►
From YouTube: 4/14/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and addtitional information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature. The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process. All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
C
B
D
A
Here
an
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
is
present.
She
just
ran
down
the
hall
to
deliver
some
headphones,
so
she
is
here.
Please
note
that
for
the
record,
I
think
the
only
member
we're
missing
then
would
be
assemblywoman
hanson
and
please
mark
her
absent
excuse
for
the
time
being.
I
do
expect
her
to
be
here
at
some
point
during
the
meeting.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
again.
I
want
to
say
good
morning
to
committee
members
to
anybody
who
may
be
watching
us
on
online
or
on
the
legislature's
website
our
youtube
channel.
A
This
is
day
73
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
I
hope
you
all
had
a
good
couple
days
off.
We'll
have
a
few
bills
to
get
through
this
morning
and
I
don't
think
it'll
take
us
too
terribly
long
before
we
get
to
those
bills,
though
I
do
want
to
go
over
some
basic
housekeeping
rules
for
those
of
you
on
the
zoom
with
us.
A
If
you
could,
please
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that,
will
help
with
the
audio
feedback
if
you're
presenting
a
bill
this
morning,
particularly
when
you
answer
questions,
if
you
could
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
that'll
help
prepare
accurate
committee
minutes
and
then
we
do
expect
a
respect
and
courtesy
to
one
another
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
don't
always
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
of
one
another
of
this
process
and,
most
importantly
of
our
hard
working
staff
and
then
finally,
many
members
are
using
multiple
devices
to
access
this
meeting.
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
in
attention.
If
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
with
that
behind
us,
members
will
go
to
our
agenda.
I
do
intend
to
take
the
matters
in
order
as
listed
on
the
agenda.
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
9.
senate
bill.
9
creates
an
exemption
from
licensing
requirements
for
investment
advisors
to
certain
private
funds
and
welcome
to
the
committee,
our
lieutenant
governor,
lieutenant
governor
marshall,
miss
lopez
from
the
lieutenant
governor's
office
and
mr
sailing
as
well
so
welcome
to
the
committee
and
please
proceed.
C
Thank
you
and
good
morning,
committee
members
and
good
morning,
chair
yeager.
I
hope
you've
had
your
donut
this
morning.
I
don't
know
if
you
know,
but
my
first
job
was
in
a
donut
shop,
so
I
am
familiar
with
the
morning
donut,
so
sb9,
and
thank
you
again
for
having
me
late.
Last
summer,
my
office
was
contacted
by
jeff
sailing,
who
is
here
to
speak
to
you
today.
C
During
our
conversation,
jeff
conveyed
the
immense
need
to
update
our
blue
sky
laws
to
better
attract
and
retain
early
stage
investment
capital
in
nevada.
As
many
of
you
know,
blue
sky
laws
are
state
laws
that
impose
standards
for
offering
and
selling
securities
and
aim
to
protect
individuals
from
fraudulent
or
overly
speculative
investment.
C
At
the
time
they
were
written
in
alignment
with
federal
regulation
to
address
the
you
know:
the
dot
boom
boom,
dot
boom
boom,
dot
com
boom,
both
federal
law
and
security,
and
the
security
exchange.
Commission
regulations
have
evolved
significantly
since
then.
In
addition,
the
national
american
security
administrative
advisory
board
has
laid
out
model
regulations.
C
It's
the
intention
with
sb9,
to
update
state
law
to
match
the
national
north
american
security,
administrative
advisory
recommendations
and
current
federal
law.
So
we
are
really
just
bringing
ourselves
up
to
date.
This
is
in
line
with
23
other
states,
including
our
neighbors,
in
utah,
arizona
and
idaho,
creating
both
greater
modernization
and
competitive
advantage
within
nevada's
entrepreneurial
ecosystem.
C
Before
I
turn
the
presentation
over
to
jeff
sailing
I'd
like
to
highlight
a
few
things,
nevada
has
always
had
an
issue
with
people.
You
know
being
a
flyover
state
people
not
coming
here
to
invest
in
our
businesses
here
us
not
being
able
to
raise
the
money
beyond
family
and
friends
and
your
credit
card
from
so
that
you
could
start
a
business
in
the
governor's
latest
recovery
report
report.
C
One
of
the
things
it
does
note
is
that
nevada
has
a
incredible
entrepreneurial
spirit,
but
we
need
to
encourage
and
support
that
there
is
a
fiscal
note
on
this
bill
of
twelve
thousand
three
hundred
and
seventy
five
dollars
per
fiscal
year.
This
is
an
estimate
from
the
secretary
of
state's
office
stating
that
they
believe
that
they
will
have
decreased
licensing
fees
to
the
state
attached
to
this
legislation.
C
Therefore,
you
will
see
in
section
four
subsection
e
of
the
bill.
It
addresses
this
potential
decrease
in
revenue
by
giving
the
opportunity
to
the
secretary
of
state's
office
to
establish
a
fee
should
they
choose
to
make
up
for
that
revenue
if,
in
fact,
it
occurs,
the
section
reads
that,
in
order
for
an
investment
officer
to
qualify
for
exemption,
they
must
pay
a
fee
prescribed
by
the
administrator.
C
Should
the
administrator
so
choose.
In
this
instance.
The
administrator
is
the
deputy
of
securities
appointed
by
the
secretary
of
state
in
conversation
with
the
deputy
of
securities.
We
have
expressed
that,
given
that
the
bill
authorizes
the
administrator
to
prescribe
a
fee,
we
support
the
department's
decision
to
apply
a
fair
and
reasonable
fee
if
they
so
choose,
as
this
would
mitigate
and
or
negate
any
physical
impact
that
may
arise.
Of
course,
at
this
time,
all
of
this
is
estimates
right.
C
We'd
also
like
for
the
record
to
highlight
that
we
believe
that
the
economic
activity
associated
with
increased
venture
capital
and
business
development
catalyzed
by
the
passage
of
this
bill
would
significantly
outpace
any
loss
in
licensing
revenue.
The
state
may
experience
due
to
this
exemption.
C
C
So
this
section
4.5
of
the
bill
requires
the
administrator
that
being
the
secretary
of
state,
to
submit
a
biennial
report
to
the
legislature
as
well
as
publish
a
report
on
their
website.
The
report
would
include
a
summary
of
the
states
that
have
adopted
any
model,
rule
regulation,
exemption
or
provision
of
the
north
american
securities
administrators
association
in
the
immediately
proceeding
five
years,
a
summary
of
the
states
that
did
not
adopt
such
legislation.
