►
From YouTube: 2/16/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
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
E
F
E
H
C
A
We
do
have
a
quorum
so
again
good
morning
to
the
members
good
morning
to
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
tuning
in
either
on
the
legislature's
website
or
on
our
youtube
channel.
Welcome
to
another
judiciary
meeting
before
we
get
started
just
a
few
housekeeping
rules
for
people
on
the
zoom.
If
you
could
mute
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that
would
be
helpful
for
our
presenters
today.
A
If
you
could
remember
to
state
your
name
each
time
before
you
speak,
even
when
you're
asked
questions,
I
know
it's
a
little
awkward,
but
I'll
try
to
remind
you
to
do
that.
It
just
helps
our
committee
secretaries
when
they
prepare
the
minutes.
We
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
Even
if
we
don't
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we'll
be
respectful
of
one
another
and
of
the
legislative
institution
and
then
finally,
for
members
of
the
public
who
are
watching
we're
trying
to
navigate
this
virtual
world.
So
many
of
us
have
multiple
screens
and
devices
that
we're
working
on
at
one
time.
A
So
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
for
inattention
if
members
appear
to
be
looking
away
from
their
screens,
they're,
probably
looking
at
exhibits
or
trying
to
process
this
virtual
world
and
then
before
we
get
started.
I
did
want
to
note
for
the
record
that
assemblywoman
krasner
is
present.
So,
mr
secretary,
if
you
could
mark
her
as
present,
I
would
appreciate
that.
A
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly,
bill,
59
and
assembly
bill
59
revises
provisions
revises
various
provisions
relating
to
tobacco
and
I
believe,
as
part
of
this
bill
presentation
we're
going
to
hear
a
little
bit
of
background
information
about
the
master
tobacco
settlement
since
this
bill
deals
with
tobacco.
So
I
want
to
welcome
the
attorney
general's
office,
mr
george,
and
I
think
that's
miss
adair
with
you.
A
Although
it's
hard
to
tell
on
the
screen,
I
can
giving
a
thumbs
up
and
then
welcome
miss
hillary
bunker
as
well
who's
joining
us.
So
what
we'll
do
is
give
you
a
chance
to
make
your
presentation
on
the
bill.
I
will
let
members
know
before
we
get
started.
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
look
at
nellis,
there
is
a
proposed
amendment
to
a
couple
parts
of
the
bill
that
is
on
nellis
as
well.
A
That
amendment
does
come
from
the
attorney
general's
office,
so
I'm
sure
they'll
go
through
that
in
the
presentation
and
then
when
they're
finished,
with
their
presentation,
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions
like
normal,
so
welcome
to
the
committee
and
whoever
would
like
to
start
first
on
assembly
bill
59.
Please
go
ahead.
J
Good
morning,
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
jessica,
adair
and
I'm
the
chief
of
staff
for
the
office
of
the
attorney
general,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
nevada
attorney
general
aaron
ford
to
present
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
59
with
me
today.
Here
in
this
room
is
first
assistant.
Kyle
george
and
joining
us
from
a
separate
screen
is
supervising
senior
deputy
attorney
general
hilary
bunker
and
senior
dag
hillary
bunker
oversees
our
tobacco
enforcement
unit.
J
By
way
of
brief
introduction
in
1998
nevada
entered
into
the
tobacco
master
settlement
agreement
or
msa,
which
resolved
health-related
lawsuits
between
the
nation's
largest
tobacco
manufacturers
and
52
united
states
and
territories
in
exchange
for
the
receipt
of
annual
msa
payments,
the
state
of
nevada
must
demonstrate
diligence
in
the
regulation
and
enforcement
of
the
sale
of
tobacco
products
in
our
state.
Ab59
is
brought
for
your
consideration
and
furtherance
of
our
diligent
enforcement
efforts.
K
By
entering
into
this
settlement
agreement,
the
state
did
not
have
to
participate
in
arbitration
proceedings
to
determine
our
diligence
in
enforcing
the
nsa
for
those
years.
However,
this
is
only
for
the
years
referenced
and,
as
mentioned,
there's
no
sunset
provision
for
the
msa,
so
the
question
of
diligence.
It
has
to
be
determined
every
year.
K
K
states
have
three
years
to
enforce
tobacco
21
or
t21
as
it
is
commonly
known,
or
they
risk
losing
up
to
10
of
their
federal
block
grant
funding.
Currently
there
are
33
states
who
have
raised
their
legal
sales
age
to
21
plus
numerous
localities
section.
One
of
our
bill
relates
to
someone
selling
loose
cigarettes
or
open
packages
of
tobacco
products,
and
currently
the
penalty
is
a
criminal
misdemeanor.
K
References
to
child
have
been
replaced
to
person,
and
this
accounts
for
the
age,
change,
sections
four
and
six
are
related
to
delivery
sales
and
both
broaden
that
definition.
So
all
tobacco
products
are
captured,
whereas
currently
only
cigarettes
are
captured
additionally,
section
6,
cross-references,
chapter
202,
which
contains
the
requirements
again
for
selling
online
or
through
an
electronic
network
and
contemplate
civil
penalties
for
violation
of
the
law.
K
K
Currently
in
nevada,
you
cannot
sell
almost
any
tobacco
product
to
someone
under
the
age
of
18..
Section
5
amends
the
definition
of
other
tobacco
products
in
chapter
370
to
include
products
derived
from
tobacco
which
are
currently
not
captured.
This
is
also
the
section
that
triggers
the
two-thirds
majority
vote
as
the
subset
of
project
products
will
now
be
captured
under
the
excise
tax
requirements
and
then
last.
K
A
Thank
you
so
much.
I
just
wanted
to
check
with
mr
george
miss
adair
anything
to
add.
Or
would
you
like
me
to
go
to
questions
at
this
point.
A
A
The
proposed
amendment
which
you
talked
about,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
for
the
online
sales
of
tobacco
or
tobacco-related
products
to
ultimate
consumers
who
who
is
allowed
in
the
state
to
sell
online
is,
is
that
just
kind
of
open
to
to
everybody?
Or
is
this
really
meant
to
apply
to
you
know
manufacturers
so
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
how
broad
how
broadly
this
applies?
And
I
guess
how
prolific
online
sales
of
tobacco-related
products
are
in
the
state.
K
This
is
hillary
bunker
for
the
record,
and
anyone
can
sell
into
the
state
of
nevada
with
the
proper
licensure
from
the
department
of
taxation
and
remitting
the
proper
excise
taxation.
So
it
is
meant
to
capture
those
that
can
otherwise
legally
sell
to
ensure
that
they're
also
doing
the
age
verification
side.
That
would
go
with
it
to
verify
that
the
consumers
are
who
they
say.
They
are.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
then
I
guess
just
a
follow-up
to
that.
I
think
I
know
the
answer,
but
I
want
to
be
sure
you
had
indicated
that
anybody
could
sell
into
the
state
of
nevada,
but
there
was
some
essentially
some
administrative
work.
They
need
to
do
with
the
department
of
taxation.
So
if
somebody
violates
these
provisions,
I'm
assuming
that
the
state
of
nevada
would
have
jurisdiction
to
potentially
administer
civil
penalties
or
criminal
penalties
because
of
that
agreement
that
the
entity
has
with
the
department
of
taxation
or
otherwise.
A
I
guess
I'm
a
little
confused.
