►
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
I
would
like
to
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
welcome
everyone.
That's
viewing
online
or
participating
through
phone
and
video
welcome
to
the
assembly
committee
on
legislative
operations
and
elections.
I
would
also
like
to
ask
our
committee
secretary
to
please
take
roll.
C
E
A
With
that,
I
will
move
on
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
just
a
few
housekeeping
tips.
Again.
If
you
wish
to
testify
you
will
you
can
pre-register
online
through
the
agenda
once
the
agendas
are
posted
on
the
nevada,
legislature's
website
upon
successful
registration,
you
will
receive
a
telephone
number
meeting
id
and
instructions
for
joining
the
meeting.
We
do
ask
that
everyone
registers
individually,
so
we
have
an
accurate
count
of
the
number
as
well
as
who
is
testifying
and
in
which
position.
A
Also,
when
you
do
testify,
please
unmute
and
make
sure
that
you
state
your
name,
your
first
and
last
name
clearly
for
the
record,
just
a
reminder
that
committee
members
will
be
managing
a
few
different
types
of
technology
as
we're
participating
in
the
meeting.
So
please
don't
take
it
as
a
distraction.
It's
actually
just
managing
all
the
different
documents
and
and
bills
in
front
of
us
with
that.
Of
course,
a
reminder
for
everyone
to.
A
With
that
again,
just
a
reminder
to
please
turn
off
your
volumes
and
we
can
move
on
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
we
have
two
bills
on
the
agenda
today.
So
I
would
like
to
open
the
hearing
for
the
first
bill,
which
is
assembly
bill
65.
F
Great
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I
am
kim
wallen,
chair
of
the
nevada
state
commission,
on
ethics
with
citizens
having
less
and
less
trust
in
government.
Now,
more
than
ever,
we
need
to
place
a
greater
emphasis
on
ethics
to
help
restore
the
public's
trust
in
government.
F
D
D
D
The
basic
purpose
of
the
nevada
ethics
in
government
law
is
to
assure
that
public
officers
and
public
employees
maintain
proper
separation
between
their
personal
conflicts
and
the
public
duties
in
order
to
protect
the
public's
trust
in
its
government.
A
65
improves
the
commission's
processes.
It
increases
opportunities
to
obtain
education
on
the
ethics
law
from
by
public
officers
and
public
employees.
It
enhances
transparency,
has
increased
due
process
and
it
clarifies
certain
provisions
of
our
ethical
code
of
standards.
D
D
A
lot
of
the
provisions
in
assembly
bill
were
taken
all
the
way
through
till
the
final
day
of
the
session,
and
the
session
was
so
busy.
It
just
didn't
make
it
to
a
final
vote,
so
there's
a
lot
of
legislative
history
in
those
records.
D
When
the
one
of
the
important
missions
of
the
commission
is
to
educate
and
provide
advice
to
public
officers
and
public
employees,
they
do
this
through
the
advisory
opinion
process.
A
b
65
streamlines
the
advisory
opinion
process.
Currently,
if
a
public
officer
or
public
employee
request
advice
on
their
own
conduct,
the
process
starts,
and
it
goes
before
the
full
commission
to
render
an
opinion.
D
D
In
addition
on
advisory
opinion
proceedings,
they
are
currently
confidential
from
the
filing
from
the
requester
all
the
way,
through
judicial
review,
unless
the
requester
waives
that
confidentiality
ab65
confirms
that
informal
advice
I
just
mentioned
would
also
be
confidential,
and
the
bill
also
addresses
an
inconsistency.
That's
currently
in
place
between
the
ethics
law
and
the
open
meeting
law.
D
D
D
Again,
if
the
requester
waives
confidentiality,
the
bill
provides
how
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
by
the
commission
to
consider
the
advisory
opinion
request
some
other
advisory
opinion
process
revisions
that
the
bill
does
is
the
commission
once
the
request
is
filed
with
it,
it
may
need
additional
information
to
complete
its
opinion
relating
to
that
request,
and
now
they
may
request
additional
information
and
the
45-day
timeline.
That's
statutorily
required
to
process
the
written
opinion
is
told
or
basically
extended
for
the
period
of
time.
Until
that
supplemental
information
is
received,
the
bill
permits
good
cause.
D
D
D
That
complaint
has
a
process
it
goes
through
to
the
commission
in
general.
It
has
a
jurisdictional
review
process
and
then,
if
it
proceeds
to
an
investigation,
it
has
an
investigation
process
that
is
concluded
by
a
three-member
panel,
and
that
panel
can
refer
the
complaint
to
the
commission
for
additional
proceedings
or
it
has
authority
to
dismiss
or
try
to
resolve
the
complaint
at
that
phase
of
proceedings
assembly
bill
65
has
some
improvements
to
the
complaint
process.
Again
in
every
phase
of
proceedings,
the
commission
is
requesting
the
ability
to
grant
good
cause
extension.
D
In
addition,
when
that
a
public
officer
or
public
employee
that
is
employed
at
the
same
agency
as
the
subject
of
the
complaint
files,
a
complaint
and
requests
confidentiality,
they're
afforded
currently
confidentiality
protections
under
the
ethics
law.
This
is
the
whistleblower
protection
that
the
chair
of
the
commission
was
referencing.
D
D
So
what
the
commission
is
requesting
and
you'll
see
this
throughout
all
the
different
phases
of
the
complaint
process
is
basically
a
notice
process
and
I'll
explain
what
that
is
in
that
few
slides.
Also,
if
the
complainant
is
a
witness
in
the
adjudicatory
hearing
before
the
commission,
certain
precautions
are
established
to
continue
to
protect
their
identity.