C
So
you
get
to
see
the
whole
picture
and
a
determination
whether
the
secretary
securities
division
of
the
office
of
the
secretary
of
state
has
the
resources
necessary
to
achieve
its
objectives
and,
finally,
any
recommendations
for
legislation
by
the
secretary
of
state
relating
to
the
protection
of
investors
in
this
state.
Hopefully,
that
will
make
it
so
that
going
forward
you
guys
have
the
tools
to
decide
what
you
want
to
do.
You
don't
need
a
a
bill
like
this.
C
I
want
to
thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
me
first
thing:
pre
or
post
donut,
and
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
my
colleague,
jeff
saling,
who
has
been
so
supportive
in
helping
us
and
helping
nevada,
try
to
create
an
entrepreneurial
ecosystem
and
an
environment
for
our
businesses.
Jeff.
E
E
Great
terrific,
thank
you
again,
thank
you,
lieutenant
governor
marshall,
and
for
for
some
other
context
about
why
I'm
here
and
why
I
care
so
much
about
this
issue
and
what
startup
mv
is
and
does
startup
nv
began
in
2017
out
of
a
frustration
that
I
had.
E
I
spent
my
career
in
enterprise
software
startups,
seven
of
them
three
went
through
to
an
ipo
and
one
was
acquired
and
one
is
still
in
startup
mode
and
two
of
them
failed,
and
I
came
to
nevada
in
2009
in
the
middle
of
the
third
startup
in
the
second
ipo,
with
the
idea
that
I'd
start
my
next
company
here
and
when
I
came
time
to
do
that
in
2010,
I
couldn't
find
the
capital
or
the
coders
I
needed.
What
we
lacked
here
is
what
I
came
to
understand
is
a
startup
ecosystem.
E
E
E
So
all
startups
begin
with
an
idea
and
then
proceed
left
to
right
through
the
stages
noted
outside
investment
usually
starts
with
friends
and
family
and
then
and
when
the
concept
has
to
be
validated
and
then
proceeds
with
larger
and
growing
capital
requirements
to
build
a
product
and
go
to
market
as
the
company
matures
the
organizations
angel
groups
precede
funds,
seed
funds,
venture
funds
that
provide
capital
for
these
early
stage
startups
are
the
subject
of
the
presentation
today
and
sb9
generally,
with
a
vibrant
community
providing
capital
startups,
hire
staff
grow
jobs.
E
Spend
money
in
the
local
community
grow
rapidly,
hopefully
establish
a
successful
business
then
have
a
successful
exit
by
acquisition
or
ipo,
or
perhaps
a
spac
which
are
more
popular
these
days,
we're
founders
and
investors
and
employees.
They
have
a
great
payday
and
after
that,
payday
the
successful
these
successful
folks
consider
retirement.
They
buy
a
few
cool
toys
for
whatever
their
hobbies
are,
but
after
about
90
or
120
days,
they're
bored
and
guess
what
they
start.
E
E
So
the
laws
and
regulations
in
this
area,
as
lieutenant
governor
said,
are
called
blue
sky
laws,
and
the
current
situation
that
we
have
is
messy
and
confusing.
Investors
can
usually
handle
the
risks
and
the
opacity
of
startup
businesses,
but
when
the
laws
and
the
regulations
governing
their
investments
are
not
clear
or
they're,
overly
complex
investors
just
stay
on
the
sidelines
or
they
simply
invest
other
places.
So
we
have
some
confusing
laws
and
rules
in
nevada.
E
We
that
haven't
been
updated
in
a
long
time,
they're
inconsistent
or
they
conflict
with
the
federal
regulations
that
cover
these
same
activities
and
nevada
laws.
For
example,
nevada
law
sees
founders
that
are
raising
capital
for
their
own
companies
as
a
sales
person
like
they're,
a
stock
broker,
and
they
need
to
hold
a
license,
and
you
know
when
someone
wants
to
raise
an
investment
fund
to
make
investments
in
startups.
E
Those
rules,
too,
are
murky
and
the
roles
of
the
founder
and
the
fund
manager
are
conflated
and
it's
unclear
when
licenses
are
required
and
when
they're
not
meaning
deals
that
people
invest
in
can
be
litigated
and
unwound
and
no
serious
financial
professional
fund
are
is
going
to
get
formed
under
these
circumstances
and
no
one's
going
to
consider.
None
of
these
investors
or
funds
are
going
to
consider
relocating
here.
E
The
people
in
the
funds
might
move
here
because
they
like
our
tax
environment
but
they'll
invest
elsewhere,
since
over
80
percent
of
all
the
capital
raised
in
the
early
stages
comes
from
local
investors
who
want
to
support
their
local
startups
and
the
actual
average
mileage
is
37
miles
based
on
national
averages
of
is
where
the
founder
and
the
funders
typically
are
within
37
miles
of
each
other.
E
What
happens
if
we
follow
this
path?
Investment
in
our
local
stage,
startups
increase
from
the
sort
of
paltry
total
of
two
to
five
million
dollars,
which
is
what
we
have
now
to
probably
five
times
that
or
more,
and
if
you
follow
some
of
the
models
generated
by
software
programs
like
implant
and
we
got
ours
curtis,
we
gotta
look
at
our
models,
courtesy
of
the
city
of
las
vegas.
They
they
let
us
use
their
implant
software
to
model
some
of
this
stuff.
E
With
you
know,
from
all
of
these
high-growth
startups
this
diversification
that
we've
all
been
talking
about
for
many
years
and
that's
without
taking
anything
away
from
the
existing
awesome
industries
that
are
already
here,
this
sb9
fix,
helps
earlier
stage.
Smaller
local
funds
get
started
and
attracts
an
incense
formation
of
the
larger,
later
stage,
funds
that
follow
on,
because
the
laws
are
clear
and
the
earlier
funding
has
created
exciting
options
for
those
larger
funds
to
consider.
E
So,
in
summary,
nasa
the
nasa
fix
sb9
puts
us
on
par
with
other
states
and
with
federal
regulations.
This
clarity
and
consistency
will
remove
barriers
to
the
capital,
growth
and
making
and
making
early
stage
investments
in
a
manner.
Everyone
in
the
investment
community
is
already
used
to
operating
under
there's
no
new
learning
or
other
barriers
to
getting
started,
and
from
there
we
can
see
the
more
rapid
startup,
more
rapid
local
capital
creation
in
nevada
investment
in
early
stage
startups
and
job
growth
that
we
all
want.
E
This
will
have
the
biggest
impacts
in
las
vegas
in
the
rural
areas,
where
there
are
literally
zero.
None
local
startup
funds
happening
right
now,
and
it's
also
going
to
help
with
with
the
north,
to
form
new
funds
and
attract
new
funds
for
from
externally
as
well
and
as
a
final
note-
and
it's
certainly
not
the
least
important
note,
more
capital
options
and
ease
of
regulations
will
make
it
easier
to
create
funds
to
invest
in
the
underserved
communities.