If
someone
was
in
another
state
and
selling
into
the
state
of
nevada,
are
we
going
to
have
a
jurisdictional
issue
in
trying
to
hold
those
people
accountable
or
do
you
have
you
know,
sort
of
agreements
with
other
attorney
generals?
Were
there
ways
to
get
at
those
actors.
K
Hillary
bunker,
for
the
record,
that
is
correct
by
the
same
way
that
someone
would
be
treated
in
state
for
not
remitting
taxation
or
not
obtaining
a
license.
First,
that
the
department
and
the
state
as
a
whole
has
the
ability
to
pursue
civil
penalties
for
anyone
that
doesn't
comply
with
the
law.
And
what
we
feel
like
in
the
amendment
is
that
it
really
gives
us,
I
would
say,
a
better
enforcement
opportunity.
K
We
have
talked
to
other
states,
and
we've
also
been
in
touch
with
our
own
bureau
of
consumer
protection
within
the
ag's
office,
to
see
how
they're
handling
some
of
the
issues
that
may
be
analogous
to
this
with
out
of
state
bad
players
and
that's
what,
in
speaking
to
other
states
and
our
own
internal
unit,
that
it
it
feels
like
the
best
fit,
is
going
to
be.
If
we
can
capture
this
as
a
deceptive
trade
practice.
A
Thank
you
and
then
the
last
question
I
have
before
I'll
open
it
up,
for
others
is
section
7,
which
you
highlighted,
and
you
know
I
know
a
lot
of
this
is
existing
language,
but
the
category
c
felony,
obviously
piqued
my
interest
a
little
bit.
So
I
just
wondered:
if
you
had
any
information
about
that
section
7,
I
guess
potential
charge
has
that.
Has
that
been
used
against
folks
in
the
state?
I
guess
in
the
last
or
as
long
as
you've
been
in
this
role.
K
A
Felony
charge,
thank
you
for
that
response.
I
know
I
have
a
number
of
questions,
but
so
far
I
have
a
couple
in
the
queue
so
we're
going
to
start
with
assemblywoman
billbray
axelrod
and
then
we'll
go
to
assemblyman
wheeler
and
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
more
after
that.
So
please
go
ahead.
Assemblywoman
bilbray,
axelrod.
C
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
this
presentation.
I
had
a
question
in
section
one:
it's
outlined
that
the
punishment
is
provided
in
chapter
370
of
nrs
and
I
did
go
to
chapter
370
of
nrs
and
I
was
having
a
difficult
time
trying
to
find
where
that
laid
out
exactly
what
the
punishment
would
be.
So
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
kind
of
give
us
a
an
idea
of
what
what
that
would
do
exactly.
K
Sure
and
hillary
bunker,
for
the
record,
there
are
two
separate
civil
penalty
provisions
that
either
the
department
of
taxation
or
the
attorney
general's
office
relies
on.
One
is
found
in
370.696
and
one
is
found
in
370.5
and
both
of
those
are
monetary
violations,
with
a
thousand
dollars
being
the
initial
civil
penalty.
C
K
C
C
J
Okay,
thank
you.
If
I
may
follow
up
chairman,
this
is
jessica
adair
for
the
record.
In
2019
we
did
an
extensive
restructuring
of
these
penalties
to
remove
criminal
penalties
for
clerks,
who
had
previously
suffered
criminal
penalties
for
selling
to
folks
who
were
underage,
we
felt
that
was
an
inappropriate
use
of
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
so
we
changed
that
to
a
civil
penalty
structure.
J
Additionally,
the
warnings
to
the
retailers
was
a
a
new
addition
in
the
last
in
the
bill
that
we
passed
last
session.
Previously
retailers
did
not
have
any
penalties.
The
penalty
only
went
to
the
clerk
of
the
retail
store
we
felt
like
that
did
not
appropriately
address
a
larger
issue,
perhaps
training
at
the
retail
establishment.
I
just
wanted
to
give
that
background
on
that
structure,
as
it
has
changed
recently,
and
so
thank
you
for
your
for
your
indulgence.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Let
me
preface
by
saying
that
obviously
assemblywoman
hardy
and
I
brought
a
very
similar
bill
forward
in
the
last
session
that
just
didn't
quite
make
the
time
constraints.
So,
overall,
I
think
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
good,
but
I
see
some
things
in
here
that
I
just
don't
get
like
someone
being
guilty
of
a
category
c
felony
for
selling
cigarettes
and
having
a
felony
record
for
the
rest
of
their
life,
but
even
beyond
that
on
section
8.
My
question
is,
I
think,
is
subsection
three.
D
This
could
just
be
my
layman's
mind
reading
this
incorrectly,
but
the
way
I
read
that
son
who
say,
works
in
a
convenience
store
or
you
know
a
market
or
something
and
they
sell
cigarettes
from
under
21
years
old,
so
an
18,
19
or
20
year
old
would
not
be
able
to
actually
sell
legal
cigarettes
across
the
counter
to
someone
who
is
six
seven
years
old.
K
No,
that
is
not
correct.
The
correct
reading
is
so
that
someone
can
work
in
a
convenience
store
can
handle
cigarettes
in
the
course
of
their
employment,
even
if
they
are
under
21..
So
currently
we
have
that
exception
for
people
under
the
age
of
18,
and
what
we've
done
is
raise
that
so
that
people
under
the
age
of
21
can
continue
to
work
and
handle
those
products
in
the
course
of
their
employment.
J
Jessica,
dear
for
the
record,
just
a
clarification
as
to
estimating
assemblyman
wheeler's.
First
remark
about
the
category
c:
felony:
that
is
existing
law.
That
is
not
what
we
are
proposing
to
add
in
this
in
this
bill.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
on
the
record.
C
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
hope
I
didn't
miss
this.
I
kind
of
got
wrapped
up
in
reading
through
the
amendment
during
part
of
your
presentation,
but
what
what
are
we
going
to
do
to
help
those
already
legal
smokers
who
are
18
19,
even
20,
who
have
been
possibly
smoking
for
years,
but
legally
smoking
for
several
months?
What
are
we
doing
to
help
them,
because
now
we've
taken
something
that
they're
frankly
addicted
to
in
making
it
illegal.
K
Hillary
bunker
for
the
record,
and
unfortunately
I
would
say
that
this
is
outside
of
my
wheelhouse
in
terms
of
cessation
or
handling
working
with
adult
smokers
who
are
looking
to
quit.
So,
unfortunately,
I
do
not
have
an
answer
for
you
on
the.
I
know
that
there
are
programs
available
at
the
county
and
state
level,
but
I
don't
have
enough
information
to
speak
to
that.
J
Chairman
jessica,
I
dare
for
the
record
well
senior
dad
hillary
bunker
is
correct
that
our
office
does
not
run
any
cessation
programs.
I
would
note
that
federal
law
has
already
put
those
smokers
in
a
particularly
uncomfortable
position
and,
additionally,
the
msa
payments
that
our
state
receives
partly
go
to
our
office
for
enforcement
efforts,
but
partly
go
to
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
for
programs
for
the
for
public
health
programs
for
cessation
of
tobacco
programs
and
while
those
are
not
run
by
our
office,
I'm
happy
to
reach
out
to
the
department
for
more
information.
C
Thank
you.