As
the
filer
of
that
complaint.
D
If
the
complaint
goes
past,
the
jurisdictional
acceptance
phase
and
the
commission
directs
an
investigation,
the
executive
director
of
the
commission
is
charged
with
completing
that
investigation
within
70
days
and
again,
instead
of
the
complaint
being
provided
to
the
subject,
because
the
subject
is
already
provided
the
opportunity
to
provide
us
a
response
to
the
complaint,
a
notice
of
investigation
will
replace
the
copy
of
the
complaint.
This
ensures
confidentiality
protections
of
the
filers
who
are
entitled
to
them
under
the
ethics
law.
D
D
Once
the
commission
completes
her
once
sorry
once
the
executive
director
completes
her
investigation,
she
is
to
provide
a
recommendation
to
a
three-member
three-member
review
panel
of
the
commission
on
whether
or
not
there
is
sufficient
evidence
for
that
complaint
to
be
referred
to
the
commission.
For
for
hearing
on
the
complaint,
the
re
review
panel
process
improvements
are
two
twofold.
One
is
the
good
cause,
extensions
of
time
that
I've
already
mentioned?
In
addition,
the
bill
increases
the
time
for
the
panel
to
issue
a
panel
determination.
D
This
is
very
beneficial
in
the
process.
For
two
main
reasons:
it
provides
the
review
panel,
the
ability
to
ask
for
additional
information
to
determine
whether
it
should
refer
the
complaint
or
perhaps
there
isn't
sufficient
evidence
and
they
can
dismiss
it.
It
also
allows
time
for
that
review
panel
to
direct,
what's
called
a
deferral
agreement.
A
deferral
agreement
is
an
agreement
between
the
subject
in
the
executive
director
and
it
basically
defers
the
charges
under
certain
conditions
and
on
compliance
with
those
conditions.
D
Now
it
should
be
noted
that
that
deferral
agreement,
like
I
indicated,
is
a
contract
between
the
executive
director
and
the
subject,
and
it
is
approved
by
the
review
panel.
If
the
subject
doesn't
want
to
be
subject
to
the
conditions,
then
the
case
can
move
forward,
as
the
review
panel
determines
in
its
panel
determination
to
the
commission
for
a
full
adjudicatory
hearing.
D
Once
there
is
a
referral
by
the
review
panel
of
the
case
to
the
commission,
there
are
improvements
in
the
bill
to
the
adjudicated
adjudication
of
that
complaint
before
the
commission
again
that
written
notice
of
charges
is
provided
to
the
subject-
and
this
is
important
because
the
review
panel,
like
I
said,
may
not
find
sufficient
evidence
to
move
the
case
along
and
therefore
there
may
be
only
one
of
a
number
of
charges
that
were
originally
alleged.
That
will
continue
to
the
commission
again
at
this
point
in
time,
party
status
is
confirmed.
D
The
executive
director
is
represented
by
a
position
in
the
commission's
offices.
That's
referenced
as
associate
associate,
counsel
myself.
I
am
commission
counsel
and
I
will
provide
legal
advice
to
the
commission
itself
on
how
to
conduct
the
hearing
in
any
other
compliance
obligations
on
conducting
adjudicatory
hearings.
D
So
the
bill
defines
what
those
due
process
parameters
are
for:
legal
representation
for
commissions,
for
commission
attorneys,
for
example,
as
commission
counsel,
I
could
not
represent
the
executive
director
in
those
matters.
That
would
be
a
due
process
issue
and
all
of
these
parameters
comply
with
233b
on
what
is
required
to
hold
adjudicatory
hearings.
D
The
one
difference
in
the
bill
from
the
prior
bill
senate
bill
129,
is
that
the
commission
determined
it
was
appropriate
to
ask
that
the
executive
director
be
a
licensed
attorney
and
the
reason
for
this
is
very
important,
because
it's
a
very
small
staff.
At
the
commission
there
are
six
staff
members
and
if
the
associate
council
has
a
conflict,
for
example,
perhaps
they
have
a
relative
who
is
actually
the
subject
of
the
complaint,
then
that
associate
counsel
cannot
provide
services
on
that
complaint.
That
would
be
against
appropriate
ethics
laws.
D
So
at
that
point
in
time,
the
executive
director,
if
if
their
licensed
attorney,
can
act
as
conflict
counsel
and
present
the
case
to
the
commission
after
the
referral,
the
bill
provides
for
written
scheduling,
order
and
discovery
order.
Just
like
you
would
in
a
court
proceeding
have
and
again
at
this
phase
of
proceedings.
We
have
good
cause
extensions
of
time.
D
Ab-65
permits,
just
like
a
court,
will
use
another
judge,
a
review
panel
member
to
mediate
resolution
or
settlement
in
the
adjudicatory
phase.
Now
this
would
only
be
with
the
consent
of
the
parties,
meaning
the
subject
and
the
executive
director,
and
that
settlement
negotiation
or
mediation
would
be
separate
from
the
adjudicatory
process.
That's
before
the
commission.
D
D
D
The
bill
also
provides
the
commission
additional
time
to
prepare
the
final
written
opinion
after
it
holds
the
adjudicatory
hearing
commission's
processes.
In
this
phase
of
proceeding,
unless
there
is
a
waiver
are
very
short,
you
have
to
take
it
from
the
notice
of
complaint,
basically
to
a
hearing
within
60
days,
and
that
includes
discovery,
written
motions,
perhaps
depositions
subpoenas.
D
D
D
D
D
in
doing
so
that
language
is
consistent
with
u.s
supreme
court
case
law
and
nevada
supreme
court
case
law.