E
So
there's
many
organizations
from
across
the
state
that
have
that
are
supporting
this
work
and
their
letters
and
of
support
were
submitted
originally
with
to
the
senate
side
under
sb9,
and
I
want
to
thank
again
lieutenant
governor
for
raising
this
important
issue.
I
think
there's
it's
a
well-crafted
solution
for
your
consideration
and
assembly
persons.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
for
the
bill
and
for
listening
to
my
testimony
and
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you
so
much
lieutenant
governor
mr
sailing
appreciate
the
presentation.
Is
it
just
want
to
confirm
lieutenant
governor?
Is
that
it
for
the
presentation?
Are
you
ready
for
questions.
A
E
Well,
the
current
the
current
situation
with
the
state
laws
is
confusing
the
the
federal
laws
very,
very
tightly
defined,
who
can
invest
in.
E
Startups,
you
know
it's
they're
called
accredited
investors
on
the
federal
standard
from
the
state
standards.
It's
it's
really.
It's
it's
vague
as
to
as
to
whether
or
not
somebody
who's,
not
an
accredited
investor
can
actually
make
an
investment
in
their
own
family's
business.
E
Usually
those
kinds
of
things
are
not
pursued
by
regulators,
but
if
the,
if
the
family
relationship
gets
a
little
rocky,
that's
when
you
see
the
lawsuits
and
other
things
start
start
to
happen,
it
would
be
better.
I
think
if
we
were
to
make
it
absolutely
clear,
either
by
by
federal
standards
or
some
other
clear
standard
of
our
own,
that
that
was,
that
was
that
would
make
it
clear
who
could
and
couldn't
invest.
A
G
E
Jeff
sailing
for
the
record.
Sorry,
I
didn't
say
that
the
last
time
when
you
say
for
you
assemblyman,
do
you
mean
you
personally
or
you?
As
you
know,
a
member
of
the
assembly.
G
E
G
E
You'd,
be
it
any
if
you,
if
you
passed
this
law,
you
would
have
certainty
if
you
were
investing
in
the
nevada
business,
that
you
were
complying
with
the
law,
as
it
stated
right
now,
federally
meaning
if
you
obeyed
all
of
the
federal
regulation
with
regard
to
being
an
accredited
investor,
that
you
would
be
certain
that
your
investment
would
be
legal,
that
it
would
be
within
the
standard
of
the
law
and
that,
and
that's
really
that
simple,
that
you
would
know
that
when
you
made
the
investment,
if,
for
whatever
reason,
a
regulator
wanted
to
investigate
that
investment,
that
it
would
be
a
legal
transaction
and
couldn't
be
unwound
and
would
likely
not,
you
know,
survive
any
kind
of
litigation
because
she
said
hey.
G
Okay,
thank
you.
You
follow
up
mr
chair.
A
A
B
It's
thank
you
chair.
I
was
hesitating
slightly,
but
I
was
going
to
ask
madam
lieutenant
governor
if
she
could
just
go
over
one
more
time.
She
went
fairly
quickly
concerning
the
two-thirds
requirement,
as
I
understand
there's
a
reduction
in
fees,
but
that's
made
up
and
that's
the
part
where
I
lost
as
I
was
trying
to
follow
some
of
her
in
the
bill
itself.
Her
statements.
C
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neill,
kate,
marshall,
for
the
record
through
you,
chair,
yeager,
through
to
assemblyman
neil.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question,
because
I
think
it's
a
important
one.
So
the
secretary
of
state
told
us
that
they
tried
to
estimate
if
there
would
be
a
loss
in
licensing
fees
due
to
the
passage
of
this
bill.
They
estimate
that
those
licensing
fees
would
be
approximately
12
375
dollars
per
year
and
in
an
effort
to
give
them
an
opportunity
or
a
the
flexibility.
C
If
they
do
indeed
see
that
loss
in
revenue
to
bring
it
back
up
to
neutral,
we
have
in
the
bill
that
they
may,
if
they
choose
enact
a
fee
to
make
up
for
those
loss
of
revenues,
they
don't
have
to
enact
a
fee.
C
At
this
point
we
don't
know
if
there
will
be
a
loss
of
revenues,
how
much
the
loss
of
revenues
will
be
if
it
will
be
more
or
less.
But
I
think
the
secretary
of
state's
offices
has
the
expertise
in
that
area,
so
I'm
going
to
use
their
numbers
so
assuming
that
they
do
have
that
loss
in
revenue
as
they
anticipate
they
could
come
forward
with
the
fee
so
that
they
could.
This
would
be
revenue
neutral
for
the
secretary
of
state's
office.
C
So
it
is
not
a
requirement
that
the
secretary
of
state
office
set
a
fee,
but
they
may,
if
they
so
choose,
which
we
thought
would
was
appropriate,
because
if
there
is
a
loss
of
revenue,
we
think
it
is
appropriate
that
this
be
a
revenue
neutral
bill
in
that
regard.
C
But
the
two-thirds
requirement
then
comes
to
answer
your
question.
Taking
way
too
long
to
answer
your
question,
but
the
two-thirds
requirement
comes
from
the
fact
that
there
is
the
possibility
that
they
could
enact
a
fee.
B
C
Oh,
thank
you
assemblyman,
neil
and
through
you
chair,
yeager,
to
assemblymen
yeah.
That
is
a
that
is
a
great
idea
because
we
are
working
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office
on
trying
to
make
sure
this
is
revenue
neutral.
I
would
entertain
any
any
language
like
that.
Actually,
that's
a
that's
a
great
idea.
Did
you
have
some
wording
or
may
I
get
back
to
you
after
talking
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office?
How
would
you
like
me
to
proceed,
sir.
B
Lieutenant
governor,
I
just
thought
of
it
just
now,
so
I'm
not
that
sharp,
I
guess,
but
what
I
was
thinking
about
is
with
your
report.
That's
in
there
that
I
really.
I
really
do
like
that
report.
Maybe
it's
we
wait
until
after
the
report
they
can
show
and
then
look
at
it
to
the
next
legislature.
B
If
there's
a
fee
necessary,
a
fee
hike
can
to
allow
them
to
do
that
fee,
possibly
something
on
that
line.
But
I'd
love
to
hear
back
from
you
and
work
with
you
on
tightening
that
up
some,
but
I
think
we
could
do
it
in
4.5.
C
Thank
you,
assemblyman
neil
kate
marshall,
for
the
record
through
you,
chair,
yeager,
to
assemblyman
neil.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
I
have.