I
I
appreciate
that
because
I
I
certainly
while
I
don't
want
them
smoking
and
and
feel
like
this
is
a
good
opportunity
for
them
to
to
to
stop
and
to
hopefully
save
their
lives
in
the
future.
I
I
don't
like
turning
them
into
doing
something
illegal,
that
they've
been
doing
legally
till
now.
A
C
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
being
here
and
presenting
the
bill,
and
my
question
is
that
the
bill
makes
it
illegal
to
sell
products
to
minors
via
the
internet
and
how?
How
will
you
enforce
that?
How
is
that
done
at
all.
K
Hillary
bunker
for
the
record
and
what
we
envision
with
this
and
again,
the
way
the
amendment
is
structured
is
that
we
have
an
investigations
unit
through
our
office
has
the
ability
to
perform
online
stings
and
again
make
sure
that
these
requirements
are
complied
with.
So
the
intention
is
that
miners
or
anyone
under
21
does
not
have
access
to
these
products.
However,
that
can
be
determined
by
someone
over
the
age
of
21.
Attempting
to
purchase
these
products
online
to
see.
Is
there
an
age
verification
check?
K
Was
there
an
actual
certification
sent
when
the
investigator
placed
the
order,
the
same
way
that
it
should
be
for
someone
over
21?
It
should
also
apply
to
someone
under
21..
So
we
envision
working
this
through
our
tobacco
investigations
unit,
which
has
the
ability
to
perform
any
sort
of
online
purchases.
E
And
chair,
if
I
could
just
follow
up
real
quick,
so
does
nevada
currently.
K
One
of
the
issues
that
we
see
with
the
way
the
current
law
is
written
is
that
it
is
against
the
law
to
sell
online
to
someone
under
18,
but
there's
not
a
penalty
provision
written
into
that
statute,
so
it's
very
unclear
and
more
difficult
to
enforce.
Where
there's
not
a
penalty
written
in
there
is
an
age
verification
portion,
but
there's
just
no
penalty.
K
If
you
don't
comply
with
it,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
changes
that
we're
making
this
session
is
to
leave
really
the
foundation
of
what
was
accomplished
in
2019
that
add
in
an
actual
penalty
provision,
so
that
it's
clear
both
for
industry
selling
into
the
state
and
then
on
the
state
side.
What
the
enforcement
and
penalty
would
be.
K
K
A
G
Hello,
thank
you
all
for
the
presentation,
similarly
miller
from
district
seven
for
the
record.
My
question
is
kind
of
in
follow-up
to
assemblywoman
cohen's
question
about
the
young
people
who
are
in
the
in
between
stage
who
are
between
18
and
21,
who
would
essentially
be
breaking
the
law
once
this
is
passed.
Is
there
the
the
ability
to
incorporate
some
type
of
amnesty
into
the
bill
to
cover
these
young
people
during
this,
this
transition.
K
Hillary
bunker
for
the
record-
and
that
is
a
great
question
and
what
we
saw
before
december
2019,
which
is
when
the
federal
law
changed.
We
saw
states
doing
things
like
putting
in
grandfather
provision
for
18,
19
and
20
year
olds,
or
making
exceptions
for
military
members
or
tribal
members,
and
I
would
say
that
all
of
that
changed
when
the
federal
law
changed,
because
when
that
passed,
there
was
no
grandfathered
status
built
in
for
18,
19
or
20
year
olds,
and
there
were
no
exceptions
made
for
military
or
tribal
members.
K
So
we
are
coming
in
line
with
what
the
federal
government
has
passed
as
their
tobacco
21,
which
is
just.
You,
must
be
21
to
be
able
to
have
these
products
sold
to
you.
So
while
it
may
have
been
in
some
state
laws
years
ago,
because
nevada
is
not
a
tobacco
21
state,
our
goal
is
to
get
to
tobacco
21
without
any
sort
of
exceptions
or
anything
that
may
hold
us
up
or
cause
us
to
be
not
enforcing
a
true
tobacco
21
law.
G
Thank
you,
and
I
I
get
the
the
goal
to
be
in
compliance.
Is
you
know
quickly
as
possible,
but
we
are
going
to
have
young
people
who
are
essentially
addicted,
who
are
not
going
to
stop
purchasing
cigarettes
or
stop
buying
cigarettes
or
stop
breaking
whatever
new
rules
we
put
in
place?
G
So
I
think
that-
and
I
don't
know
how
this
is
possible,
because
I
am
a
little
bit
new
to
law
making
in
the
judiciary
process.
But
how
do
we
not
put
these
young
people
in
this
position?
G
Are
we
able
to
do
some
type
of
incorporate
some
type
of
amnesty
or
some
type
of
forgiveness,
for
these
young
people,
as
well
as
all
of
the
the
retailers
and
the
individuals
and
things
who
will
probably
still
buy
things
for
these
young
people
because
they
are
addicted
and
we
know
that
addiction
doesn't
end
because
we
change
the
law.
So
is
there
any
suggestions
on
how
we
can
move
forward
being
tobacco
21
state,
but
also
you
know,
get
these
young
people
through
this
period
of
time
without
criminalizing
them.
K
Hillary
bunker,
for
the
record,
I
think
that
now
is
also
a
good
time
to
point
out
that
our
law
is
based
on
selling.
So
our
law,
our
state
law,
is
not
based
on
purchasing.
So
that's
a
question
that
comes
up
frequently:
it's
not
on
the
people
who
are
purchasing
the
cigarettes
and
whether
they're
15
16
17.
It's
on
the
people,
selling
them
cigarettes
or
tobacco
products,
and
I
will
note
that
localities
have
the
ability
to
add
in
what
would
be
known
as
a
possession
or
a
purchase
ordinance
on
their
own,
but
as
a
whole.
K
The
state
law
is
against
selling
to
people,
not
against
the
person.
That's
purchasing
again.
As
I
mentioned,
there
are
some
states
that
have
grandfathered
in
18,
19
and
20
year
olds,
and
that
is
something
that
states
have
seen
and
thought
that
that
would
be
a
way
to
transition
as
people
who
are
current
users
before
they
get
to
a
tobacco
21
status.
But,
as
I
mentioned,
if
you're
not
enforcing
a
tobacco
21
law,
you
run
the
risk
of
losing
block,
grant
funding
for
health
and
human
services.
K
So
if
you
were
to
allow
for
a
grandfathered
status
for
certain
say
18,
19
and
20
year
olds,
essentially
you
would
run
into
issues
with
your
enforcement
mechanisms
and
when
did
someone
turn
18,
19
or
20?
Do
they
have
three
years
to
keep
purchasing?
I
feel
that
it,
it
complicates
things
and
it's
something
that
the
federal
government
looked
at
and
opted
to
not
put
into
their.
A
A
Okay,
don't
see
further
questions,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
presentation
of
the
bill
before
we
get
to
our
testimony
on
the
bill.
I
thought
this
was
a
good
chance
just
to
remind
members
and
members
of
the
public
what
exactly
support
opposition
and
neutral
mean,
because
we
do
have
definitions
of
those
terms
in
our
assembly
standing
rules.
So
before
I
open
it
up.
A
I
just
wanted
to
refresh
everyone's
memory
on
that,
so
under
rule
54
of
our
assembly
standing
rules,
support
of
a
bill
shall
be
construed
as
approval
of
the
measure
as
written
or
approval
of
the
measure
as
written
along
with
proposed
amendments
that
have
been
approved
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
So
in
this
case
the
attorney
general
has
a
proposed
amendment.
