►
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
Hello,
everyone
I
would
like
to
good
afternoon
and
open
this
meeting
today
on
assembly
legislative
operations
and
elections,
despite
the
fact
that
my
vice
chair
believes
that
I
do
not
gavel
in
loud
enough.
I
feel
it's
the
appropriate
amount
of
gavel
so
with
that
new
committee
secretary,
can
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
Here
and
please
mark
speaker,
fryerson
absent
excused
with
that,
just
a
few
little
updates.
Of
course,
we
know
that
social
distancing
and
mask
wearing
is
required
in
committee.
We
will
have
one
bill
today
and
we
will
also
take
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment
after
the
hearing.
A
A
Roberts,
thank
you,
nice
to
meet
you
assemblyman
roberts,
yes,
and
this
is
a
measure
that
proposes
to
amend
the
nevada
constitution,
to
remove
the
constitutional
provisions
governing
the
election
and
the
duties
of
the
board
of
regents,
and
so
with
that
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
sjr7
and
give
the
senator
and
the
assemblyman
a
moment
to
prepare.
C
Thank
you,
chair
miller
and
committee
members
and
chair
miller.
I
would
say
anybody
who
represents
assembly
district
five
has
the
exact
amount
of
right
gavel
so.
C
So
for
the
record,
I
am
marilyn
dondero
loop,
representing
senate
district
8
in
clark
county.
I
am
pleased
to
be
joined
today
by
assemblyman
tom
roberts
representing
assembly
district
13..
We
are
presenting
senate
joint
resolution,
7
the
nevada,
higher
education,
reform,
accountability
and
oversight,
amendment,
which
relates
to
the
governance
of
the
university
of
nevada
system.
I
am
sure
many
of
you
are
aware
of
the
general
contents
of
the
bill.
C
Additionally,
the
nevada
constitution
provides
for
the
board
of
regents
to
control
and
manage
the
affairs
and
funds
of
the
state
university
under
regulations
established
by
law
senate
joint
resolution.
7
proposes
to
remove
the
constitutional
provisions
governing
election
and
duties
of
the
board
of
regents
and
its
control
and
management
of
the
affairs
and
funds
of
the
state
university
instead,
sjr
7
would
require
the
legislature
to
provide
by
law
for
the
governance
of
the
state
university.
C
I
want
to
stress
that
sjr
7
does
not
repeal
any
existing
statutory
provisions
governing
the
board
of
regents,
including
those
that
provide
for
the
election
of
board
of
regents.
However,
it
would
make
the
board
statutory
body
with
structure
membership
powers
and
duties
are
governed
by
statutory
provisions
subject
to
any
statutory
changes
made
through
the
legislative
process.
This
is
no
different
than
so
many
other
boards
set
forth
in
nevada,
nevada's
statutes
in
the
lead
up
to
previous
sessions.
C
We
must
be
focused
on
building
long-standing
and
stable
systems
of
governance,
not
on
individual
personalities.
We
owe
the
citizens
of
nevada
a
culture
of
accountability
in
all
levels
of
government.
This
higher
education
system
belongs
to
all
of
nevadans.
All
of
us
who
live
here
in
nevada.
It
is
a
collective
investment
in
the
future
of
our
state,
as
you
recall,
assembly
joint
resolution
5
of
the
79th
session,
which
proposed
some
of
the
same
amendments
as
sjr
7
passed
overwhelmingly
in
two
legislative
sessions,
and
we
are
grateful
for
the
support
of
our
colleagues
senate
joint
resolution.
C
C
Chapter
396
of
the
nrs
would
continue
to
exist
and
would
still
comprehensively
govern
the
board
of
regents,
and
it
would
still
include
the
requirement
of
the
board
be
elected.
The
purpose
of
sjr-7
is
two-fold:
it
allows
the
legislature
to
exercise
informed
and
measured
governance
of
inchi,
and
it
allows
more
flexibility
in
considering
reform
proposals.
C
C
We
will
see
a
resurgence
of
strong
support
for
enshi
and
the
board
of
regents,
mr
roberts
and
I
pledge
our
support
to
work
with
nxi
administration
and
the
board
on
behalf
of
the
students,
the
families
and
our
communities,
so
that
we
can
have
the
best
higher
education
system
in
our
nation,
chair
miller
and
committee
members.
This
concludes
my
testimony,
so
I
would
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
my
colleague
assemblyman
tom
roberts,
who
will
provide
further
information
about
sjr7.
D
I
thank
you
senator
donderol
loop
and
thank
you,
chairman
miller
and
committee
members,
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblyman
tom
roberts
representing
assembly
district
13
in
clark
county,
I'm
pleased
to
join
senator
don
darrell
loop,
and
my
support
for
sjr7,
I'd
like
to
point
out,
is
set
forth
into
ballot
questions.