We
have
also
been
working
with
assemblyman,
chair,
yeager,
so
and
also
the
the
amendment
was
written
by
a
securities
professor
at
unlv,
who
has
been
very
helpful.
C
So
let
me
try
to
gather
greater
minds
and
see
if
we
can't
come
up
with
that
and
let
me
check
in
I
haven't
I
I
need
to
check
in
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
because
with
respect
to
the
amendment,
obviously
we
talked
to
them
first.
So
let
me
check
in
with
them,
and
I
will
get
back
to
you
as
soon
as
I
can.
If
that's
okay
with
you,
sir,
and
if
that's
okay
with
you,
chairman,
yeager.
B
A
H
Thank
you,
chair
yeager
and
ms
marshall.
I
appreciate
the
presentation
I
just
have
trying
to
understand.
H
So
investments
in
for
angels
would
still
be
run
through
an
authorized
investment
professional
who
would
advise
people
of
all
the
risk
of
their
investments,
and
you
all
are
just
trying
to
clear
make
this
match
with
the
rules
that
are
presently
in
place.
I
saw
in
the
digest
of
dodd-frank
federal
rules.
Is
that
what
I'm
understanding
just
to
make
things
clear
from
our
state
and
and
comply
with
the
federal
rules.
C
Yes,
thank
you
assemblywoman
and
through
you
chair,
yeager
to
the
assemblywoman.
I
appreciate
the
question
and
it's
an
important
one,
but
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
accurate.
I
want
to
turn
this
over
to
jeff
sailing.
If
that's
okay
with
you
chair,
yeager,
because
he
can,
he
is
more
familiar
with
the
exacting
prescriptions
of
the
rules.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair,
yeager,
jeff
sailing
for
the
record
and
assemblywoman
great
question.
What
this
is
a
really
straightforward
bill,
it'll
as
you
as
you
suggested.
It
aligns
this
perfectly
with
the
current
federal
law.
It's
it
doesn't
make
us
different.
It
aligns
us
exactly
with
that
law,
so
we
will
follow
the
rules
that
are
federally
out
there
right
now.
You
know
unless
people
decide
they're
going
to
amend
this
bill
and
change
it
in
some
way
that
right
now
as
it
stands,
it
would
follow
the
rule
exactly
as
it
is
federal.
A
Hey
do
we
have
additional
questions
from
committee
members?
I
think
everyone's
on
one
screen
this
morning,
so
I
can
see
you
all.
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
so
again
want
to
thank
our
presenters,
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment,
we'll
see
if
there's
any
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you
for
a
chance
to
wrap
up.
A
I
I
H
H
A
I
I
A
I
I
A
C
This
is
lieutenant
governor
kate
marshall,
for
the
record
again,
thank
you
for
having
me
this
morning.
I
greatly
appreciate
it
and
we
will
get
back
to
you
on
assemblyman
o'neill's
ideas
and
see
what
we
might
be
able
to
do
to
accommodate
those,
and
I
really
appreciate
coming
forward
with
the
idea.
Thank
you
very
much.
E
A
Hey,
thank
you
so
much
thanks
for
joining
us
here
on
spending
some
time
with
us
on
your
wednesday
morning
in
assembly
judiciary.
We
greatly
appreciate
it
and
we'll
be
in
touch
with
about
some
of
the
ideas
that
were
brought
up
in
today's
hearing,
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you
on
that.
So
thanks
again,
and
please
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
A
Okay,
I'll
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
9.
committee.
That
means
we're
moving
right
along
on
our
agenda.
Again,
we
are
going
to
take
the
bills
in
order.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
31.
senate
bill.
31S
31
makes
various
changes
relating
to
public
safety
and
I
believe
we
have
miss
mckay
with
us
on
the
zoom
to
hopefully
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you.
So
welcome
ms
mckay
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee
and
please
proceed.
J
A
I'm
sorry
I'm
sorry
about
that.
The
the
name
on
the
computer
says
mckay
and
I
was
looking
at
the
screen.
I
said
that
doesn't
look
like
miss
mckay,
but
welcome
to
the
committee
and
sorry
for
for
getting
your
name
wrong.
There.
J
That's
okay!
Thank
you.
We
threw
you
for
a
loop
today
for
the
record,
I'm
erica
susie
yamas
and
I'm
the
records
bureau
chief
with
the
department
of
public
safety
records,
communications
and
compliance
division.
J
section.
One
of
this
bill
amends
the
definition
of
a
record
of
criminal
history
under
nrs
179a.070,
by
replacing
the
word
district
attorney
with
prosecuting
attorney
to
ensure
that
the
central
repository
receives
charging
decisions
from
all
prosecuting
offices
across
the
state,
which
will
include
not
only
district
attorneys
but
city
of
city
attorneys,
as
well
as
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
J
This
will
ensure
we
receive
all
information
pertaining
to
a
criminal
arrest
to
meet
our
mission
of
having
complete
and
accurate
criminal
history
records
complete
and
accurate
criminal
history.
Records
are
critical
to
making
multiple
civil
and
criminal
determinations,
such
as
employment,
licensing,
firearms,
transfers,
charging
and
court
decisions.
J
J
Currently
this
section
requires
a
division
to
prepare
and
post
on
the
central
repository's
public
website,
an
annual
report
containing
statistical
data
relating
to
crime.
The
amendment
proposes
to
provide
an
electronic
means
to
access
the
data
on
the
central
repositories.
Public
website,
currently
repository
staff
spend
months
preparing
the
annual
report
for
publication.
J
J
This
is
consistent
with
our
fingerprint
based
background
checks,
whereas
we
provide
the
full
criminal
history
record.
Our
program
offers
a
research
service
which
allows
the
authorized
participants
to
request
that
our
staff
conduct
further
research
on
a
record
to
attempt
to
obtain
additional
information
to
make
an
informed
final
determination.
J
Similarly,
to
the
amendments
sought
in
section
2.,
currently,
the
central
repository
compiles
an
annual
written
report
concerning
various
temporary
and
extended
orders
for
protection
and
provides
the
report
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
on
or
before
july
1st
of
each
year,
as
with
section
2
of
this
bill.
These
amendments
provide
for
the
same
mechanism
of
data
access.
J
The
data
pursuant
to
this
section
will
be
placed
on
the
divisions
public
website.
Where
is
the
director
of
the
the
legislative
council
bureau,
may
access
the
information
at
his
or
her
leisure
and
finally,
section
5
mirrors
section
4
of
this
bill.
However,
the
report
pertains
to
to
statistical
data
on
the
abuse,
neglect,
exploitation,
isolation
or
abandonment
of
older
persons
or
vulnerable
persons.