They're,
obviously
agreeable
to
that
amendment.
So
supportive
testimony
would
mean
you
support
the
bill
with
the
amendment
as
presented.
A
Opposition
to
a
bill
is
construed
as
not
supporting
the
measure
as
written
or
not
supporting
the
measure
as
written
with
the
amendment
proposed
by
the
sponsor
and
then
finally,
a
neutral
position
on
a
bill
is
one
in
which
the
person
offers
particular
insight
on
the
measure,
but
expresses
no
position
on
the
measure
itself.
So
with
that
reminder,
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support.
A
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
with
us
to
testify
in
support,
but
if
I'm
wrong
about
that,
if
you
could
just
raise
your
hand
if
you
are
on
the
zoom
and
you
intend
to
testify
in
support-
I
don't
see
anyone
so
at
this
time,
bps,
let's
go
to
our
phone
line
and
I
believe
we
have
some
callers
in
support
of
the
measure.
So
if
we
could
open
up
the
phone
line
and
cue
up
our
first
caller,
please.
F
F
With
the
caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
of
zero
five,
four,
please
slowly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record,
and
you
will
have
two
minutes
good.
C
P-I-T-T-M-A-N
and
I'm
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
jewel
labs
jewel
labs,
has
submitted
written
supportive.
L
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
ms
pittman,
and
I
will
let
members
of
the
committee
and
members
of
the
public
know
there
is
a
letter
in
support
from
jewel
labs
as
reference
that
can
be
found
on
nellis
under
the
exhibits
bps.
Do
we
have
other
callers
in
support.
A
Thank
you
so
seeing
no
additional
testimony
and
support
either
on
the
zoom
or
on
the
phone.
I
will
close
support
at
this
point.
We
will
go
to
opposition
testimony
like
what,
like
our
last
like
supportive
test
money.
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
on
the
zoom
who
is
going
to
testify
in
opposition,
but
I
believe
we
have
some
individuals
on
the
phone
so
bps.
If
we
could
cue
up
our
callers
in
opposition,
please.
F
I
I'm
tom
mccoy
board,
member
and
policy
chair
of
the
nevada
tobacco
prevention
coalition
ntpc
is
a
statewide
collaboration
of
public
health
and
partner
organizations
for
more
than
two
decades.
Our
mission
has
been
to
improve
the
health
and
nevadans
by
reducing
the
burden
of
tobacco
use
and
nicotine
addiction
and
clear
nevada's
indoor
air
from
second-hand
smoke.
I
T21
has
been
effectively
law
since
december.
2019.
ab59
seeks
to
change
out
conflicting
nrs
verbiage
to
align
with
the
federal
law.
Ntpc
is
in
opposition
to
av-59,
not
for
what
it
does
before
for
what
we
feel
it
needs
to
do.
The
title
of
the
bill
fails
to
identify
the
legislation
as
a
minimum
legal
sales
age
bill
which
has
the
federal
law
it
is
supposed
to
be.
Instead,
the
title
reads
that
the
bill
increases
the
age
to
purchase
tobacco
products.
I
Similarly,
the
legislative
digest
uses
the
word
purchase
instead
of
sales
and
summarizing
the
bill.
However,
the
bill's
content
speaks
to
sales
with
the
enforcement
burden
on
the
retailer,
the
seller,
not
the
purchaser,
but
that
burden
from
an
enforcement
perspective
will
not
be
changed
by
ab59
the
bill's
necessity
to
clean
up
existing
legislation.
I
We
feel
provides
a
great
opportunity
to
enhance
t21
enforcement
and
also
youth
tobacco
control
and
prevention.
As
a
bonus,
the
youth
vaping
epidemic
is
still
with
us
in
nevada.
Our
tobacco
prevention
and
control
community
believes
that
at
least
one
required
annual
surprise
visit
for
every
tobacco
products.
Retailer
just
makes
sense,
and
it's
not
unreasonable.
I
F
With
a
caller
with
the
last
three
digits
of
two
zero
zero
press,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes.
I
Hi,
this
is
bradley
mayer,
a
b-r-a-d-l-e-y
m-a-y-e-r
partnered,
our
gentle
partners
representing
the
southern
nevada
health
district.
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
judiciary
committee
again
bradley
mayor
representing
the
southern
valley
health
district,
we
are
not
in
a
position
to
support
this
bill
at
this
time.
I
You
know
we
would
like
to
see
some
enhancements
to
the
bill,
such
as,
specifically,
you
know
enhanced
enforcement
of
really
a
minimum
of
one
compliance
check
a
year,
ideally
two,
but
at
least
one
a
year
also
automatic
follow-up
after
non-compliance
with
a
tiered
fine
structure
in
place
for
multiple
non-compliance,
offenses,
and
also
adding
the
possibility
of
a
suspension
replication
of
a
tobacco
retailer
license.
You
know
and
then
finally,
a
comprehensive
definition
of
tobacco
products.
That
is
broad
enough
to
cover
a
future
unknown
project
products.
I
We
we,
you
know
there
is
some
language
to
add
additional
a
broad
definition
into
the
bill,
but
we'd
like
to
see
that
go
a
little
further.
One
thing
I'll
just
point
out
in
closing
is
that
you
know
the
health
districts
lost
their
funding
from
sb
263
last
session,
and
so
enforcement
really
plays
a
critical
role
here.
In
not
going
backwards
in
terms
of
our
tobacco
policies
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
keeping
nevada
in
federal
compliance,
so
we
do
appreciate
this
bill
sponsor
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
We
we
hope
to
work
with
them
to
strengthen
those
bills
and
move
through
the
process,
but,
as
I
mentioned,
we
are
not
in
support
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
F
H
H
The
american
heart
association
is
the
nation's
oldest
and
largest
voluntary
organization,
dedicated
to
building
healthier
lives,
free
of
cardiovascular
diseases
and
stroke.
Our
mission
is
imperative,
as
these
diseases
remain
our
nation's
number
one
and
number
five
causes
of
mortality
while
stroke
is
a
leading
cause
of
disability.
H
Further,
we
know
that
tobacco
is
the
leading
cause
of
preventable
deaths
from
heart
disease
and
stroke.
The
american
heart
association
stands
in
respectful
opposition
to
ab59
as
written.
It
does
not
include
the
necessary
provisions
to
be
considered
an
effective
policy
for
tobacco
21
laws
to
be
effective.
They
must
cover
all
products
and
include
strong
enforcement
mechanisms
based
on
national
best
practices.
H
This
bill
will
not
reduce
tobacco
use
because
the
bill
does
not
enhance
enforcement.
It
also
lacks
the
necessary
measures
to
adequately
enforce
the
tobacco
21
law.
Effective
tobacco
21
laws
require
that
retailers
of
tobacco
products
are
to
be
held
accountable
for
selling
to
those
under
age.
Additionally,
there
needs
to
be
penalties
for
selling
harmful
products
to
underage
youth.
These
penalties
for
repeated
sales
to
those
under
the
legal
sales
age
should
be
tiered
and
include
suspension
and,
ultimately,
revocation.
H
We
know,
based
on
evidence
from
other
communities
that
have
tobacco
retail
licensing,
that
the
threat
of
suspension
and
revocation
is
the
incentive
for
retailers
to
comply
with
the
legal
sales
age.