Arguments
for
ajr,
5
and
2017
legislative
session
that,
although
some
other
states
have
elected
boards
with
constitutional
status,
that
control
and
manage
particular
institutions
and
programs
of
public
higher
education.
D
In
the
past
cases
before
the
nevada
supreme
court
and
the
board
of
regents
have
has
asserted
that
its
unique
constitutional
status
gives
it
virtual
autonomy,
thus
immunity
from
certain
laws
and
policies
enacted
by
this
body
based
on
the
legislative
testimony.
These
assertions
have
given
some
people
the
impression
that
the
board
conducts
itself
as
a
fourth
branch
of
government
and
at
the
board
too
often
invokes
its
constitutional
status
as
a
shield
against
additional
legislative
oversight.
D
Again,
as
senator
donderol
loop
noted,
things
have
improved
in
recent
years.
Nonetheless,
this
general
government
structure
needs
to
change.
A
good
example
of
this
is
how
the
university's
budget
is
administered,
while
the
nevada
constitution
requires
the
legislature
to
provide
financial
support
for
the
operation
of
the
state
university.
It
also
directs
the
board
to
control
and
manage
the
funds
of
the
university.
D
This.
This
divide
between
the
legislature's
constitutional
power
to
fund
higher
education
and
the
board's
constitutional
power
to
direct
how
those
funds
are
actually
spent
gives
the
board
virtual,
unparalleled
power
within
state
government
to
control
and
manage
higher
education
spending
without
the
same
level
of
legislative
oversight,
typically
applied
to
other
executive
branch
offices.
D
Senate
joint
resolution
clarifies
and
modernizes
existing
provisions
of
the
nevada
constitution
relating
to
the
administration
of
these
federal
land
grant
proceeds,
however,
because
the
state
of
nevada
must
administer
those
proceeds
in
a
manner
required
by
federal
law.
Sjr
will
not
change
the
purpose
of
the
use
of
those
proceeds
in
closing
senator
dondero
loop,
and
I
know
that
sjr
7
represents
a
second
byte
of
the
apple
per
se.
D
This
time,
however,
the
language
in
sjr
7
is
softened
from
ajr5
and
now
calls
for
the
governance
rather
than
control
and
management
of
the
state
university.
Moreover,
a
biannual
legislative
audit
of
the
state
university
and
any
other
public
institutions
of
higher
education
established
by
the
legislature
is
also
included
in
sjr
7..
D
This
new
gentler
language
and
the
audit
provision
will
bring
an
enhanced
level
of
transparency
and
trust
that
our
system
of
higher
education
so
desperately
needs
with
that
share
miller
and
members
of
the
committee.
That
concludes
our
presentation.
We
urge
your
support
of
sjr7,
and
this
is
just
the
beginning
of
a
long
process
to
bring
this
forward
to
the
voters,
and
we
hope
that
you
agree
that
nevada
should
have
an
opportunity
to
consider
sjr7
in
2024.
D
We
will
be
happy
to
answer
questions
and,
with
your
permission,
madam
chair,
when
I
turn
it
over
may
I
leave
to
go
back
to
my
other
committee
and
finish
finish.
My
work
there
or
or
if
you'd
like.
I
could
stay
here
now.
Assemblyman.
D
Is
revenue
and
I
have
a
bill
president.
D
A
E
Thank
you
assemblyman
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
maureen
schaefer
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
council
for
a
better
nevada.
We
are
a
community
organization
comprised
of
labor
business
and
philanthropic
leaders,
whose
purpose
is
to
impact
progress
on
issues
that
will
increase
the
quality
of
life
for
all
nevadans.
E
Those
seven
community
colleges,
colleges
and
universities
each
have
their
own
unique
missions
attempting
to
serve
their
own
student
populations
and
are
working
every
day
to
grow
in
dynamic
and
creative
ways
to
meet
the
times
in
which
we
all
live
and,
at
the
same
time
prepare
their
students
to
both
navigate
and
shape
a
stronger
and
more
sustainable
nevada.
Our
students,
academic
success
presents
represents
a
future
sustainable
nevada.
E
Yet
the
state's
public
investment
of
nearly
one
billion
dollars,
which
has
been
a
consistent
important
priority
of
this
legislature,
has
been
remarkably
ranked
16th
national
excuse
me
16th
nationally
in
per
pupil
spending.
Yes,
yet
has
also
consistently
translated
to
46,
nationally
and
college
attainment
outcomes.
When
we
look
at
what
has
been
accomplished
with
that
generous
and
thoughtful
investment,
nevada
can
do
better,
fortunately,
with
sjr7.