J
Currently,
the
central
repository
compiles
an
annual
written
report
concerning
statistical
data
for
the
aforementioned
vulnerable
population
and
provides
the
report
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
on
or
before
july
1st
of
each
year
as
with
sections
two
and
four
of
this
bill.
These
amendments
provide
for
the
same
mechanism
of
data
access.
The
data
pursuant
to
this
section
will
be
placed
on
the
division's
website,
whereas
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
may
access
the
information
at
his
or
her
leisure.
J
This
concludes
my
presentation
and
with
that
I
request
the
committee
support
for
senate
bill
31
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have.
I'd
also
like
to
add
that
we'd
be
more
than
happy
to
meet
with
any
of
you
separately,
discussing
to
discuss
any
of
our
programs
to
provide
additional
information.
J
A
You
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
mrs
yamas.
Before
I
take
questions
from
the
committee,
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
when
you
were
describing
the
bill.
You
were
referencing
amendments,
but
I
think
you
were
referencing
that
the
nrs
is
being
amended.
There
aren't
any
proposed
amendments
for
the
actual
bill.
Are
there.
A
Thank
you
I
I
thought
that
was
the
case,
but
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear
for
the
record.
We
do
have
some
questions
from
committee
members
I'll
start.
First,
with
vice
chairwin.
D
D
It
was
the
former
or
the
late
assemblyman
tyrone
thompson's
bill
that
was
kind
of
the
ban,
the
box
legislation
that
you
know
changed
it
from
a
situation
where
employers
would
get
convictions,
but
it
appears
that
in
section
3
we
are
going
back
on
that
like
what
I
think
is
very
good
policy,
and
now
we
are
giving
employers
all
of
the
arrest
information,
including
unsubstantiated,
like
arrests,
that
are
a
part
of
like
the
entire
criminal
history
I
mean.
Is
that
the
intent
like
why?
Why
are
we
rolling
back
some
of
those
ban?
J
J
J
I
believe
384
the
language
in
there
pertains
to
state
or
local
government
agencies
and
doesn't
allow
them
to
consider
the
criminal
history
background
of
an
applicant
or
other
qualified
person
prior
to
the
earliest
of
either
a
final
interview
conducted
in
person
or
the
appointing
authority
has
made
a
conditional
offer
of
employment
to
the
applicant.
So
senate.
Bill
31
doesn't
impact
what
was
enacted
under
ab-384
in
2017.
D
Like
in
that
section,
five
section,
three
subsection
five,
it
talks
about
how
it
would
be
pertaining
to
records
of
criminal
history.
What
is
included
in
that
criminal
history,
like
distribution
like
what?
What
is
given
to
someone
if
they,
if
the
central
repository,
is
disseminating
an
authorized
participant
of
that
service?
What
is
included
in
that
criminal
history.
J
Erica
suzumus
for
the
record,
our
criminal
history
records,
contain
arrest
information.
So
when,
when
a
subject
is
arrested,
we
get
their
their
arrest
fingerprints,
the
arrest
information
is
there.
We
have
prosecution,
information
and
court
information
if
we've
received
all
of
that
from
the
courts
as
well.
D
But
any
kind
of
criminal
arrest,
even
if
it's
later
substantiated
or
denied
or
the
person
is
found
not
guilty,
would
still
be
included
on
that
criminal
history.
J
K
Thank
you
chair.
Sorry,
I
have
too
many
windows
open.
I
I
have
a
question
in
section
2
sub
8
d
3,
which
is
on
page
6
line
34.,
it's
existing
language,
but
it's
reference
to
moral
turpitude
crimes
of
moral
turpitude,
and
I
know
over
the
last
few
years
there
there
was
an
effort
to
take
moral
triplitude
out
of
our
the
term
out
of
our
statutes,
led
by
former
senator
parks.
K
But
can
can
you
tell
me
what
that's
referring
to
in
this
bill,
or
I
mean
in
this
section
of
the
statute
and
if,
if
you'd
be
adverse,
if
we
remove
that
language.
J
Erica
suzuyamas
for
the
record.
Quite
honestly,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
definition
of
crimes
of
moral
turpitude
include
I'm
as
far
as
removing
that
language
and
the
the
bill.
I
don't
see
any
issues
with
that.
If,
if
that
were
to
be
proposed.
K
Thank
you
and
and
chair,
could
we
have
council
maybe
address
that
for
us
or,
if
not
now,
maybe
look
into
that
and
and
let
the
committee
know
as
we
proceed
with
this
bill,
because
certainly
it's
a
good
opportunity
to
possibly
take
out
that
dated
and
and
somewhat
coded
language.
Let's
say.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
cohen,
mr
wilkinson,
not
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
I
want
to
give
you
a
chance
to
respond
to
that.
If,
if
you
have
a
thought
right
now
or
if
not
just
let
me
know,
you
need
a
little
more
time
and
we
can
have
you
follow
up
afterwards.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'd
be
happy
to
look
into
that
issue.
Some
more
there's
a
lot
of
well.
Maybe
there's
not
a
lot.
B
There's
some
case
law
from
other
states
about
what
a
crime
of
moral
turpitude
is
it's
kind
of
a
complicated
issue
and
something
we
would
need
to
look
into
a
little
more
if,
depending
on
what
the
desire
of
the
committee
is
to
to
do
with
that
section,
simply
removing
it
obviously
would
be
easy
enough,
but
if
there's
some
desire
to
define
it
in
some
way,
that's
probably
going
to
take
some
work.
K
Thank
you,
sharon,
thank
you,
mr
wilkinson,
and
and
thank
you,
miss
suzumas
and,
and
I
I
realize
I'm
putting
you
on
the
spot
as
well,
and
if
maybe
you
can
just
look
into
that
with
your
department
to
make
sure
if
we
did
choose
to
do
something.
The
committee,
that
is,
that
that
that
would
be
acceptable
to
your
office.
A
B
Thank
you
chair,
mrs
suzamas.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
see
the
effectiveness
state
is
upon
passage
and
approval
on
neighbors.
Will
this
make
us
a
neighbor's
compliant
state
and
two
are
all
the
agencies
that
contribute?
Are
they
capable
of
putting
into
the
electronic
data
form,
or
is
it
still
going
to
be
a
hand,
tabulation
or
submission?
I
should
say.
J
Erika
suzuyamas
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
A
nevada
is
already
a
neighbor's
compliance
state,
so
we
became
compliant
effective
january
1st
of
this
year.
All
of
our
contributing
agencies
to
the
ucr
program
are
currently
submitting
through
an
electronic
means,
either
directly
into
neighbors
or
through
one
of
the
tools
that
we've
implemented
for
them.
If
they
haven't
been
able
to,
if
they
don't
have
their
own
local
case
management
systems
that
are
interfaced
with
an
ivers
program.