The
other
two
additions
to
the
code
of
conduct
would
be.
It
would
be
a
violation
of
the
ethics
law
to
interfere
with
the
commission's
witnesses
or
investigation
and
there's
an
addition
of
the
unconscionable
use
of
an
official
public
position.
D
The
bill
also
makes
a
couple
disclosures.
I
mean
amendments
to
the
disclosure
and
abstention
requirements
set
forth
in
nrs
281,
a
420
under
281,
a
420
subsection
one
public
officers
and
employees
are
required
to
disclose
certain
matters
like
gift
or
loan,
whether
they
have
a
significant
interest
in
the
matter
that
they're
working
on
whether
they
have
meant
in
a
private
capacity
to
another
person
that
would
be
affected
by
the
public
matter.
D
They're
working
on
and
also
the
fourth
disclosure
requirement
is,
if
they
have
provided
compensat,
compensated
advice
or
representation
for
a
person
in
the
last
year
before
an
agency,
and
that
matter
relates
to
the
public
matter,
they're
considering,
then
they
would
have
to
disclose
it,
and
it
is
that
fourth
area,
the
compensated
prior
representation
or
counseling
in
the
last
year
that
assembly
bill
65
creates
an
amendment
to
what
that
does.
It
still
requires
disclosure,
but
what
it
adds
that
section
before
wasn't
taken
through
into
the
extension
analysis
and
now,
just
like
the
other
three
disclosure
requirements.
D
The
disclosure
of
prior
representation
in
the
last
year
also
will
have
an
extension
analysis
to
make
sure
that
the
matter
is
reviewed
to
determine
whether
abstention
would
be
required.
Based
upon
the
facts.
Now
I
put
in
the
slide
so
just
to
clarify
that
under
the
ethics
law,
extension
would
be
required
when
the
facts
prevent
present
a
clear
case
that
the
public
officer's
participation
would
be
materially
affected
by
the
conflict
under
the
application
of
the
reasonable
person
standard.
D
Currently
the
law
has
anyone
above
a
clerical
level,
so
this
would
really
raise
this
up
to
higher
level
public
employees
in
the
agency,
under
the
other
cooling
off
provision,
nrs
281,
a
550
subsection
5.
That
provision
applies
to
vin
your
contact,
vendor
contracts,
and
currently
the
requirement
is
that
if
the
vendor
contract
is
over,
25
000
was
was
awarded
in
last
year
and
your
position
had
the
ability
to
influence
or
actually
influence
the
contract
board.
Then
the
cooling
off
would
apply
to
you
what
this
bill
does.
Is
it
adds
another
factor
to
it?
D
The
bill
makes
just
a
slight
few
provisions
for
our
acknowledgement
forms.
What
an
acknowledgement
form
is
that
form
that
appointed
and
elected
public
officers
must
file
the
nevada
commission
on
ethics
on
stated
deadlines
and
what
it
does
is
they
file,
and
they
confirm
that
they
have
read
and
understand
the
ethics
law
ab-65.
D
What
this
section
of
the
bill
is
is
the
ethics
commission
would
also
like
to
be
provided
a
copy
of
that
from
the
various
agencies,
so
that
we
could
just
assure
there's
compliance
with
the
ethics
law.
We
would
send
out
notices
that
perhaps
we
haven't
received
your
your
acknowledgement
form
currently
at
this
point
in
time.
The
ethics
law
does
not
have
any
fines
or
penalties
for
late
filing.
D
D
In
addition,
you
will
find
a
couple:
supplemental
stuff.
Excuse
me
supplementary
slides
at
the
end
of
the
presentation,
and
they
just
assist
you
in
reviewing
the
changes
in
the
bill,
and
they
just
are
some
background
information.
D
Then
I'm
going
to
leave
it
to
the
committee
to
review
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
them
in
particular,
and
one
other
matter
I
wanted
to
cover
before
we
go
into
questions.
Is
I
want
to
let
the
committee
that
we
have
circulated
ab65
and
we've
received
a
little
bit
of
feedback
from
the
locals
on
two
provisions.
D
D
Although
these
records
would
be
part
of
the
investigative
file
and
have
those
protections,
we
have
no
objection
to
establishing
a
process
by
regulation
so
that
either
a
stipulation
or
a
motion
to
request
ceiling
of
records
could
be
made
by
the
parties
which
regulation
would
provide
the
appropriate
mechanism
for
person,
personnel
and
other
confidentiality
records
to
be
submitted
under
seal
at
the
adjudicatory
hearing,
and
with
that,
madam
chair
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
You
may
have
great.
A
Thank
you
so
much
actually
so,
committee
members,
if
you
have
a
question,
please
im
me
so
that
you
can
be
recognized.
I
do
have.
The
first
question
we
have
up
is
from
vice
chair.
E
Howdy,
thank
you,
chair
miller,
and
I
just
want
to
start
with
one
quick
question
and
then
maybe
let
other
committees
committee
members
jump
in
and
then
come
back
at
their
time
allowable.
But
I
just
I
have
concerns
regarding
section
22
and
that's
just
from
the
start,
because
I
know
we
had
this
conversation
last
session
as
well.
E
I
see
there's
no
limitations
and
section
22
is
what
requires
the
executive
director
to
be
an
attorney
who
is
licensed
to
practice
law
in
the
state,
and
I
know
we
had
discussions
about
it
in
2019
as
well.
But
my
concern
here
is
that
there's
nothing
preventing
you
from
hiring
an
attorney
who
is
licensed
in
the
state.