E
E
Our
learning
institutions
have
added
student
numbers,
increased
diversity
and
have
responded
to
their
local
economy
to
understand
the
types
of
workforce,
their
local
communities
need
to
aid
our
growing
economies.
However,
the
governance
structure
of
our
higher
education
system
is
struggling
to
be
able
to
respond
to
opportunities
in
changing
times
often
times
divisive.
Regionalism
wins
the
day
over
politics
of
a
new
and
unified
and
sustainable
nevada.
The
board
of
regents
continue
to
come
under
the
microscope
for
various
and
ongoing
fiscal
management
and
general
information
issues.
E
The
public
and
you,
the
legislator,
legislature,
fail
to
understand
and
are
forced
to
answer
questions
either
in
hearings
like
this
or
often
times
through
the
media
or
third
parties.
More
simply,
they
consistently
prove
it's
struck.
It's
a
struggle
to
keep
up
with
the
business,
academic
and
people
largesse
of
their
own
billion
dollar
organization.
E
E
The
public
trust
deserves
stronger
governance
and
with
it,
the
public
trust
will
be
restored
in
a
greater
capacity
in
a
system
that
so
many
families
and
students
and
our
economy
depend
on
for
their
higher
education
experience
and
what
nevada
depends
on
for
our
future.
Economic
sustainability
and
growth,
placing
the
existing
board
of
regent
governance
structure
and
the
purview
of
the
nevada
legislature
is
certainly
not
the
magic
bullet
or
the
perfect
answer.
E
No
public
governing
institution
ever
is,
however,
this
change
does
create
increased
accountability
and
greater
transparency
than
does
exist
today
within
the
current
system
for
nevadans
to
understand
how
current
funds
are
spent
or
how
the
board
is
making
decisions
on
behalf
of
institutions
and
its
students
who
learn
within
it.
It's
important
to
note
this
change
implements
checks
and
balances
without
changing
the
current
region,
elected
governance.
E
E
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
warren,
hardy
today
representing
the
council
for
better
nevada,
chair
miller,
members
of
the
committee.
We
appreciate
you
taking
up
this
important
issue
today
and
I
I
want
to
add
my
appreciation
to
senator
dunder
loop
and
assemblyman
roberts
for
bringing
this
important
issue
back.
I
think
the
sponsors
of
the
bill
have
done
a
really
good
job
of
sort
of
outlining
the
reason
and
the
purpose
for
it.
I
I
would
like
to
just
highlight
very
briefly
a
couple
of
things.
F
They
said
in
that
one
more
thing
for
for
your
consideration.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
intent
of
this
this
resolution
and
the
resolution
last
time
was
to
bring
back
bring
the
constitution
back
into
alignment
with
with
what
we
believe
were
the
intentions
of
the
framers
of
the
constitution
at
the
constitutional
convention.
F
As
mr
roberts
indicated,
there
was
a
very
specific
reason
at
that
time
for
including
a
constitutional
provision
for
the
regions,
excuse
me
and
that
directly
aligned
with
the
morel
act
of
1862,
which
was
just
a
couple
of
years
prior
to
the
constitutional
convention.
F
F
Well,
let
me
back
up
the
so.
The
framers
were
very
very
concerned.
F
Some
autonomy
over
the
legislature
and
implementing
policy,
but
again
that
was
a
very,
very
narrow
interpretation
to
a
very
narrow
set
of
circumstances
since
that
date-
and
I
think
I'm
just
going
from
memory
madam
chair-
but
I
think
it
was
in
the
in
the
in
the
in
the
1940s
but
from
that
date
forward.
The
supr,
the
the
board
of
regents
has
consistently
argued
that,
based
on
that
ruling,
they
have
broad
autonomy
and
broad
immunity
from
legislative
actions.
A
simple
reading
of
the
the
constitutional
convention
minutes
illustrates
that.
F
That's
simply
not
the
case
and
the
result
of
that
which
I
think
ought
to
be
problematic
to
any
member
of
the
legislature
and,
frankly,
to
any
any
voter.
The
the
net
effect
of
that
is
to
be
cr
to
create
a
fourth
branch
of
government
and
that's
problematic
in
in
the
sense
that
you
know
we.
We
have
the
most
brilliant
government
experiment
in
the
world:
that's
based
on
separation
of
powers
and
checks
and
balances
like
by
inadvertently,
you
know,
historically
and
through
culture,
creating
this
fourth
branch
of
government.
F
This
is
not
a
knock
on
the
voters,
but
what
we
ended
up
drafting
was
a
very
complex,
very
confusing
ballot
initiative
and
and
that
that
is
not
my
opinion,
that
comes
from
focus
groups
that
we've
done
from
polling
that
we've
done
and
actually
from
the
the
voter
data
itself.
It's
interesting
to
note
that
a
full
six
sixty
thousand
voters
jumped
over
question.