A
If
you
have
a
question,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand,
please,
okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions
at
this
time,
so
miss
souza
yamas.
Thank
you
for
presenting
we'll
ask
you
to
sit
tight
for
just
a
moment.
While
we
take
some
testimony
on
the
bill
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
concluding
remarks,
I
don't
see
anyone.
A
I
A
I
I
H
Hi,
jim
hoffman,
representing
nevada,
attorneys
for
criminal
justice
nscj
wants
to
thank
the
proponents
of
the
bill
for
bringing
it.
We
don't
oppose
most
of
it,
but
we
do
oppose
section
three
based
on
the
concerns
that
assemblywoman
win
ways
raised.
Sorry
specifically,
we
oppose
it
because
it
would
expand
background
checks
to
cover
arrests
and
other
information.
H
H
H
You're
just
going
to
look
at
that
multi-page
arrest,
printout
assume
he's
some
kind
of
hardcore
career
criminal
and
reject
him
out
of
hand.
This
former
client
of
mine
is
an
unusual
case,
but
he's
not
the
only
person
in
this
position
and
many
other
people
have
less
severe
versions
of
this
problem.
Sp
31
would
not
improve
public
safety.
It
would
just
place
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
ability
of
people
to
get
jobs
in
housing.
A
I
H
Good
morning,
chairman
yeager
and
members
of
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office,
and
my
opposition
is
also
focused
on
section
3,
subsection.
Five.
A
currently
existing
law,
nrs
1798.103,
means
that
the
central
repository
shall
disseminate
only
convictions,
and
I
have
to
imagine
that
this
body
considered
that
when
originally
crafting
nrs,
179
a.103,
just
like
mr
hoffman,
said,
and
then
to
hear
that
the
central
repository
has
maybe
even
giving
this
information
out
anyways.
H
If
so,
have
they
been
violating
the
law
and
for
how
long?
If
they've
been
given
this
information
out
and
that's
the
way
they've
always
been
doing
it
so
that
that
is
a
little
bit
concerning
to
us.
We
have
the
same
issues
that
mr
hoffman
expressed
right
before
us,
so
we
oppose
removing
section,
3
subsection
5a
to
give
unsubstantiated
arrest
to
employers
and
make
it
harder
to
get
a
job.
The
surest
cure
for
recidivism
is
a
good
job,
and
this
bill
would
go
against
that.
H
A
I
F
F
I
would
echo
the
statements
made
by
mr
hoffman
as
well
as
mr
pirro,
and
that
my
office's
concerns
is
also
with
section
3
and
justice
section
3..
It's
our
understanding
that
the
purpose
of
this
bill
regarding
this
section
is
due
to
fiscal
issues
where
the
department's
unable
to
then
just
provide
the
records
which
reflect
criminal
convictions
only.
F
Unfortunately,
although
we
understand
the
fiscal
issues
and
the
time
constraints
and
all
the
issues
that
we
put
on
the
central
repository,
this
is
a
very
important
issue,
because
employment
is
the
key
to
reducing
recidivism,
so
the
more
ways
that
we
are
decreasing
a
person's
ability
to
get
a
job.
We
believe
that
that
is,
unfortunately
impacting
our
public
safety.
F
So
we
do
oppose
this
bill,
specifically
with
section
3
and
agree
that
it
unfortunately
does
not
comply
with
the
intent
of
assemblyman
tyrone
thompson's
bill,
which
was
to
get
rid
of
the
stigma
to
allow
for
the
prospective
employers
to
get
to
know
the
prospective
employee
for
their
values
and
for
their
worst
effect,
their
education
and
for
their
experience,
rather
than
their
involvement
in
the
criminal
justice
system.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention.
A
I
A
J
A
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
john
mccormick.
I'm
the
assistant
court
administrator
at
the
nevada
supreme
court's
administrative
office
of
the
courts
senate
bill
42
is
intended
to
transfer
the
responsibility
for
printing
and
distribution
of
nevada
reports,
advance
opinions
and
court
rules
from
the
legislative
council
bureau
to
the
supreme
court
that
responsibility
used
to
lie
with
the
secretary
of
state's
office
prior
to
1973
and
then
in
1973
lcb
took
over
that
responsibility.
L
At
this
point,
it
seems
appropriate
for
the
court
to
to
take
over
that
responsibility
of
disseminating
its
own
sort
of
decisions
and
rules.
This
bill
also
eliminates
the
statutory
requirement
to
print
750,
hard
copies
of
nevada
reports
and
those
are
the
collected
opinions
of
the
supreme
court
and
rather
gives
discretion
on
how
many
hard
copies
to
print
to
the
chief
justice.
L
Currently
we
end
up
with
a
bunch
of
extra
hard
copies
of
nevada
reports
that
nobody
wants,
that
we
keep
in
storage
with
state
printing
in
lcb.
So
this
would
attempt
to
address
that,
for
this
fiscal
year
cost
about
twenty
eight
thousand
dollar,
twenty
eight
thousand
eight
hundred
and
thirty
two
dollars
to
print
those
hard
copies
that
end
up
going
in
total
and
some
of
those
go
unused.
So
this
would
potentially
result
in
a
little
bit
of
a
cost
saving
there.
I
know
this
isn't
a
money
committee,
but
I
feel.
L
To
share
that
this
bill
allows
distribution,
printing
in
paper
and
electronic
format
in
order
to
modernize
that
dissemination
and
also
to
let
us
meet
the
needs
of
recipients.
There
are
a
number
of
entities
that
receive
this
information
by
statute
at
no
cost
and
some
want
to
relieve
or
receive
it
electronically.
L
So
this
will
explicitly
allow
that
to
to
modernize
that
distribution
practically,
we
don't
really
have
any
plans
to
change
from
utilizing
state,
printing
and
I've
had
a
conversation
with
zertos
the
director
of
lcb
and
we're
we're
all
committed
to
continuing
to
share
this
information
freely,
with
lcb,
for
inclusion
in
publications
etc,
and
the
idea
is
to
create
more
access
to
the
the
court's
opinions
than
currently
exists.
L
As
I
indicated,
people
who
currently
receive
free
sets
under
statute
will
still
get
a
free
set,
and
obviously
that
will
be
provided
to
the
legislative
council
bureau
as
well.
I
would
just
note
that
this
is
not
intended
as
a
money-making
endeavor.
The
the
amount
of
revenue
that's
brought
in
from
sale
of
nevada
reports
is
fairly
minimal.
However,
this
does
transfer
that
money
from
the
legislative
council
bureau
to
the
supreme
court
to
help
offset
those
printing
costs.