E
If
that's
the
will
of
the
commission
to
hire
an
executive
director
who
is
an
attorney,
but
by
requiring
it
in
statute
that
it
be
an
attorney,
you
are
limiting
or
possibly
disqualifying
any
other
potential
candidates
who
might
be
qualified
individuals
for
this
job.
So
if
it
is
the
will
of
the
commission
when
needing
to
fill
the
position
to
look
for
an
attorney,
you
can
but
at
least
you're
not
prevented
from
hiring
another
qualified
individual
to
fill.
E
That
role,
if
they
aren't
an
attorney,
and
so
I
don't
think
we
should
be
limiting
the
position
to
to
an
attorney,
can
you
you
guys
kind
of
just
explain?
I
know
this
was
brought
in
2019
this
section
and
we
had
the
conversation.
So
what
was
the
thought
process
in
bringing
it
back.
D
Thank
you
vice
chair.
Having
had
a
key
for
the
question
through
you
through
the
chair
to
you
in
response,
let's
go
directly,
oh
thank
you
very
much.
D
There
were
a
couple
reasons
that
the
commission
decided
to
bring
this
back
and
it
is
the
one
difference
from
senate
bill,
120
top
20
129
that
was
brought
back,
and
that
is
because
we're
such
a
small
agency
and
our
time
deadlines
are
so
tight
that
it
to
have
somebody
else
come
in
and
really
understand
the
process
of
the
ethics
law.
How
to
put
it
forward
to
the
commission
takes
training.
So
at
that
point
in
time,
that's
one
reason:
it's
a
training
issue.
D
Another
reason
is
that
most
of
the
public
officers
and
public
employees
are
under
the
authority
of
the
commission.
So
even
the
attorney
general's
office
could
be
under
our
authority
for
an
ethics
law
complaint,
although
they
could
act
as
a
conflict
council
and
the
other
provision
is
in
law.
Currently,
the
commission
is
able
to
hire
outside
counsel,
and
one
of
the
biggest
concerns
was
that
the
cost
associated
with
that,
especially
given
the
state's
budget
and
things
like
that,
so
we've
always
tried
to
limit
the
cost
of
conflict
council.
D
E
Thank
you
manager,
just
a
follow-up
statement.
Yes,
please
perfect
and
miss
chase.
You
made
my
point,
though
yeah
because
always
prefer
you
guys
could
always
advertise
as
a
preferred
qualification,
but
just
not
limit
the
opportunity
to
someone
who
might
be
a
qualified
individual
but
then
not
be
considered
because
they
are
not
an
attorney,
but
if
it
is
the
commission's
desire
to
hire
an
attorney,
there
is
nothing
prohibiting
them
from
doing
so.
B
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
question
is
more
broad.
I
just
wondered
what
prompted
the
the
need
for
the
further
resi
the
revisions
to
the
current
law.
Was
it
a?
Has?
This
been
an
ongoing
thing
where
you
were
trying
to
trying
to
make
these
revisions
and
just
maybe
didn't
get
them
in
in
previous
sessions
or
or
did?
Was
there
a
situation
that
prompted
this?
These
changes.
D
Thank
you,
assemblyman
levitt,
for
for
the
question
in
response
to
you
in
2017,
the
commission
will
go
through
that
made
changes
to
the
ethics
law
and
we
have
been
monitoring
those
changes
and
that's
why
we
came
back
in
2019
with
summer
visions
to
our
processes.
D
As
we
have
been
processing
these
cases,
we've
noticed
that
there
could
be
additional
clarity
and
protection
of
whistleblowers
number
one,
because
you
know,
unfortunately,
if
it's
a
small
agency
and
they
can
figure
out
from
the
materials
that
were
required
to
now
provide
who
that
person
is
and
their
confidentiality
is
compromised.
We've
just
seen
some
issues
and
that's
why
we
decided
to
come
back
with
this
bill
and
it's
pretty
much
a
procedural
bill
for
the
most
part.
F
The
chair
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
on
on
this
bill
throughout
the
legislation.
As
I
as
I
was
reading,
I
noticed
that
in
several
places
throughout
the
legislation,
including
section
43,
section,
44,
section,
45
and
I'm
sure
a
number
of
other
locations
there's
an
extension
on
the
amount
of
time
and
the
ability
for
the
director
to
waive
the
time
requirement
completely,
which
almost
makes
it
makes
me
a
little
uneasy
because
it,
it
almost
seems
that
the
director
would
then
be
able
to
just
extend
that
time
almost
indefinitely.
F
So
if
you
could
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
intention
for
doing
that,
the
reason
why
that's
necessary
and
whether
or
not
the
the
commission
has
been
able
to
function
with
the
time
requirements
currently,
because,
if
that's
the
case-
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
see
a
reason
for
the
the
ability
to
waive
those
extensions.
D
Thank
you,
assemblyman
woman
taurus,
for
the
question
in
response
to
your
question.
There
are
a
couple
reasons
on
the
time
requirements.
D
If
you
look
at
the
times
that
the
commission
has
to
process
the
different
phases
and
I'll
highlight
it
with
the
adjudicatory
phase,
because
you
really
only
have
60
days
to
go
through
an
enormous
amount
of
materials,
we
had
some
cases
where
we
had
to
subpoena
records
and
those
records.
We
couldn't
even
get
within
60
days
and
we
were
lucky
enough
to
get
waivers
from
the
subject.
D
But
if
the
subject
doesn't
want
to
waive
we're
stuck
with
the
timelines
that
are
set
forth
in
the
statute,
and
then
you
know,
unfortunately,
we
haven't
had
to
dismiss
a
case
yet,
but
our
resources
are
then
redirected
to
that
case.