One
did
not
vote
for
question
one
and
went
straight
to
question
two.
F
That
is
an
unmistakable
indication
that
we
developed
a
a
ballot
initiative
that
was
not
well
understood
by
the
public
in
our
in
our
data
and
in
our
our
polling.
It's
clear
that
most
people
are
many.
Many
many
people
thought
that
they
were
voting
to
eliminate
the
direct
election
of
the
board
of
regents,
which
was
certainly
not
our
intent.
So
that's
the
reason
for
a
second
bite
of
the
apple
as
assemblyman
roberts
put
it.
F
It
was
very,
very,
very
narrow,
as
you
know,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
and
so
we
think
the
voters
deserve
another
another
shot
at
this
with
a
maybe
a
little
better
job
on
our
part
of
defining
the
issue.
I
appreciate
you
letting
me
ramble,
madam
chair
and
I
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
or
the
committee
might
have.
G
Thank
you,
madam
a
chair,
so
my
question
is
pretty
simple,
but
it
might
take
some
explanation.
How
specifically
does
this
differ
from
question,
one
that
was
just
recently
defeated
by
16
of
the
17
counties,
and
I
know
I
mean
I
talked
to
many
many
people
who
didn't
think
it
was
what
you
said,
mr
hardy.
They
knew
that
it
was
just
taking
it
out
of
the
constitution.
F
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
to
jump
in
if
senator
donder
loop
wants
to
answer,
but
there
were,
there
were
several.
There
were
several
things
in
ajr5
from
the
2017
session
that
it
that
made
it
appear
that
this
was
far
broader.
There
was
a
language
in
there
regarding
academic
freedom
regarding
those
types
of
issues,
and
so
that
that's
what
led,
I
think,
to
confuse
the
public.
It
was
clear,
not
certainly
not.
F
Everybody
was
confused
and
I
don't
mean
to
indicate
that,
but
a
significant
portion
was
it
was
so
this
legislation
simply
zeroes
in
on
the
fact
that
the
legislature
will
take
over
the
governance
of
higher
education.
The
board
of
regents
will
still
remain
in
place.
The
board
of
regents
will
still
be
elected.
All
of
the
governance
structure.
That's
currently
in
place
will
still
be
in
place,
but
this
just
very
clearly
specifies
that
the
governance,
responsibility
or
the
responsibility
for
accountability
will
be
through
the
legislature.
F
The
second
thing
it
does,
which
we
heard
unmistakably
in
our
polling
and
in
in
the
data
that
we
collected,
is
that
there
was
overwhelming
monumental
to
support
for
the
notion
of
an
a
regular
audit
of
the
system
of
higher
education,
which
which
has
not
been
done.
We've
got
a
separate
piece
of
legislation
this
session
to
achieve
that,
but
that's
the
other
place
that
a
difference
is
there's
a
difference
is
placing
the
emphasis
on
the
auditing
again,
the
entire,
the
entire
purpose
of
this
legislation.
F
From
day
one
has
been
to
create
an
accountability
that
exists
in
the
system
of
higher
education,
just
like,
like
it
exists
at
the
department
of
agriculture,
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
and
every
other
agency
that
the
state
funds
and
the
state
is
it's
the
law.
I
think
it's,
the
largest
budget
item
or
one
of
the
largest
budget
items
in
the
state.
Yet
the
accountability
is
not
there.
The
way
it
is
for
other
states.
So
it's
it's
to
you,
madam
chair.
It's
far
it's
far
more
to
mrs
stickman's
question.
C
And
madam
chair,
if
I
may
add
just
a
couple
sentences
there
to
the
assembly
woman,
this
is
what
I
addressed
in
my
remarks.
There
was
there
was
literally
purposeful
misinformation
by
the
opposition
and
I
believe
that
most
people
thought
that
we
were
targeting
the
board
of
regents,
which
is
this
this
bill.
This
senate
joint
resolution
is
specifically
just
taking
them
out
of
the
the
university
system
out
of
the
constitution.
A
You're
welcome
assemblywoman,
and
thank
you
for
that.
Our
next
question
comes
from
assemblyman
matthews.
H
Thank
you,
chair
and
good
afternoon
senator
thank
you
for
the
bill
presentation
good
to
see
you
as
well,
mr
hardy,
to
that
issue
of
accountability.
You
know,
given
that
that
regents
are
you
know,
currently
elected,
and
I
know
would
continue
to
be,
but
viewed
from
that
perspective,
the
accountability
theoretically
at
least
rests
directly
with
with
the
people
of
the
state
who
are
are
electing
people
who
campaign
for
office
specifically
on
on
issues.
You
know
germaine
to
to
the
responsibilities
of
regents.