We
should
prioritize
protecting
nevada
youth
by
amending
ab-59
with
strong
enforcement
and
retail
penalties.
Thank
you.
A
C
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
jessica.
Ferrato,
j
e
s
s,
I
c
a
s
e
r
r,
a
o
today,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
preventing
tobacco
addiction
foundation
for
more
than
two
decades,
ptas
has
worked
nationwide
to
raise
the
minimum
legal
sales
age
for
all
tobacco
and
nicotine
products
to
21.
when
properly
enforced
tobacco.
21
policies
prevent
retailers
from
selling
addictive
nicotine
products
to
vulnerable
teens.
C
Along
with
our
many
health
care
partners.
We
strongly
oppose
ab59,
because
this
law
lacks
enforcement
and
compliance
provisions
for
tobacco
201
laws
to
be
effective.
They
should
cover
all
products
and
include
strong
enforcement
mechanisms
based
on
national
best
practices.
We
would
like
to
identify
two
key
challenges
with
the
bill
as
currently
written.
C
First
enforcement
is
critical
to
achieve
the
law's
intended
purpose.
The
language
in
this
bill
does
not
address
compliance
checks
or
how
the
new
law
will
be
enforced.
While
we
know
most,
retailers
will
comply,
some
will
not,
and
it
is
essential
that
those
retailers
are
adequately
penalized
to
deter
this
behavior
and
to
incentivize
retailer
compliance.
C
Secondly,
strong
penalties
for
selling
to
underage
youth
must
be
in
place
to
deter
retailers
from
selling
to
these
selling
these
harmful
products
in
order
to
incentivize
retailer
compliance.
Penalties
for
multiple
violations
need
to
result
in
licensed
suspension
and
revocation
monetary
fines
are
not
enough,
and
nationwide
data
shows
that
only
the
possibility
of
licensed
suspension
changes.
The
behavior
of
repeated
offenders
without
strengthening
ab-59.
The
law
will
not
work
to
protect
nevada's
youth
from
initiating
the
deadly
use
of
tobacco
and
nicotine
products.
C
F
I
Good
morning
this
is
peter
krieger,
p-e-t-e-r,
krueger
k-r-u-e-g-e-r
good
morning,
chairman
jaeger
and
members
of
committee.
As
I
said,
I'm
peter
krueger
today
representing
the
cigar,
associates
association
of
america.
We
support
the
age
21
change.
However,
we're
opposed
to
the
section
2
amendment
for
the
reasons
I'm
going
to
outline.
I
I
Regarding
premium
cigars
before
the
pandemic,
more
than
50
were
sold
online.
Now
that
number
is
closer
to
70
percent
and
we,
as
manufacturers
association,
follow
the
packed
act
and
as
well
as
strict
internal
controls,
which
prevents
the
online
sale
of
cigars
to
persons
I'm
currently
under
the
age
of
21..
I
Verification
company
such
as
veritat,
which
would
under
their
first
provisions,
currently
reject
and
cancel
any
sale
of
a
person
who
is
under
the
age
of
21.,
requiring
our
biggest
concern
with
this
amendment
is
requiring
a
customer
which,
in
our
case
our
cigar
manufacturers
to
upload
personal
information
of
the
seller
and
retaining
it
for
three
years,
is
putting
the
seller
at
great
risk.
We
believe
for
a
violation
of
other
statutes
which
prevent
and
hold
harm
to
those
that
that
information
is
somehow
deposed
or
released.
I
We're
talking
social
security
numbers
we're
talking
about
all
sorts
of
personal
information.
We
think
that
this
is
way
overkill
and
there
are
other
ways,
such
as
the
third
party,
verification
to
prevent
underage
sales,
also
we're
troubled
by
an
attempt
to
buy
or
allowing
nevada
to
use
deceptive
great
practice
statutes,
which
is
a
very,
very
significant
enforcement
tool,
and
we
believe
there'll
be
many.
Many
unintended
consequences
of
that
provision
in
the
amendment
for
the
stand.
So,
basically,
we
want
to
continue
to
work
with
ms
bunker,
as
we
have
in
the
past.
I
We
that's
how
we
got
to
an
agreement
early
on
on
the
t21
or
the
h21,
but
we
believe
that
there
are
plenty
current
and
are
happy
to
explore
other
majors.
That
would
at
least
satisfy,
as
ms
bunker
said,
need
for
additional
penalties.
But
again
we
believe
that
this
amendment
has
outlined
and
offered
this
morning
is
actually
overkill
and
there
are
other
provisions
will
do.
That
concludes
my
testimony.
Thank
you.
Chairman
jaeger.
F
I
Marcos
lopez,
m-a-r-c-o-s,
l-o-p-e-z,
americans
for
prosperity,
nevada.
Thank
you,
chairman
jaeger
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
in
opposition
to
ab-59.
Our
opposition
mainly
comes
is
that
we
haven't
problem
with
over-criminalization
in
america.
Ab59
is
a
classic
case
of
imposing
criminal
penalties,
for
something
does
not
actually
impact
public
safety.
It
has
no
surprise
that
we
have
the
largest
prison
population
in
the
world
when
our
legislative
bodies
use
a
heavy-handed
approach
to
solve
social
ills.
Legislation
like
ab59
diverts
attention,
resources
from
serious
personal
property
crimes
to
lower
level
offenses.
I
The
case
of
eric
gardner,
who
was
choked
to
death
when
police
detained
and
pursuing
enlisted
lucy
cigarettes,
shows
how
the
enforcement
of
low-level
public
order
offenses
can
negatively
affect
our
communities
by
leading
to
problematic
interactions
between
the
police
and
the
communities
they
served
for
far
too
long.
We
have
used
criminal
law
as
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
to
the
problems
we
face
in
society.
We
need
to
address
over
criminalization
and
put
a
hawk
to
unnecessary
growth
in
our
penal
codes.
In
fact,
we
should
be
working
to
reduce
them.
I
F
E
G-U-T-M-A-N-D-O-D-S-O-N
today,
representing
the
washoe
county
health
district,
we're
here
today
in
opposition
with
the
hopes
that
we
can
soon
support
this
bill
like
bradley
mayor
of
the
southern
nevada,
health
district
said
we're
opposing
today,
but
we
hope
that
we
can.
We
can
work
with
the
bill
sponsor
and
and
get
this
bill
where
it
needs
to
be.
E
I'm
just
reiterating
southern
nevada's
statement,
but
it's
important
to
note
that
the
health
districts
lost
all
of
their
sb
263
funding
that
was
set
up
in
the
legis
last
legislative
session
for
prevention
and
education
dollars.
So
without
prevention
and
education
dollars,
we
we
really
need
to
up
the
enforcement.
So
that's
why
we're
here
today
in
opposition?
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
F
F
Thank
you,
lcd
bps
staff.
Your
work
is
appreciated.
My
name
is
susan
fisher
s-u-s-a-n,
space
f-I-s-h-e-r
with
mcdonald
carano
representing
american
cancer
society
cancer
action
network.
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
First
and
foremost,
I
want
to
thank
ms
bonker
from
the
ag's
office
for
reaching
out
to
us
very
early
last
summer.
In
fact
to
discuss
this
bill
and,
as
I
as
I
have
advised,
the
ag's
office
of
our
concerns
and
opposition
to
the
bill
is
written.