So
what
that
has
a
a
trickle
effect
of?
Is
that
other
cases
where
there
is
a
waiver
make
it
delayed
so
for
the
orderly
processing
of
the
case
and
the
time
they
came
in
is
a
big
factor,
because
if
you
have
to
delay
an
older
case
for
a
new
case
come
in,
you
could
lose
witnesses.
D
You
could
lose
evidence
and
you
can
lose
testimony,
so
that
was
one
of
the
major
reasons
for
really
allowing
the
commission
to
navigate
its
extension
issues.
If
the
commission
grants
an
extension
time,
a
dedicated
time
will
be
provided
and
it
will
be
based
upon
the
good
cause
standard.
That's
set
forth
in
the
bill.
In
addition,
the
executive
director
right
now
currently
can
extend
times
for
the
to
respond
to
an
ethics
complaint
in
the
investigative
phase,
but
other
than
that.
D
D
F
I'll
open
my
major
yes,
please
thank
you,
and
I
I
just
feel
like
this-
gives
the
the
director
an
extreme
amount
of
power
to
be
able
to
wait
that
without
having
that
conversation
with
the
subject
at
hand,
so
I
just
feel
like
that
might
be
that
this
might
be
the
other
extreme
and
give
a
little
bit
too
much
flexibility
to
the
office,
and
I
would
urge
the
commission
to
look
at
other
ways
that
they
could
achieve
that
without
this.
E
Vice
chair,
how
did
he
okay?
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
and
then
just
just
a
couple,
maybe
one
more
question.
Let
me
get
back
to
where
I
was.
E
I
lost
my
section
if
we
could
just
jump
to
page
33
of
the
bill.
It's
section
32
of
11.
and
it.
This
is
just
more
for
clarification
for
me,
but
you're,
removing
the
the
word
willful.
No
local
refusal
to
execute
and
file
the
acknowledgement
required
by
the
section.
Oh
and
then
you
replace
it
with
refuses.
So
I'm
assuming
it's
the
same
thing,
but
so
someone
who
willfully
refuses.
I
can
see
how
they
would
be
in
violation
of
the
of
the
chapter.
E
D
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question
vice
chair.
How
to
keep
in
response
to
your
question.
D
The
willful
was
removed
because
the
commission
itself,
if
someone
doesn't
file
an
ethics
acknowledgement,
form
they've
already,
provided
the
executive
director
authority
send
out
a
notice
saying
please
file
the
form
and
that's
one
reason
why
we're
hoping
to
have
those
list
of
public
officers.
So
we
can
secure
compliance
rather
than
you
know,
have
ethics
complaints
on
whether
you
filed
an
acknowledgement
form.
In
addition,
willful
was
removed
from
a
from
the
bill,
because
there
was
confusion
that
they
thought
it
was
a
purposeful.
D
But
if
you
have
a
continued
negligence,
you
just
don't
do
it
you
just
it's
not.
It
may
not
be
willful,
but
you're
busy,
you're,
not
thinking
about
it.
So
either
the
form
is
filed
or
it's
not,
and
the
commission
will
basically
indicate
please
file
the
form
with
the
list
of
public
officers,
and
I
don't
recall
in
my
six
years
with
the
commission
that
the
commission
has
ever
fined
somebody
for
not
filing
the
form,
although
it
could
get
they
could.
They
do
have
authority
to.
E
And
just
one
last
question
chair:
yes,
thank
you
and
then,
when
it
comes
to
section
27
on
page
21,
section
27,
sub
3,
where
it
says
accepted
otherwise,
provided
in
the
subsection
upon
the
request
of
the
executive
director
they
can
subpoena
and
then
during
the
course
of
any
investigation,
then
it
goes
on
to
list
what
they
can
subpoena.
It
says
any
deemed
by
law
to
be
confidential.
E
What
does
that
mean?
Does
that
mean
they
can
subpoena,
like
attorney
attorney-client
privileges
or
doctor-patient
privileges,
where
it
says
it
says,
information
or
records
deemed
to
be
by
law
deemed
by
law
to
be
confidential?
Does
that
mean
we're
giving
you
the
authority
to
be
able
to
break
those
privileges.
D
Thank
you
vice
chair
howdy,
for
the
question
in
response
to
your
question.
No,
it's
just
the
opposite.
If
there's
a
confidentiality
privilege
in
state
law,
this
provision
would
not
over
override
that.
A
A
broadcasting,
please
allow
those
in
support
to
get
into
queue,
and
while
you
are
doing
that,
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
listening
that,
if
you
are
providing
testimony,
please
make
sure
to
state
your
first
and
last
name
clearly
for
the
record
and
your
testimony
will
be.
You
will
have
two
minutes
for
your
testimony,
so
broadcasting,
whenever
you're
ready.
A
B
B
B
B
Hello,
this
is
dave
daslich,
director
of
government
affairs,
with
the
las
vegas
chamber
of
commerce,
we're
just
testifying
in
support
of
ab65.
Today
robust
and
simplified
ethics
code
for
all
public
employees
and
elected
officials,
we
feel
is
vital
to
the
operations
of
nevada,
government
and
public
trust
in
them.
We
think
that
this
bill
is
a
good
step
in
streamlining
these
processes
and
ensuring
that
every
claim
is
given
sufficient
consideration.
B
B
B
B
A
Hey,
thank
you.
Can
we
check
and
queue
up
to
see
if
we
have
anyone
in
neutral.