H
So,
whereas
you
know
lawmakers
we're
responsible
for
a
wide
array
of
issues,
and
I'm
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
that
issue
in
terms
of
how
this
really
does
increase
that
accountability,
where
in
a
sense
you
could
see
where
that
accountability
rests
now
most
directly
with
those
who
are
who
are
affected
by
decisions
of
the
of
the
system
of
higher
education
or
the
voters.
Thank
you.
F
F
In
my
experience
in
my
30
years,
or
so
in
the
legislature
in
many
of
the
occasions
where
the
legislature
has
reached
out
and
tried
to
implement
policy
and
tried
to
have
some
input
into
the
direction
of
our
higher
education,
we've
gotten
pushed
back
to
the
point
of
of
lawsuits
from
the
board
of
regents
about
our
the
inappropriateness
of
of
us
as
members
of
or
you
as
members
of
the
legislature,
having
the
ability
to
set
policy,
and
so
it
is
about
accountability
not
just
for
dollars,
but
also
about
the
performance
of
our
system
of
higher
education.
F
We've
had
wonderful,
wonderful
regions,
including
the
the
mother
of
one
of
the
sponsors,
who
have
been,
who
were
remarkable
and
did
a
wonderful
job
with
higher
education,
but
it's
entirely
appropriate
for
the
legislature
to
have
their
position
heard
and
have
their
voice
heard
and
to
have
input
into
the
the
policy
direction
of
higher
education
in
this
state
and
not
just
simply
say,
here's
a
billion
dollars
get
back
to
us
with
what
you
did
with
it,
which
again
there
are
some
through
the
years
on
the
board
of
regents.
That
believes.
F
That's
the
that
is
the
role
of
the
legislature
to
give
us
the
money
and
let
us
cut,
let
us
implement
our
our
constitutionally
provided
right
to
spend
it
and
I'll
just
say
to
to
mr
matthews,
madam
chair,
that
I
think
that's
inappropriate
and
I
think
the
legislature
should
have
that
input.
So
I
hope
that
answers
your
mr
matthews
question,
madam
chair.
A
H
Yes,
thanks
and-
and
I
appreciate
that-
and
you
touched
on
something
that
actually
gets
to
my
next
question
and
obviously
you
can
see
where
this
would
increase,
that
that
accountability
and
and
transparency
and
oversight,
the
the
objective,
obviously
of
any
education
system,
is
ultimately
educational,
achievement
and
quality,
and
it
may
be
difficult
to
address
that
in
detail.
H
You
know
today,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
kind
of
try
to
connect
those
dots
for
me
and
and
talk
through
some
tangible
ways
in
which
you
foresee
this
down
the
road
ultimately
getting
to
that
to
that
chief
goal.
How
is
this
going
to
ultimately
end
up
and
result
in
better
outputs,
better
educational
achievement
from
the
system?
Thank
you.
C
Marilyn
donderol
loop
for
the
record
and
then
I'll
pass
this
over
to
mr
hardy,
but
that
that
woman
regent,
that
mr
hardy
was
referring
to
that.
I
know
very
well
always
said:
transparency
and
accountability.
C
Almost
100
percent
always
leads
to
trust.
So
when
we
are
making
laws-
and
we
are
funding
things,
I
think
that
the
public
deserves
accountability,
and
so
I
always
say
with
public
dollars,
comes
public
accountability
and
when
you
have
a
branch
of
of
government,
if
you
will,
that
does
not
necessarily
fall
under
that
same
accountability
measure.
C
I
think
that
presents
an
issue
and
it
presents
an
issue
to
the
people
that
are
running
that
as
well,
because
if,
if
they
don't
do
that,
they
can
be
as
honest
as
the
day
is
long
and
they
can
be
doing
everything
100
percent
right
I
mean
we
have
a
boyd
school
of
law,
that's
number
60
in
the
u.s
news
and
world
report,
I
mean
they're,
we're
doing
great
things
in
this
state,
and
I
I
think
that
we
want
to
know
those
things.
Mr
hardy.
F
Thank
you
senator
and
madam
chair.
I
think,
as
usual,
the
senator
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
I
I
would
only
say
from
my
own
experience
as
a
member
of
the
legislature
and
the
time
I
spent
in
the
assembly
in
the
senate.
I
got
a
lot
of
constituent
calls
about
higher
education
and
the
frustration
that
we're
very
high
in
funding,
but
not
in
some
cases
as
high
in
education
in
in
performance,
as
we
should
be.
I
would
add
to
what
senator
don
darrell
loops
said.
F
However,
is
there
are
major
victories
and
a
lot
of
good
things
happening
at
the
higher
the
system
of
higher
education?
I
mean
our
medical
school
is
a
perfect
example.
Our
law
school
is
a
perfect
example
how
it's
just
shot.