F
The
amendment
that
was
presented
is
not
yet
available
on
the
public
now
list,
so
I'm
testifying
in
opposition
to
ab59
as
written
and
introduced.
I
will
reach
out
to
you,
mr
chair
and
your
committee
members
on
our
position
after
further
review,
but
we
do
oppose
for
the
reasons
mentioned
by
the
other
callers,
so
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
all
of
them.
F
While
we
appreciate
the
american
cancer
society
appreciates
nevada
enacting
legislation
to
get
nevada
in
line
with
the
federal
legislation
and
raising
the
legal
sales
age
of
all
tobacco
products,
including
otps
other
tobacco
products,
it
still
maintains
the
status
quo
with
regard
to
penalties
for
sales
to
minors.
In
addition,
we'd
like
to
see
increased
taxes
on
otps
to
help
fund
tobacco
cessation
programs
to
help
those
already
addicted,
as
mentioned
by
your
committee
members,
as
well
as
education
programs
for
youth.
Thank
you
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
Ms
fisher
appreciate
it
assembly
one
cohen,
did
you
have
a
question
for
miss
fisher.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
for
indulging
me
miss
fisher.
Does
your
organization
have
any
information
about
the
black
market
and
when
prices
are
taxing
become
so
high
that
people
turn
the
black
market
on
on
cigarettes?
If
so,
could
you
share
that
with
us?
Not
you
know
not
right
now,
but
could
you
maybe
provide
that
if
your
organization
does
have
that
information.
F
I
don't
have
information
against
susan
fisher
for
the
record.
I
don't
have
information
specifically
on
back
black
market
sales,
but
I
do
have
information
on
some
estimates
on
what
each
dollar
of
increase
of
taxes
or
incremental
increases
of
taxes
does
in
cessation
historically.
So
I
can
certainly
send
that
to
you.
A
A
F
I
Badera
b-r-y-a-n-b-e-d-e-r-a,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
vaping
association,
first,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
consulting
us
very
early
last
summer
about
this
bill
and
we
support
t21
laws
in
general
and
we
specifically
support
this
bill
without
the
amendment.
We
have
some
brief
concerns
about
the
amendment
to
section
two
specifically:
the
record-keeping
requirements
that
exceed
federal
requirements
for
record
keeping.
I
Of
a
ultimate
consumer
retail
sale,
we
believe
these
lack
of
clarity
in
these
two
provisions
is
going
to
make
enforcement
more
difficult
and
limit
the
state
of
nevada's
ability
to
enforce
the
t21
restrictions
on
out-of-state
e-commerce
in
general.
We
support
what
the
attorney
general's
office
is
trying
to
do
both
in
the
bill
and
in
the
amendment,
but
we
think
some
technical
changes
are
going
to
need
to
happen
in
order
to
create
an
enforceable
bill
that
industry
can
both
comply
with
and
support.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
badara.
I'm
going
to
ask
that
your
testimony
be
recategorized
as
opposition
testimony.
It
was
close
to
the
line
there,
but
you
suggested
some
changes
and
some
things
you
weren't
comfortable
with
in
the
amendment.
So
we're
going
to
formally
categorize
you
as
opposition.
So
the
record
is
clear:
bps
anyone
else
in
the
neutral
position.
A
J
J
Opposing
this
bill
supervising
senior
deputy
attorney
general
hillary
bunker
reached
out
to
stakeholders
since
this
summer
and
has
continued
in
dialogue
with
them
four
months,
we
were
informed
last
night
before
8am
hearing
that
those
who
previously
indicated
that
they
would
be
testifying
in
neutral
were
going
to
change
their
testimony
to
opposition
for
specific
reasons
that
had
not
been.
They
had
not
provided
an
amendment
to
us
in
advance.
J
So
in
terms
of
both
process
and
substance,
I
am
disappointed
in
terms
of
the
substance
of
some
of
the
opposition
testimony.
One
caller
noted
that
the
title
and
legislative
digest
was
not
reflective
of
the
text
of
the
bill.
As
you
know,
we
do
not
draft
the
title
or
the
legislative
digest
of
this
film.
J
There
was
additionally,
there
was
a
many
comments
about
the
lack
of
enforcement
and
accountability
for
retailers.
This
office
sponsored
a
bill
last
legislative
session
that
brought
accountability
to
retailers.
For
the
first
time
in
this
state,
we
had
a
initially
proposed
a
stronger
regulatory
scheme
and
penalty
process
for
retailers
that
legislation
did
not
pass.
We,
however,
did
bring
to
this
state,
as
I
mentioned,
for
the
first
time,
accountability
for
retailers
who
sell
to
two
miners.
J
I
also
want
to
specifically
address
the
caller
from
americans
for
prosperity
who
mentioned
that
this
bill
added
criminal
penalties.
That
is
incorrect.
Nothing
in
this
bill
adds
criminal
penalties
that
do
not
already
exist.
In
fact,
in
the
the
bill
that
we
sponsored
last
session,
we
actually
moved
from
criminal
penalties
of
individual
clerks
who
work
at
retail
stores,
who
were
previously
being
arrested
for
a
misdemeanor
and
felony
crimes.
J
We
changed
that
to
civil
penalties
because
of
the
reason
that
caller
identified
also
as
hillary
bunker
previously
testified,
possession
of
tobacco
products
in
the
state
of
nevada,
underage
possession,
is
not
a
crime
if
a
locality
chooses
to
change
that
they
can.
But
that
is
not
a
state
law,
and
that
is
not
what
we
are
proposing
in
this
bill.
J
What
is
at
stake
here,
if
we
do
not
pass
a
t21
bill,
is
not
only
losing
block
grant
funding.
The
current
block.
Grant
that
we
do
receive
is
16
million
dollars,
but
we
also
endanger
the
funding
that
we
receive
from
the
master
settlement
agreement,
which
is
millions
and
millions
of
dollars.
That
directly
goes
to
enforcement
and
public
health
cessation
programs.
J
So
I
I
want
to
reiterate
that,
while
I
understand
this
as
a
policy
committee,
I'm
not
a
money
committee
in
terms
of
some
of
the
questions
that
the
legislators
had
and
some
of
the
statements
made
in
opposition
that
not
passing
this
bill
actually
endangers
the
goals
that
we
are
all
seeking
here:
those
goals
being
that
we
reduce
underage
smoking,
that
we
promote
public
health
and
that
we
diligently
enforce
the
master
settlement
agreement.
So
we
continue
bringing
in
the
money
that
allows
us
to
promote
public
health.
J
Thank
you
for
your
indulgence,
chairman,
and
we
do
look
forward
to
working
with
stakeholders
as
we
are
able
to
improve
this
bill
to
ensure
that
we
are
able
to
bring
this
the
state
into
federal
compliance
and
continue
to
diligently
enforce
the
matter
master
settlement
agreement
and
promote
public
health.
Thank
you.
A
D
You
for
the
indulgence,
mr
chairman,
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
speaking
from
experience
you
know
having
started
smoking
when
I
was
13
years
old
and
now
I'm
67.
D
We
need
to
do
something
here.
We
need
to
get
this
bill
passed,
I'm
willing
to
work
with
the
ag's
office
with
our
caucus
with
the
democratic
caucus,
the
chairman
and
anybody
else,
to
get
this
bill
into
a
form
where
everybody
can
say.
Well,
maybe
it's
not
great,
but
it
works.