A
Next
up
we
have
an
agenda
item
assembly
bill
and-
and
I
let
me
back
up-
thank
you
so
much
to
the
ethics
commission
for
presenting
the
bill
today.
Thank
you
for
that.
I
would
be
remiss
without
saying
that
so
thank
you.
A
Now
I
will
officially
close
the
hearing
on
that
again
I'd
like
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
129
by
assemblyman
roberts.
This
measure
revises
the
thresholds
for
political
action
committees
to
open
and
maintain
a
separate
account
and
on
the
reporting,
contributions
and
expenditures
so
assemblyman
when
you're.
C
All
ready,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
members
of
the
committee
good
afternoon,
I'm
assemblyman
tom
roberts
from
assembly
district
13
in
southern
nevada.
Today,
I'm
going
to
present
assembly
bill
129.
C
I'll
first
start
with
a
little
story
on
why
I
came
to
the
realization
that
to
pass
a
spill,
or
at
least
attempt
to
pass
this
bill
I'll,
go
over
the
technical
changes
to
the
bill
and
then
open
up
for
questions.
If
that
pleases.
You,
madam
chair,
so
with
that,
so
some
of
you
know
or
may
be
aware-
or
maybe
you
don't
know-
but
I
was
I
spent
34
years
in
law
enforcement
to
include
a
little
over
24
years
with
lvmpd
in
southern
nevada.
C
C
C
There
were
several
changes
to
individual
campaigns
accounts
in
2017
and
2019
by
this
legislative
body
that
gave
more
visibility
to
public
to
the
public
and
lowered
the
donation,
thresholds,
expenses
and
cash
on
hand
reporting.
I
believe
that
these
changes
were
a
move
in
the
right
direction
and
it
lessened
the
likelihood
of
abuses.
C
During
the
last
election
cycle,
I
received
several
campaign
materials
just
like
most
of
you
did
and
some
were
actually
from
political
action
committees.
I
make
it
a
habit
of
looking
up
these
packs
to
see
more
information
about
these
groups.
Very
many
of
these
groups
fully
disclose
contributions
as
expenses
at
any
dollar
amount
in
actuality,
it's
it's
actually
more
commonplace
than
not
even
when
it's
not
required.
C
C
Candidates
for
non-federal
office
in
state
of
nevada
are
required
to
report
contributions
and
expenditures
over
a
hundred
dollars.
They
also
must
report
cash
on
hand.
This
threshold
was
lower
in
2017,
as
I
mentioned
before.
Maybe
it's
129
decreases.
The
thresholds
for
pac
reporting
to
lower
the
reporting
contributions
and
expenses
amounts
to
100
and
requires
packs
to
report
cash
on
hand.
C
Excuse
me
are
required
to
open
and
maintain
a
separate
account
for
contributions
and
to
report
contributions
that
exceed
a
certain
amount.
These
requirements
are
inconsistent
with
requirements
with
pacs
or
excuse
me
with
individual
candidates,
section
four
of
the
bill
revises
current
law
to
require
pacs,
to
open
and
maintain
a
separate
account
to
deposit
contributions
of
a
hundred
dollars
or
more
no
later
than
a
week
after
receiving
them
sections.
Two
three
six
and
eight
require
a
pack
to
report
contributions
and
expenditures
in
excess
of
a
hundred
dollars
during
reporting
period.
C
If
the
contribution
received
is
in
excess
of
a
hundred
dollars
two,
if
a
contributor's
total
exceeds
a
hundred
dollars,
an
expenditure
exceeds
a
hundred
dollars
or
the
total
cumulative
expenditure
exceeds
a
hundred
dollars.
In
addition,
the
measure
increases
tax
reporting
requirements
during
a
reported
period
to
include
all
contributions
received
during
that
period
for
100
or
less
the
balance
of
the
account
of
the
ending
date
reporting
period
and
the
total
of
all
expenditures
that
are
100
or
less
made
during
the
reporting
period.
C
C
So
with
that
with
those
remarks,
madam
chair
and
committee
members,
this
concludes
my
presentation.
C
As
I
said
before,
I'm
open
to
leaving
the
contributing
levels
the
same
this
bill
was
never
intended
to
shed
light
on
donors,
but
more
oversight
and
transparency
on
the
operations
of
these
pacs,
and
so
with
that
I'll
take
questions.
Man.
A
B
B
You
assemblyman
roberts.
I
really
appreciate
what
you
said
about
being
open
to
changing
the
donor
portion.
D
Of
it,
because
we've
seen
in
especially
with
controversial
types
of
valid
initiatives
and
even
some
recalls,
where
people.
F
C
C
So
I
didn't
see
it
as
a
huge
issue
when
I
drafted
the
bill,
but
until
got
some
feedback
from
some
some
groups,
you
know
I
I
felt
that
there
could
be
some
movement
there
and
that
was
not
the
intent
to
expose
minor
donations
or
donors.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
Well,
seeing
no
additional
questions
from
members,
we
will
move
into
accepting
testimony
so
broadcasting
again,
while
you
get
everyone
queued
up,
we'll
start
with
those
who
would
like
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill,
129
and
again
for
those
testifying.
You
will
have
up
to
two
minutes
to
express
your
support.
Please
make
sure
you
state
your
first
and
last
name
clearly
for
the
record.
B
B
Queue
chair:
this
is
michael
from
broadcast.
We
don't
appear
to
have
anyone
on
the
line
in
support
of
ab129.
B
G
Good
afternoon
this
is
janine
hanson,
the
state
chairman
of
the
independent
american
party.
I
did
send
my
testimony
in.
However,
I
would
like
to
broaden
what
I've
said
there.