You
know
to
the
top.
In
the
years
it's
been
in
existence,
and-
and
I
you
know
it-
for
the
unlv
medical
school,
you
know
every
one
of
our
our
students
was
placed
at
a
a
great
prominent
university
for
for
their
residencies.
So
there
are
wonderful
things,
things
happening
and
certainly
don't
want
to
take
away
from
that.
F
But
my
frustration
as
a
member
of
the
legislature
was
that
I
would
bring
ideas
and
you
almost
had
to
run
them
by
the
regents
you
almost
had
to
you
know
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
an
ability
to
to
participate
in
that
process
and
and
and
any
system
is
better
when,
when
more
more
folks
have
an
input,
input
or
an
ability
to
provide
input
on
on
the
policies
and
the
things
that
that
should
be
done.
F
H
H
May
it
may
as
well
we're
here
right.
Thank
you
last
last
question.
You
know,
given
that
the
the
legislature
is
obviously,
as
we
all
know,
predominantly
made
up
of
representatives
from
the
state's
two
largest
counties,
but
given
also
that
the
system
of
higher
education
does
serve
our
rural
populations.
H
This
might
be
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question,
but
there
may
be
a
concern
that
this
could
potentially
further
dilute
the
voice
of
those
colleges
in
our
rural
communities,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
you
might
might
address,
or
perhaps
I'm
missing
something
with
how
this
would
be
applied.
Thank
you.
C
Marilyn
dondero
luke
for
the
record.
I
I
would
just
tell
you
that
taking
the
system
out
of
the
constitution
would
actually
have
nothing
to
do
but
be
able
to
enhance
the
the
state
as
a
whole.
C
Once
again,
I
I
think
we
have
a
fine
system.
You
know
we
have
two
brand
new
presidents
and
a
brand
new
chancellor,
and
I
mean
this
is
a
new
day.
We
have
wonderful
leaders
at
our
at
our
universities
and
our
community
colleges,
and
I
think
that
this
is
a
time
for
us
to
strengthen
our
system
and
move
forward,
and
I'm
we
have.
C
When
I
was
a
kid
we
wouldn't
know,
las
vegas
would
be
so
big.
So
I
just
think
it's
time
for
us
to
do
things
differently,
and
this
would
be
one
way
to
do
that,
and
it's
not
a
slight
on
on
anyone.
It's
just
asking
that,
if
we're
going
to
be.
C
F
Yes,
thank
you
senator
madam
chair.
Just
briefly,
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
good
question
and
I
think
it's
one
worth
exploring,
but
I
would
re
respectfully
submit
one
of
the
things
I
used
to
say
consistently
in
my
time
in
the
legislature
is
that
problems
of
government
are
best
solved
at
the
level
of
government
closest
to
the
people,
and
I
think
this
will
have
the
effect
of
bringing
higher
education
policy
closer
to
the
people.
We've
got
a
board
of
regents
that
limited
border
regions.
It
doesn't
have
the
reach
that
the
legislature
has.
F
The
legislature
in
nevada,
happily,
is
very
well
represented
in
the
rural
areas,
and
this
will
give
an
additional
ability
for
those
those
those
constituents
to
have
their
higher
education
points
of
view
heard
considered
and
implemented
by
reaching
out
to
their
their
legislative,
their
legislative
delegation.
So
I
would,
I
would
respectfully
argue
that
it
does
a
great
deal
to
enhance
the
access
of
higher
education
policy
to
members
of
the
rural
nevada.
A
I
I
J
Good
afternoon
committee
chairwoman,
miller
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
hava
amis
h-a-w-a-h-a-h-m-a-d
and
I
am
a
proud
graduate
of
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
representing
the
clark
county
education
association,
ccea
supports
senate
joint
resolution
7,
which
will
provide
transparency
and
accountability
to
nevada's
system
of
higher
education
in
2020.
Ccea
supported
this
resolution
in
the
form
of
established
question
one,
and
we
wholeheartedly
believe
the
voters
deserve
the
opportunity
to
vote
on
this
measure
with
simplified.
Easy
to
understand.
J
Language
ccea
supports
this
resolution
because
we
believe
that
the
k-20
education
delivery
system
in
nevada
needs
to
be
well
funded,
with
sufficient
transparency
and
accountability
measures
to
reach
the
goal
of
economic
diversification
in
our
great
state.
We
know
the
key
to
economic
diversification
and
workforce
development,
lies
in
agility
of
program
development
and
an
abundance
of
resources
to
provide
our
students
with
a
quality
education.
J
This
is
just
one
step
in
many
that
will
ensure
that
one
billion
dollars
spent
by
annually
on
higher
education
is
strategically
spent
to
improve
our
student
outcomes.