So
I'd
like
to
offer
those
services
and,
like
I
said
anyone
has
any
questions
come
to
me.
I
know
that
quitting
smoking
is
easy
because
I've
done
it
hundreds
of
times
and
I
don't
want
to
see
our
kids
start
smoking
at
their
most
vulnerable
age.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
wheeler
appreciate
those
comments,
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
59,
give
everyone
a
moment
to
take
a
deep
breath
and
get
ready
for
our
second
bill
on
the
agenda,
which
I
don't
believe
is
going
to
have
as
much
opposition
or
as
much
testimony
as
assembly
bill.
59
did
so
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
60.
assembly
bill
60,
makes
certain
provisions
of
a
contract
or
settlement
agreement
void
and
unenforceable.
A
G
A
G
G
G
This
provision
will
only
be
applicable
when
the
online
agreement
changes
section
to
criminal
activity,
sexual
harassment
or
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
sex.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
present
this
builds
up
committee
and
we
do
stand
ready
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Mr
george
appreciate
the
presentation
and
members
of
this
committee
who
were
here
last
session
will
of
course
remember
the
reference
bill
assembly
bill
248,
which
was
sponsored
by
speaker
fryerson,
as
we
heard
that
bill
and
processed
that
bill
out
of
this
committee
last
session,
and
as
mr
george
said,
I
think
this
is
an
area
that
that
bill
did
not
capture
so
appreciate
you
recognizing
that
and
bringing
this
forward
for
the
committee's
consideration.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
was
just
wondering
who
exactly
this
included.
Would
this
be
it's
based
on
sex?
So
is
that
how
someone
identifies,
and
I'm
I'm
actually
thinking
of
our
trans
community?
Would
this
bill
cover
them
as
well?.
G
C
G
George,
for
the
record
it
does,
it
does
include
all
gender
identities
did.
The
really
major
addition
to
this
bill
that
was
not
included
in
ab248
is
the
addition
of
sexual
harassment.
We
try
to
keep
it
as
substantively
identical
as
possible.
I
know
it
does
look
like
a
more
sizable
bill,
but
the
most
substantive
addition-
and
some
cleanup
is
really
in
the
addition
of
harassment
beyond
criminal
sexual
activity
of
conduct.
A
L
Often
settlement
agreements
require
silence.
L
Besides
discrimination
based
on
sex
or
sexual
orientation,
where
you
would
need
someone
to
testify
and
they
couldn't
because
of
a
of
a
settlement
agreement
it
it.
This
is
this-
is
pretty
restrictive
here,
and,
and
would
there
be
any
other
instances
where
you
see
that
there
could
possibly
be
a
problem.
G
Thank
you
assemblywoman
to
you
through
chair
jaeger,
kyle
george,
for
the
record.
Yes,
this
is
rather
restrictive,
built
and
it's
by
design.
I
I
don't
believe
that
we
fully
appreciate
all
the
possible
scenarios
that
this
could
arise.
I
know
in
the
last
legislature
this
was
the
genesis
of
ab248
was
based
on
the
climate
of
time.
G
Certainly
we
were
aware
of
numerous
instances
of
sexual
harassment
or
sexual
misconduct
that
was
problematic
as
you'll
recall
in
in
that
time
period
the
metoo
movement
was
quite
visible
and
prominent,
and
I
think
this
bill
was
was
narrowly
focused
to
that
to
the
largest
extent
possible.
At
this
point,
I
cannot
identify
any
other
circumstances.
This
might
be
necessary,
but
we
do
recognize
that
going
too
far
might
hinder
the
ability
of
of
parties
to
reach
settlements.
L
Thank
you
and
I
apologize
if
I'm
asking
a
redundant
question
or
one
that's
already
clear
to
others,
but
I'm
new,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
this
out.
I
could
see
an
instance
where
maybe
someone
had
to
settle
because
of
racial
or
age
discrimination
and
they
entered
into
an
agreement
that
required
their
silence.
L
That's
also
criminal
act.
So
does
the
does?
Is
there
another
statute
that
covers
those
instances
where
you
might
need
someone
to
testify
and
they
have
an
agreement
to
be
silent.
G
Thank
you.
Some
women
for
the
record
kyle
george
first
of
all
always
happy
to
answer
questions
so
please
keep
them
coming.
I
don't
know
of
any
statute
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
that
would
address
the
race-based
scenario
you
described.
G
I
can
do
research
and
get
back
to
you
with
that,
but
off
the
top
of
my
head.
I'm
not
aware
of
any.
I
don't
know
if
my
colleague
has
any
additional
information
on
that.
J
However,
we
kept
this
bill
narrowed
to
just
build
upon
av-248
that
was
limited
to
just
sexual
harassment
and
sexual
discrimination
or
criminal
sex
acts.
But
should
this
legislature
have
a
different,
a
different
philosophy?
We
would
be
interested
in
working
with
you
on
that.
We
did
want
to
keep
this
bill,
as,
as
mr
george
mentioned,
narrowly
tailored
to
the
spirit
and
the
letter
of
that
av-248
bill.
I
will
say
in
in
just
our
short
experience
here
in
the
ag's
office.
J
This
type
of
behavior
is
what
we
do
see
more
commonly
in
terms
of
the
the
need
to
proceed
against
license
holders,
and
additionally,
it
was
the
focus
of
the
governor's
task
force
on
sexual
harassment
and
discrimination,
so
that
task
force
looked
at
policies
and
procedures
of
state
employees,
but
also
privileged
license
holders
so
that
wouldn't
incorporate
all
of
the
occupational
licensing
boards.
In
the
state
of
nevada
that
could
proceed
in
an
administrative
hearing
against
someone's
license,
but
the
privileged
license
holders
of
cannabis
compliance
board
and
gaming
control
board
are
also
based
upon
that
task.
J
Force
encouraged
to
have
policies
against
sexual
harassment,
discrimination
for
those
license
holders,
which
also
gives
us
an
additional
mechanism
if
there
are
violating
their
own
policies,
that
the
administrative
board
can
take
action.
So
that
is
there's
a
lot
of
information
that
probably
doesn't
necessarily
get
to
the
answer.
To
answer
your
question,
but
that's
why
we're
keeping
it
just
that
wrong.
L
Chair,
if
I
may
thank
you,
both
miss
adair
and
mr
george,
because
the
expansion
of
the
of
the
explanation
and
the
purpose
of
the
original
bill
is
helpful
right
for
me
to
understand,
and
I
think
that
I
understand
why
you
have
it
so
narrowly
tailored.
And
I
respect
that.
L
But
I
also
think
that
we
need
to
be
aware
that
there
are
others
in
the
workplace
who
might
be
affected
by
unscrupulous
behavior,
and
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
they
also
have
a
way
to
help
hold
these
special
license
holders
accountable,
because
we
don't
want
any
group
of
people
feeling
like
they
are
kept
out
of
this
and
and
but
I
I
do
understand
how
you
come
and
came
up
with
this,
and
I
appreciate
the
extended
explanation.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
B
This
is
james
kemp,
j-a-m-e-s,
last
name
k-e-m-p.
Good
morning,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
james
kemp,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
justice
association.
We
are
in
support
of
assembly
bill
60..