One
of
the
most
important
things
is
the
experience
in
california
on
an
issue
on
the
ballot
for
marriage
between
a
man
and
a
woman.
They
published
everyone's
addresses
on
a
google
map
and
they
were
subject
to
slash,
tires
vandalism
at
their
homes,
threats
and
intimidation.
G
This
is
real,
and
this
can
happen
when
I
ran
for
state
senate
as
an
independent
american.
Several
years
ago,
I
was
told
repeatedly
that
people
would
only
give
me
a
hundred
dollars
because
they
didn't
want
their
name
to
show
up
on
the
secretary
of
state's
website,
because
the
republican
party
or
some
other
powers
that
be
would
wouldn't
like
it
and
would
come
after
them.
G
This
suppresses
these
laws
suppress
political
free
speech,
which
is
our
most
important
free
speech.
Years
ago,
when
I
participated
in
the
acts
the
tax
petition
campaign,
we
had
a
gentleman
at
tahoe
that
donated
money.
He
had
a
distribution
business
when
his
name
showed
up
with
the
secretary
of
state's
website
the
casinos
who
were
against
that
cancelled
all
of
his
contracts
and
he
ultimately
lost
his
business.
G
I
think
this
is
very
important
that
we
have,
if,
if
not
to
defeat
the
bill
entirely,
which
I
am
against
the
entire
bill,
that
we
should
at
least
cut
out
the
part
that
assemblyman
roberts
talked
about
with
regards
to
donors.
So
I
hope
you
recognize
the
fact
that
free
speech
is
money
and
without
money
there
is
no
free
speech
and
those
that
suffer
the
most
are
those
that
have
the
least
power
in
the
political
system
by
all
of
these
rules.
G
A
B
F
M-E-L-I-S-F-A-C-L-E-M-E-N-T,
I'm
testifying
today
in
opposition
to
ab110
campaign
and
finance
reform
is
problematic,
as
it
has
the
very
real
effect
of
impacting
the
first
amendment
freedom
of
speech
in
today's
canceled
culture.
It
is
not
by
any
means
a
stretch
of
the
imagination
to
foresee
that
opponents
of
viewpoints
could
use
the
donation
disclosures
as
a
means
to
identify,
target
and
intimidate
individuals
who
have
donated
to
causes.
F
F
B
B
B
This
is
bruce
parks
with
battleborn
patriots,
as
you
may
recognize
the
name
as
the
group
that
instituted
the
last
recall
against
the
occupier
of
the
governor's
mansion.
B
B
B
It
opens
up
nevadans
for
retribution
for
simply
being
involved
in
the
political
process,
a
fundamental
right
guaranteed
by
our
constitution,
that
you
would
consider
the
threshold
of
a
hundred
dollars
is
reprehensible,
and
I
don't
understand
it
please,
if
you're
not
going
to
amend
this,
then
do
away
with
it.
Thank
you
for
your.
B
B
B
A
With
that,
thank
you
assemblyman
roberts,
for
bringing
forth
this
bill,
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
129.
A
A
We
actually
have
an
amendment
on
this
bill
and
director
erdos
is
with
us
online
who
she
will
walk
us
through
the
amendment.
So
director
erdos
when
you're
ready.
B
F
B
I
hate
to
interrupt,
but
if
I
I
don't
want
to
put
lcb
in
a
position
because
they're
not
allowed
to
advocate,
I
just
don't
want
to
put
them
in
an
awkward
position
of
okay
laying
it
out.
So
if,
if
I
could
just
lay
out,
with
your
permission,
the
overview
of
the
intent
of
the
amendment
and
then
have
director
erdos
walk
through
the
actual
language,
so
that
she's
not
advocating
for
legislation,
if
that's
okay,.
B
So,
thank
you
again
for
the
record
jason
fryer
assembly
district.
Eight.
This
measure
was
amended
to
address
what
appeared
to
be
some
confusion
at
the
bill
hearing
regarding
the
preamble,
which
was
laying
out
what
got
us
to
today,
but
was
not
part
of
the
actual
legislation
that
would
go
into
statute,
and
so
this
amendment
takes
that
out
really
just
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
that
confusion,
that
this
is
specific
to
to
covid
or
the
pandemic,
and
and
allows
us
to
focus
on
the
actual
bill.
B
The
bill
as
intended
and
the
the
amendment
that
ms
erdos
is
going
to
walk
through
is
intended
to
provide
clarification,
that
this
is
not
expanding.
The
types
of
people
who
need
to
register
but
simply
take
into
account
that
participating
virtually
is
a
new
normal
and,
in
you
know,
in
adapting
and
modernizing.
B
This
may
continue
to
be
beyond
the
pandemic.
The
way
that
some
people
participate
and
some
people
lobby,
and
so
the
intention
is
to
make
sure
that
folks
that
lobby,
without
coming
into
the
building,
but
still
you
know,
lobby
on
behalf
of
another
person
or
another
entity,
are
required
to
to
report
same
as
if
they
had
to
enter
the
building.
And
so
I
was
glad
to
discuss
this
with
my
colleagues
throughout
the
the
assembly
that
had
concerns.
B
I
certainly
and
I
provided
language
to
to
those
that
that
had
some
concerns
with
the
expectation
that
this
resolved
those
and
made
clear
what
the
intention
of
the
bill
was,
and
so
with
that
matter,
I'll,
stop
talking
and
let
director
erdos
walk
through
the
actual
language.
The
other
thing
that
I'll
point
out
I
don't
want
to
leave
out
is
that
it.