L
This
bill
also
removes
the
statutory
requirement
that
the
supreme
court
required
by
court
rule
training
regarding
medical
malpractice
cases
district
judges.
That
requirement
was
added
in
during
the
2005
special
session
when
the
state
was
experiencing
what
was
referred
to
as
a
medical
malpractice
insurance
crisis.
L
However,
at
this
point,
medical
and
professional
liability
education
for
district
judges
is
a
core
competency
under
our
district
court,
judge
training
model
and
is
regularly
trained,
usually
every
two
to
three
years.
We
train
on
this
a
lot.
We
train
about
medical
malpractice
to
our
district
court
judges
last
year
during
our
what
became
a
virtual
district
court
judges
seminar
and
we'll
continue
to
train
that
as
appropriate
and
necessary.
L
We've
also
seen
increased
specialization
within
the
district
courts,
which
has
allowed
judges
to
become
experts
in
sort
of
or
gain
more
expertise
in
specific
issue
areas,
including
medical
malpractice.
So
we
think
that
the
statutory
requirement
for
that
training
is
no
longer
necessary,
as
it's
part
of
our
core
competency
training
scheme,
and
we
do
have
that
specialization.
L
A
A
K
Thank
you-
and
this
is
a
new
to
me,
so
I
I
guess
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
clarify
what
is
available
to
to
folks
online.
So
if
the
hard
copies
aren't
there,
would
they
is
there
another
avenue
that
they
can
find
out
and
is
this
information?
Are
decisions
typically
always
made
available,
or
is
there
sometimes
where
things
are
redacted
or
just
trying.
L
To
thank
you
assemblywoman
for
the
record
john
mccormick.
Yes,
this
information
is
available
online.
All
advanced
opinions
are
available
on
the
supreme
court
website
and
this
actually
will
increase
the
availability
by
allowing
us
to
publish
it
electronically
decisions,
court
rules
etc
also
available
through
a
number
of
other
sources,
the
lake
west
law,
lexisnexis
services
and
also,
as
we'll
continue
maintaining
our
relationship
with
lcb
and
disseminating
this
information.
L
It
will
continue
to
be
available
on
the
legislature's
website,
where
you
can
find
a
lot
of
this
right
now,
so
we're
hoping
that
this
actually
increases
the
availability
of
that
that
information
and,
as
I
said,
the
the
hard
copies
are
sort
of
old
school
and
and
a
lot
of
people
now
want
it
electronically,
rather
than
in
hard
copy.
L
A
number
of
anecdotally
a
number
of
attorneys
say
what
hard
copy
I
always
use
the
online
version,
so
that's
our
intent
is
actually
to
make
it
more
available
and
again
advanced
opinions
are
published
on
the
supreme
court's
website.
If
you
you
go
to
our
website,
you
can
find
them
right
on
the
front
page.
B
K
L
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
the
record
again,
john
mccormick,
no
you!
If,
if
it's
on
the
on
the
website,
you
can
print
it,
you
only
would
be
the
only
restrictions
would
be
through
those
other
services
like
lexus
nexus
and
west
law
that
folks
pay
for.
But
if
you
just
sort
of
went
to
it
through
the
the
normal
channels,
yeah,
you
can
print
to
your
heart's
content.
Thank
you.
A
H
If
you're
not
going
to
be
teaching
med,
med
mal
as
as
regularly
do
you
are
you
going
to
address
training
for
the
other
specialty
courts
that
you
mentioned
earlier,
or
is
that
training
only
for
those
who
work,
those
specialty
courts
or
is
that
broad
training
for
all
judges
to
deal
with
those
issues
and
some
of
the
specialty
course
the
veterans
courts,
the
drug
traffic,
the
drug
courts?
If
you
can
elaborate,
thank
you.
L
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
the
record
again
john
mccormick
medical
malpractice,
as
I
said,
as
a
core
competency
for
all
our
district
judge
training.
So
so
all
district
judges
have
the
opportunity
to
receive
that
training.
As
far
as
specialty
court
training,
we
every
other
year
hold
a
specially
court
conference
for
all
nevada,
especially
courts.
This
la
this
past
year
2020
we
had
our
first
virtual
conference.
We
had
over
252
unique
attendees
at
that.
L
L
We
in
the
past
have
brought
tune-up
training
from
the
nadcp
and
the
drug
court
institute
to
nevada.
We
also
fund,
through
our
specialty
court
funding
training
for
individual
team
members,
so
this
medical
malpractice
requirement
isn't
necessarily
connected
to
our
specialty
court
training,
which
is
pretty
robust.
We
also
train
at
our
judges,
seminars
on
substance
abuse,
mental
health
type
issues
at
both
the
district
and
limited
jurisdiction
level.
For
example,
we
just
produced
the
webinar.
L
It
had
a
family
court
focus
but
was
available
to
all
judges
regarding
opioid
addiction
and
how
that
sort
of
you
know
the
interplay
of
that
in
terms
of
family
courts
and
the
state
bar
has
also
mandated
that
all
attorneys
receive
training
on
substance
abuse
within
the
legal
profession.
And
so
we
also
make
that
training
available
to
our
judges.
So
they
can
fulfill
those
cle
requirements
so
that
training
is
usually
oriented
like,
as
I
said,
to
to
substance
abuse
within
the
profession
but
yeah.
L
I
think
we
we
have
a
fairly
robust
training
program
across
all
those
areas.
A
And,
of
course
we
have
the,
I
don't
know
if
you
mentioned
it,
mr
mccormick,
but
we
have
the
national
judicial
college
right
up
here
in
northern
nevada
up
in
reno
and
that's
mandatory
for
all
newly
elected
judges.
Then
I
think
there
are
refresher
courses
as
well,
but
I
would
recommend
committee
members.
A
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
visit
visit
there,
you
should
it's
really
a
wonderful
wonderful
training
ground
for
judges,
not
just
from
nevada
but
all
across
the
the
country
and
internationally,
as
well,
so
very
proud
to
have
that
right
here
in
northern
nevada,.
L
If
I'm
may,
mr
chair
again
jonathan
for
the
record
just
to
to
hit
on
that
national
judicial
college
point,
as
you
indicated,
all
judges,
when
they're
newly
elected
are
statutorily
required
to
receive
training
from
the
judicial
college
related
to
their
specific
jurisdiction
level.
So
if
the
district
court
judge
general
jurisdiction
family
court,
they
have
an
additional
family
class,
and
sometimes
that
comes
from
the
national
council,
family
and
juvenile
court
judges,
which
is
another
great
resource
that
we
have
in
state
and
limited
jurisdiction.
L
Judges
also
obviously
take
a
course
and
there's
different
courses
because,
as
you
know,
we
have
some
lay
judges
in
nevada
versus
attorney
judges
at
limited
jurisdiction
level.
