
Public
records
and
counties
are
entrusted
with
the
public's
right
to
know
and
along
with
the
public's
trust,
and
we
must
balance
those
public
records
request
against
this
standard.
With
every
request.
P
We
believe
that
the
existing
penalties
and
statute
are
sufficient
to
address
those
cases
where
there
may
be
a
bad
actor,
and
we
believe
that
the
bipartisan
bill
that
was
passed
in
the
2019
session
sb287
struck
a
balance
between
fines
and
those
governments
that
are
acting
in
good
faith
to
individuals.
So,
echoing
the
comments
of
some
of
the
previous
opposition
testimony,
I
just
want
to
make
it
short
and
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
today.
A
C
D
Z
y
f
k,
I
representing
nevada
association
of
school
superintendents,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
very
briefly
today.
The
school
districts
appreciate
that
providing
public
record
information
is
important
and
school
districts
try
to
comply
even
when
requests
are
made
in
smaller
districts
with
limited
staff
to
provide
the
information.
D
A
A
P
P
We
join
in
the
arguments
made
by
mr
cherry
with
the
urban
consortium
and
mr
christian
with
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
Ab276
is
strictly
punitive
and
does
not
allow
for
any
argument
that
litigating
the
public
records
issue
was
legally
justified.
The
bill
allows
for
a
windfall
without
justification.
P
P
In
the
coroner's
case,
specifically
cited
by
the
proponents
of
the
bill,
the
nevada
supreme
court
found
that
the
coroner
established
a
privacy
interest
in
certain
medical
and
health
information
based
on
an
ag
opinion,
nrs432b
and
other
legal
arguments.
The
coroner
had
no
choice
but
to
assert
confidentiality
with
respect
to
these
records
and
the
analysis
of
the
nevada
supreme
court
validated
that
position,
and
I
encourage
you
to
go
read
the
case.
It's
clark,
county
office
of
the
corner
versus
las
vegas
review
journal.
That's
136,
nev
44..
P
There
are
changes
that
need
to
be
made
to
our
public
records
law,
including
better
definitions
of
a
public
record
and
more
clarity
of
when
exceptions
apply.
We
encourage
the
legislature
to
work
with
us
on
these
changes
instead
of
increasing
the
punitive
aspect
of
the
statute.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Mr
chairman,.
C
C
C
P
It's
incredible
to
me
that
during
this
time
we
are
in
yes
still
in
the
middle
of
a
pandemic.
In
the
financial
crisis,
everyone
is
in
or
facing
a
lot
of
staff
and
personnel.
Our
governmental
agencies
have
in
trying
to
keep
employees
safe
and
yet
still
provide
governmental
services,
the
best
they
can
the
scale
scale
and
scope
of
which
some
of
these
onerous
requests
come
into.
P
P
P
Why
on
earth
would
this
body
consider
punishing
governmental
agencies
that
might
still
be
running
on
modified
operations
in
the
middle
of
this
crisis
and
doing
the
best
they
can
in
the
safest
manner
they
can?
The
proponents
are
claiming
that
there
were
recent
requests
unfulfilled
to
their
satisfaction,
but
has
everyone
forgotten
that
this
past
year
was
unprecedented,
that
we
are
still
in
the
crisis
and
that
there
is
no
promise
that
it
will
not
spill
back
up
or
get
worse
again?
P
The
flood
of
onerous
public
records
requests
that
this
can
trigger
simply
due
to
the
potential
for
a
monetary
payout
is
ludicrous.
The
suggestion
you
heard
here
today
to
move
the
penalty
to
the
individual
employee
is
absurd
and
an
offensive
suggestion
to
to
make
against
the
outstanding
public
servants
in
the
state
of
nevada.
P
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
I
just
wanted
to
let
the
opposition
know
that
we've
hit
27
minutes
with
51
seconds,
but
we
got
a
just
right
above
two
minutes
left.
A
So
if
there's
a
whole
host
of
other
folks
still
wishing
to
testify,
it
may
be
in
your
past
interest
simply
to
put
your
name
on
the
record,
say
diddle
and
give
an
opportunity
to
everybody
else,
but
that's
up
to
you,
I'm
just
letting
you
know
you
have
about
two
minutes
left
before
we
close
out
the
opposition.
Next
caller
wishing
to
speak
in
opposition
to
assembly,
bill
276.
C
P
M-I-C-H-A-E-L-H-I-L-L-E-R-B-Y
with
kemper
kroll,
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
sparks
and
the
regional
transportation
commission
of
washoe
county,
we
would
like
to
echo
the
comments
of
the
previous
opposition
speakers
and
thank
you
for
your
time
and
you
and
your
committee
for
your
work
on
behalf
of
the
people
of
nevada.
Thank
you.
C
C
Q
C
A
C
P
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
to
all
the
members
of
this
committee
for
hearing
this
bill
today.
I
also
want
to
thank
all
those
who
called
in
to
testify,
and
I
especially
appreciate
today's
co-presenters
ms
welborn
and
mr
felner.
I
want
to
close
by
stressing
what
I
think
is
a
critical
point
in
that
is
that
government
transparency
should
not
be,
and
indeed
is
not
a
partisan
issue.
I
I've
introduced
this
bill
today
and
I
happen
to
be
a
republican,
but
I
think
it's
interesting
to
note,
as
mr
felner
did,
that
next
door
in
california
legislative
democrats
have
proposed
a
bill
that
is
nearly
identical
to
this
one,
and
the
reasoning
for
this
is
simple.
We
can
debate
all
day
and
oftentimes.
We
do
even
right
here
in
this
committee
over
the
philosophical
question
of
bigger
government
versus
smaller
government,
but
wherever
we
may
come
down
on
that
question,
we
should
all
be
able
to
unite
in
support
of
the
principle
of
open
government.
I
A
A
Next,
on
the
agenda,
we
have
public
comment
and
at
this
time
I'd
like
to
remind
those
of
you
who
wish
to
participate
in
public
comment,
we
encourage
you
to
do
so.
Please
do,
but
I
just
wanted
to
lay
some
quick
ground
rules.
Please
note
that
this
is
not
a
time
for
you
to
reopen
a
hearing.
We've
had
the
hearings.
Those
are
closed.
This
is
the
time
for
you
to
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
any
information
you'd
like
to
the
committee
that
falls
within
the
purview
of
this
committee
and
be
heard.
A
I
ask
that
you
be
respectful
and
and
engage
with
the
committee.
We
look
forward
to
that
so
with
that,
if
I
could
broadcast
please
go
to
the
first
caller
wishing
speak
for
public
comment.
A
You
at
this
time
we'll
close
out
public
comment
and
again
thank
you
members
for
your
work
this
morning.
I
want
to
remind
you
that
for
tomorrow
march
23rd
we
have
two
bill
hearings,
assembly,
bill,
270
and
assembly
bill
307.
Please
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
review
those
ahead
of
time,
we'll
also
be
doing
a
work
session
document.