B
I
also
happen
to
be
an
employment
lawyer
who
litigates
sexual
harassment,
cases
and
ab-60
will
provide
much
needed
protection
for
victims
of
sexual
harassment
who
wish
to
come
forward
who
are
required
to
come
forward
to
provide
information
and
testimony
with
regard
to
their
former
employers
and
former
harassers
universally
settlement.
Agreements
in
this
area
contain
confidentiality
agreements
that
are
often
very
restrictive.
Some
even
try
to
forbid
the
disclosure
that
an
agreement
even
exists.
B
They
do,
as
mr
george
mentioned
often
include,
liquidated
damages
clauses
and
they
also
usually
have
something
called
a
non-disclosure
clause,
a
non-disclo,
I'm
sorry,
a
non-disparagement
clause,
and
that
purports
to
prevent
not
only
false
and
defamatory
statements,
but
also
truthful
statements
that
a
victim
who
is
settling.
They
agree
that
they
won't
say
anything
unfavorable
about
a
whole
host
of
people,
the
harasser,
the
company
shareholders
of
the
company
officers
of
the
company,
other
employees
of
the
company,
a
whole
litany
of
people
are
usually
included.
B
I
will
say
that
often
these
these
clauses
or
these
contracts
do
provide
that
people
can
report
things
to
administrative
agencies
or
you
know,
testify,
but
but
they
usually
do
require
if
a
person
is
subpoenaed
that
they
inform
their
former
adversary,
their
former
employer
that
they've
been
subpoenaed
so
that
the
employer
has
the
opportunity
to
go
in
and
challenge
the
subpoena
so
that
they
can
be
quite
onerous,
and
I
think
ab60
will
help
alleviate
some
of
those
problems.
B
And
I
do
want
to
echo
the
sentiments
of
assemblywoman
summers:
armstrong,
that
these
protections
are
needed
for
other
protected
classifications,
but
ab60
as
written
we're
in
full
support
of
thanks.
A
A
A
F
F
F
M
M
As
an
advocate,
I
was
asked
to
become
the
administrator
of
an
inmates
estate.
It
was
legally
set
up
through
an
attorney
who
sometimes
does
pro
bono
work
for
inmates.
As
part
of
my
duties,
I
would
send
the
inmate
quarterly
reports
to
ndoc
and
dlc
did
not
give
the
inmate
the
information,
nor
did
they
notify
him
about
the
information
nor
return
that
information
to
me,
the
inmate
became
concerned,
and
rightly
so.
An
investigation
was
conducted
by
the
inspector
general's
office
during
the
investigation.
M
M
M
A
A
I
don't
I
don't
think
it
does
so
I
would
just
ask
you
if,
if
you
want
to
call
in
in
the
regular
public
comment
line,
but
this
bill
is
is
about
is
about
sexual
harassment
and
and
settlement
agreements,
and
so
I
I
I
want
to
hear
your
testimony,
but
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
for
this
bill.
So
if
you
wouldn't
mind.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
so
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
on
assembly
bill
60
and
I
will
give
our
presenters
from
the
attorney
general's
office
a
chance
to
make
any
concluding
remarks
on
assembly
bill.
60.
G
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
to
present
both
of
your
bills.
This
morning
we
appreciate
it
with
that
I'll
formally
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill,
60
and
we'll
now
go
to
our
public
comment
portion
of
the
agenda.
As
a
reminder,
we'll
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment.
Callers
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment
bps.
F
M
T-O-N-J-A-E-R-O-W-N
advocates
for
the
inmates
good
morning
I'll
go
ahead
and
finish
this
up
anyway,
during
the
wrongful
death
suit.
During
the
discovery
process,
I
discovered
that
the
dag
in
the
first
suit
filed
by
the
inmate
for
retaliation,
happens
to
be
the
same,
dag
now
in
the
wrongful
death
suit.
M
M
However,
it
was
withheld
from
the
magistrate
judge
in
the
first
lawsuit
he
provided
everything
in
camera,
with
the
exception
of
that
exoneration
letter,
so
it
became
part
of
the
settlement
agreement
in
the
wrongful
death
suit
that
I
could
take
that
document
to
wherever
I
wanted
to
any
board
anywhere.
I
wanted
to
clear
our
names
when
I
went
and
moved
forward.
I
then
took
it
to
the
board
of
prison
commissioners.
The
same
dag
came
to
that
meeting
and
informed
them
that
that
was
confidential.
It
was
part
of
a
settlement
agreement
that
we
just
had.
M
That
was
not
true.
Ultimately,
he
had
everything
I
said
stricken
and
removed
from
the
record.
The
magistrate
judge
then
called
my
attorney,
who
then
called
us
all
back
into
court,
because
we
had
so
many
days
to
sign
the
settlement
agreement.
It
was
at
that
point.
The
magistrate
judge
stated
that
everything
dealing
with
this
trust
was
not
to
be
confidential.
I
could
do
whatever
I
wanted
to
it.
Okay,
so
I
filed
suit
as
the
administrator
and
for
breach
of
settlement
agreement.
M
I
made
it
all
the
way
to
trial
the
attorney
general's
office
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss,
and
I
lost
it
on
a
technicality,
but
I
did
make
it
as
far
as
a
trial
date.
So
I
was
curious.
I
don't
see
anything
in
confidentiality
that
pertains
to
the
attorney
general's
office,
who
breached
the
settlements
agreement
and
I
think,
for
the
protection
of
the
inmate
and
true
justice
and
what
is
fair
and
not
brady
violations.
A
Thank
you,
we'll
close
public
comment
and
thank
you
to
our
broadcast
services
staff.
Who
makes
these
meetings
happen.
They
make
it
very
easy
for
me.
So
thank
you
for
your
diligent
work.
I
know
it's
not
easy
to
manage
those
phone
lines.
We
certainly
appreciate
it
before
we
talk
about
the
rest
of
the
week
anything
else
from
members
of
the
committee
this
morning.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
members
want
to
thank
you
again
for
being
here
on
time
and
for
engaging
on
these
issues.
We
heard
quite
a
bit
of
testimony
on
our
assembly
bill
today.
I
imagine
we'll
we'll
be
getting
a
lot
of
bills
of
that
nature,
with
a
lot
of
interest
and
testimony
in
the
future
days.
Just
as
a
reminder,
the
next
two
days
we're
going
to
be
starting
at
9
00
a.m,
rather
than
8
a.m.
A
If
you
have
questions
when
reviewing
those
bills
today,
this
evening
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me,
vice
chairwin
has
done
a
lot
of
this
work
as
well,
and
assemblywoman,
cohen
and
assemblyman
wheeler
have
been
on
the
committee
a
lot
of
years,
so
feel
free
to
ask
some
of
those
background
questions
if
you'd
like
today,
or
certainly
we
can
ask
them
tomorrow
in
the
meeting
and
then
as
a
reminder
on
monday,
we'll
be
starting
at
8
o'clock,
where
I'll
have
the
pleasure
of
presenting
a
couple
of
bills
to
the
committee.
A
So
I
think
that's
it
for
this
week,
when
we
get
towards
the
end
of
the
week,
I'll
kind
of
give
you
the
lay
of
the
land
for
next
week,
but
we're
still
working
on
developing
those
agendas
to
see
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
next
week.
So
with
all
that
behind
us.
Thank
you
again,
committee
for
your
diligence
and
your
attention
this
morning,
we'll
see
you
tomorrow
morning
at
nine
o'clock.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.