B
It
adds
that
this
applies
both
in
a
regular
and
also
special
session,
and
so
with
that,
I
would
invite
director
ordos
to
walk
through
the
language
of
the
email.
F
Thank
you
as
a
speaker,
this
proposed
amendment
removes
existing
section,
one
of
the
bill,
which
was
that
intent
section
and
instead
adds
a
new
paragraph
h
to
subsection
two
of
nrs218080
in
section
two
of
the
bill,
which
is
intended
to
accomplish
the
same
goal
in
sort
of
a,
I
would
say,
more
substantive
manner
that.
B
F
Adding
an
exception
to
subsection
one
so
that
it's
clear
that
a
person
who's
only
lobbying
activity
is
infrequent
and
irregular
and
is
not
required
to
register
as
a
lobbyist
unless
the
person
engages
in
a
pattern
of
conduct
that
amounts
to
lobbying
over
over
the
longer
term.
F
This
proposed
amendment
also
adds
a
new
section
2.3
to
the
bill
to
amend
nrs,
218h
200,
and
this
amendment's
added
to
to
clarify
that
a
person
is
only
required
to
register
as
a
lobbyist
when
the
act
when
they
act
as
a
lobbyist.
It
was
currently
already
in
one
of
the
provisions
of
the
existing
law,
but
as
we
looked
through
the
section
it
just
seemed
like
it
would
be
good
to
make
it
clear
here
that
really
the
request.
F
The
requirement
to
register
as
a
lobbyist
only
applies
to
during
a
regular
or
special
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
And
then,
once
you
are
registered
as
a
lobbyist
for
one
of
those
sessions,
then
you
must
continue
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
218h
regarding
lobbyists,
throughout
until
the
next
session
of
the
legislature.
F
There's
a
similar
provision
adding
a
new
section
of
section
2.7.
It's
the
same
language
that
we're
adding
again
to
make
it
clear
that
that
the
requirement
to
register
is
a
lobbyist,
which
is
actually
stated
in
interest
218
h180
already
in
existing
language,
just
to
make
it
consistent.
F
So
that's
clear
when
you're
reading,
all
this
that
that
you
know
that
you,
when
you
have
lobbying
activities
during
a
regular
special
session,
you
need
to
register,
and
then,
after
that,
after
you've
registered,
you
are
considered
a
lobbyist
for
all
the
provisions
of
the
of
the
regulatory
provisions
of
the
chapter
until
the
next
legislative
session.
F
The
only
other
changes
in
this
proposed
amendment
are
in
section
three,
which
is
the
transitory
provision,
and
we
just
wanted
to
make
it
clear
that
that
transitory
provision
only
relates
to
this
particular
session
legislature.
While
this
bill
is
out
there
and
being
changed
and
then
the
legislative
council's
digest
is
made
to
be
consistent
with
all
of
those
changes
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
thanks.
F
A
B
Just
a
quick
comment,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
mr
speaker
and
ms
erdos
for
working
with
us
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
we
had
about
the
potential
of
this
bill's
effects
down
the
road
and
really
appreciate
them
working
to
make
this
easier
for
us
to
to
vote
for.
Thank
you.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
echo
what
assemblywoman
dickman
said
and
expressed
appreciation
director,
erdos
steven
fryerson,
all
the
others
who
helped
address
some
of
those
concerns.
Of
course,
transparency.
Something
we
all
should
support
something.
I
certainly
support,
and
I
know
from
the
beginning
that
clearly
was
the
intent
of
this
bill
and
I
think
that's
great
and
again
just
wanted
to
express
my
gratefulness
for
all
the
the
work
that
went
into
getting
this
bill
to
where
I
believe
is
a
very,
very
good
place
right
now.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
without
sounding
like
a
broken
record,
I'm
gonna
sound
like
a
broken
record.
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
show
my
appreciation
too,
to
speaker,
fryerson
and
and
director
erdos,
for
their
their
work
on
this
and
and
just
for
the
sake
of
clarification
for
our
sake
and
and
and
truly
converting
the
language
to
express
the
true
intent
of
the
bill,
which
is
transparency,
which
I
very
much
appreciate
so
I'll,
be
I'll,
be
I'll,
be
a
yes
on
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
with
that,
I
would
like
to
ask
our
committee
secretary
to
take
a
roll
call
vote
again
in
the
online
virtual.
It's
hard
to
decipher
between
votes
and
sounds
plural
sounds
so
if
we
could
do
a
roll
call
vote,
please.
C
E
A
And
with
that
the
motion
carries,
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
for
for
this
bill.
A
I
will
assign
it
to
myself
on
this
one
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item
the
last
one
being
public
comment
so
again,
while
broadcasting
please
prepare
and
get
everyone
queued
up
for
those
who'd
like
to
make
public
comment
just
reminding
everyone
that
the
public
comment
should
pertain
to
those
that
are
in
the
purview
under
this
committee,
you
will
have
two
minutes
per
person
and
with
that
we
will
wait
for
broadcasting
to
tell
us
when
our
first
person
is
ready.
B
A
We'll
just
hold
on
another
moment
or
so
to
give
people
a
chance.
I
know.
Sometimes
it
quickly
moves
from
committee
business
to
to
the
time
to
call
in
so.
B
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Well,
would
that
seem
no
callers
for
public
comment.
I
this
will
conclude
the
meeting
for
the
day.
We
do
not,
I'm
sure
everyone
has
noticed
on
the
agenda.
We
do
not
have
a
meeting
scheduled
for
this
thursday,
so
you
will
see
when
the
next
meeting
is
scheduled.
The
agenda
will
be
posted
and
with
that
the
meeting
is
adjourned.