Also,
all
judges
have
to
take
a
class
regarding
managing
their
courtroom,
ethics,
those
kind
of
things,
and
just
incidentally,
that
includes
training
on
bias
and
those
type
of
issues
so
yeah.
L
The
national
judicial
college
is
a
valuable
resource
and
it's
a
great
resource
to
have
here
in
nevada,
and
if
I
can
take
one
more
just
kind
of
point
here
just
like
to
to
indicate
that
we're
also
launching
a
training,
it's
called
the
red
door
project,
it's
out
of
portland
oregon.
It
deals
with
implicit
bias,
racial
equality
issues
in
the
criminal
justice
system,
we're
making
that
available
to
all
the
district
court
judges
in
may
and
all
of
our
limited
jurisdiction.
Judges
in
june.
A
Thank
you,
mr
mccormick
appreciate
that
I
think
we
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
cohen.
Please
go
ahead.
K
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
mr
mccormick,
and
I'm
sorry.
If
you
touched
on
this
in
your
presentation,
I
was
I
aming
with
counsel
about
something
else,
but
on
in
section
eight
sub
five,
the
deletion
of
supreme
court
and
district
court
rules
from
from
the
nrs.
K
Can
you
address
that
and
say
where
those
are
going
to
be
and
what
the
purpose
is
for
that
part
of
the
bill.
L
Thank
you
assemblywoman
again,
john
mccormick
for
the
record,
that's
being
removed
for
consistency
since
the
publication
responsibility
is
being
transferred
from
lcb
to
the
supreme
court,
they'll
be
available
on
the
court's
website,
and
we
also
intend
to
continue
sharing
those
with
lcb.
So
the
idea
is
no
one
will
actually
see
a
difference.
It's
just
who
publishes
them
statutorily
so,
hopefully
that's
a
behind
the
scenes.
Change
that
nobody
notices.
Okay,
as
I
indicated,
I
talked
with
miss
erdos
and
we're
we're
all
on
the
same
page
in
terms
of
keeping
the
pages
going.
K
A
Right
not
seeing
further
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
mccormick.
We'll
have
you
sit
tight
for
a
moment.
Let's
see,
if
there's
any
testimony
on
the
bill
at
this
time,
I'll
open
up
for
testimony
in
support,
we
don't
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
bps.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
phone
line
who
would
like
to
offer
supportive
testimony.
I
A
A
I
A
L
I
apologize
mr
chair
again
john
mccormick
for
the
record.
Just
thank
you
for
the
hearing
and
glad
I
could
bring
you
a
nice
boring
bill.
A
Thank
you,
mr
mccormick.
I
was
going
to
say
the
bill
was
a
simple
bill
or
easy
bill,
but
I
didn't
want
to
jinx
it,
so
I
think
we
got
through
it
only
because
I
didn't
say
that
if
we,
if
I
had
said
that
we
probably
would
have
had
25
people
on
the
phone
calling
about
the
bill,
so
thanks
for
being
here,
mr
mccormick,
it
was
good
to
see
you
and
please
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day,
so
committee
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
42
that
takes
us
to
public
comment.
A
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
each
meeting.
Callers
on
the
public
comment
line
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
Public
comment
is
a
time
to
raise
matters
of
a
general
nature
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
committee
bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
for
public
comment.
I
I
M
I
call
for
the
living
because
I
want
things
to
change.
So
no
family
has
to
know
the
heartache
that
my
family
and
so
many
other
families
know.
Today.
I
want
to
talk
about
rex
vance,
wilson,
rex
vance
wilson
was
50
years
old
when
he
was
killed.
10
13
2016
by
las
vegas
metro
after
lvmpd
disabled
his
vehicle
already
missing
a
tire.
They
immediately
opened
fire
on
rex.
M
All
these
people
I
call
and
talk
about
who
have
lost
their
lives
to
police,
are
human
beings,
somebody's
loved
one
rex
married
petra,
gonzalez
in
rapid
city,
south
dakota,
on
august
27
1988
in
december
of
1988.
He
joined
the
united
states
marine
corps
and
was
assigned
to
judea
camp
pendleton
until
1994
in
1995
him
and
his
family
moved
to
henderson.
M
The
excited
young
couple
immediately
began
to
follow
their
dreams
of
expanding
a
large
family.
They
were
blessed
with
10,
beautiful
and
amazing
children,
mario
aaron,
alex
haven,
jesse,
haley,
hermione,
matthew,
helena
and
elijah.
He
and
petra
were
dedicated
parents.
Rex
wilson
was
a
loving,
dedicated
father
and
husband
with
a
great
sense
of
humor.
He
was
a
family
man
who
was
present
at
all
important
functions
of
his
children's
lives
and
also
enjoyed
family
gatherings
such
as
holiday
celebrations
attending
his
children's
sporting
event
being
a
voice
of
guidance
for
his
children.
M
I
A
A
Right,
I
don't
see
anything.
Thank
you.
Committee
members.
We
have
now
cleared
out
all
the
senate
bills
that
we
have
in
front
of
us.
Well,
I
take
that
back.
We
put
out
three
of
them.
I
think
we
have
a
couple
more
that
we
may
be
able
to
hear
tomorrow,
but
that's
all
we
have
in
the
committee
right
now
so
we'll
see
if
we
get
some
more
senate
bills
on
the
floor
today,
I
suspect
we
will,
in
terms
of
where
we
go
from
here.
We
are
going
to
have
a
meeting
tomorrow.
A
It's
going
to
be
at
9
00
rather
than
8
o'clock
and
we're
going
to
hear
either
one
or
two
bills,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
confirmation.
So
I'll
get
those
to
you
as
soon
as
I
can,
and
we
are
going
to
be
back
in
the
committee
room
tomorrow.
So
this
will
be
hopefully
our
last
virtual
meeting
of
this
kind.
So
remember
nine
o'clock
tomorrow
in
the
committee
room,
if
you
don't
know
where
the
committee
room
is
feel
free
to
ask
one
of
us
who've
been
in
there.
A
I
know
we
have
a
lot
of
new
members
on
the
committee
this
session
and
then
in
terms
of
friday.
I
don't
know
yet
whether
we're
going
to
have
a
meeting
on
friday.
It
kind
of
just
depends
what
we
might
get
on
the
floor
today
and
likely
next
week,
we'll
probably
end
up
canceling
monday
and
tuesday,
due
to
having
longer
floor
sessions,
but
I'll
get
confirmation
of
that
as
well
and
I'll.
Let
you
know
as
soon
as
I
know
so,
committee
will
see
you
back
in
the
committee
room
tomorrow
morning
at
9
00
a.m.