It
is
time
we
put
our
student
achievement
first
ccea
thanks
to
the
committee
and
urges
everyone
listening
to
vote.
Yes,
on
sjr7,
thank
you.
I
K
Good
afternoon
chair
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
gina.
Bon
jovi
g,
I
n
a
b
o
n
g.
I
o
v
I
managing
partner,
bon
jovi
law,
firm
and
chair
of
the
board
of
trustees
for
the
vegas
chamber
on
behalf
of
the
state's
largest
and
broadest
based
business
association.
The
vegas
chamber
is
in
support
of
sjr7.
K
K
The
chamber
believes
that
the
passage
of
sjr7
is
an
important
component
to
reform
the
state's
higher
education
governance
structure.
Its
alignments
meeting
the
needs
of
today's
students
and
employers
is
essential.
We
all
recognize
the
demands
on
our
workforce
are
quickly
changing
and
we
need
to
review
how
our
higher
education
structure
is
responding
to
these
changes.
K
K
K
We
do
recognize
that
there
have
been
recent
efforts
by
mg
to
align
education,
but
for
the
long-term
benefit
of
both
students
and
employers,
we
need
a
reformed,
higher
education
governance
structure,
on
which
we
can
depend
for
the
long
term.
This
is
good
public
policy
that
is
based
on
sound
reasoning,
data
and
facts.
We
urge
this
committee
to
pass
sjr
7.
I'd
like
to
thank
the
chair
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
Thank
you.
I
L
L
Unlv
a
minority
serving
institution
or
msi
has
felt
for
years
that
we
do
not
receive
an
equitable
share
of
state
resources,
but
significantly
supplement
others
in
the
system
that
and
she
would
even
consider,
holding
back
unlv
from
obtaining
land
grant
status
to
apply
and
compete
for
federal
funds
is
unconscionable,
rather
than
celebrating
the
fact
that
unlv
and
msi
will
become
a
land
grant.
The
implication
is
to
deny
or
oppress
the
institution
of
fair
and
equitable
opportunities
to
compete.
L
We
have
also
become
aware
that
backroom
conversations
are
going
on
with
the
legislature
and
the
other
institution
to
stop
unlv's
equitable
requests
to
continue
to
pursue
greatness
for
our
students
and
the
state
as
a
land-grant
institution.
In
a
sense.
I
would
like
to
thank
that
individual
for
his
comment,
as
it
has
reinvigorated
the
groundswell
of
support
for
sjr7
that
this
lack
of
perceived
equity
and
accountability
has
given
cause
to
move
forward
in
a
more
aggressive
manner
to
stop
the
system:
systematic
oppression
to
squelch
unlv,
a
msi,
equal
opportunity
and
access.
A
I
M
Yes,
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
dr
william
bolt,
I'm
vice
president
emeritus
of
unlv
and
I've
had,
in
my
49
year
career
an
opportunity
to
work
with
the
new
york
system
of
higher
education
at
cornell,
the
oregon
system
of
higher
education,
the
california
state
university
system
and
the
university
of
california
system
and
unlv.
M
Let
me
tell
you
how
it
is
to
to
work
at
unlv.
It's
a
great
institution
spent
nine
years
there,
wonderful
people,
wonderful
regents,
however,
the
the
the
regions
don't
have.
The
accountability
that
I
have
seen
with
the
other
institutions
that
I
worked
in
states
that
I
worked
in
and
what
happens
is
there's
micromanagement
that
I've
I've
never
seen
in
my
career,
except
at
unld.
M
The
level
of
micro
management
often
hurts
our
our
students.
It
hurts
our
faculty
and
frankly,
at
times
I
wondered
who
I
was
working
for
the
the
board
of
regents
or
the
students
and
the
faculty
and
the
deans
and
the
president.
M
So
it
isn't
easy
working
in
a
system
like
this,
and
I
think
the
turnover
of
presidents
is
is
something
that
is
evidence
and
in
working
in
other
systems.
It
was
so
refreshing
to
leave
unlv
and
to
go
to
oregon
because
of
the
accountability
there
and
we
never
had
any
interference.
I
A
Thank
you:
can
we
close
the
line
for
those
offerings,
support,
testimony
and
open
the
line
for
anyone
who
would
wish
to
testify
in
opposition?
I
N
N
It's
crucial
from
our
perspective
to
retain
the
land-grant
mandates
identified
in
the
moral
act
of
1862
and
the
land
grant
supplemented
supplementary
acts
of
congress,
namely
the
hatch
act
of
1887
and
the
smith-lever
act
of
1914..
So
please,
at
a
minimum
strike
this
language
from
sjr
7.
If
the
committee
chooses
to
move
forward
with
it.
Thank
you.
I
O
Hi
good
evening,
alexander
marks
with
the
nevada
state
education
association,
the
voice
of
nevada
educators
for
over
120
years,
nsea
opposes
sjr7
to
remove
the
constitutional
provisions
governing
the
election
and
duties
of
the
board
of
regents
nevadans
made
their
voices
heard
when
they
voted
down
question
one
voters
supported
electing
members
of
nevada
board
of
regents,
while
initiating
the
actively
engaging
question
one.
O
We
have
a
long-standing
position
to
support
electing
governing
boards
and
education
elected
boards
are
in
place
to
ensure
schools
and
colleges
reflect
the
values
of
the
people
providing
direct
lines
of
accountability
to
the
community.
This
is
the
main
reason.
Elected
boards
are
preferable
to
appointed
or
hybrid
models.
Appointed
officials
are
shielded
by
appointing
authority
who
typically
have
significant
other
responsibilities.
In
addition
to
appointing
boards,
it's
extremely
rare
to
see
an
elected
official
voted
out
of
office
over
actions
or
conduct
of
another
official
that
they
have
appointed.
O
This
is
true,
or
still
with
the
appointment
is
made
by
another
deliberative
body.
Democracy
can
be
messy.
Money
can
have
a
substantial
influence
on
elections,
and
sometimes
campaigns
are
negative
and
turn
off.
Voters
oftentimes
our
preferred
candidates,
don't
win,
and
while
these
challenges
are
real,
there's
certainly
not
ever
enough
reason
to
abandon
our
system
of
governance.
Instead,
we
should
just
continue
our
efforts
to
make
elections
more
democratic
and
nsca
supports
the
direction
of
expanding
democracy
and
will
continue
our
commitment
to
engage
in
increasing
electoral
participation
as
well
as
education.
Thank
you.
I
J
My
name
is
amy
payson,
amy
p-a-f-o-n
and
I'm
the
faculty
senate
chair
at
the
university
of
nevada
reno,
and
I
speak
on
behalf
of
all
academic
and
administrative
faculty
on
our
campus
faculty
that
are
also
taxpayers.
Voters,
state
employees
and
stakeholders
directly
impacted
by
this
bill.
I
have
submitted
written
testimony,
but
I
wanted
to
just
highlight
a
few
of
the
things
that
are
in
my
written
testimony.
J
Here's
one
concrete
example:
I
can
think
of
the
furloughs
that
we
were
given
by
the
legislature
over
the
summer
to
address
the
budget
constraints
were
furloughs
that
did
not
have
exemptions
for
faculty
who
are
fully
funded
by
federal,
grant
nor
exceptions
for
instructors
that
are
paid
as
little
as
three
thousand
dollars
per
course.
My
faculty
were
not
happy
that
we
couldn't
get
exemptions
in
these
cases.
Many
of
the
regents
were
not
happy
that
they
couldn't
get
those
exemptions
for
the
faculty,
but
we
went
along
with
the
law.
We
have
to
follow
the
law.
J
J
What
legislature
would
this
legislature
want
to
do
to
improve
our
education,
because
this
bill
is
not
just
a
matter
of
correcting
a
relationship
between
the
regents
and
the
legislature,
but
whatever
the
legislature
and
policies
that
are
passed,
those
have
to
be
implemented
on
our
campuses.
Those
have
to
be
implemented
and
carried
out
by
faculty
we're
the
ones
that
are
most
affected,
so
when
we
hear
claims
from
especially
the
lobbyists
in
this
case
about
how
this
will
improve
education,
we
am
how.
How
would
you
measure.
J
I
P
P
I
am
here
today
to
testify
in
opposition
to
sjr
7..
At
the
outset,
I
would
like
to
reaffirm
the
respect
the
board
of
regents
has
towards
this
committee
and
the
entire
nevada
legislature.
The
board
is
ready
and
willing
to
continue
working
and
collaborating
with
legislature
on
the
important
challenges
facing
higher
education.
P
As
this
committee
is
aware,
the
very
issues
now
presented
by
sdr
seven
were
debated
and
discussed
by
the
legislature
for
nearly
four
years
and
ultimately
became
question.
One
on
last
year's
ballot.
The
constitutional
amendments
presented
by
question.
One
sought
to
change
156
years
of
nevada
history,
the
people
of
nevada
rejected
those
changes.
This
occurred
only
five
months
ago.
Our
democracy
mandates
that
the
collective
wisdom
of
the
voters
be
respected.
P
P
We
have
a
new
chancellor
and
we
have
two
new
presidents
at
our
two
major
universities,
and
just
today
we
completed
a
search
for
our
new
president
at
nevada
state
college.
In
fact,
we
have
the
most
diverse
group
of
presidents
leading
our
institutions
in
our
state's
history.
Four
new
regents
joined
the
board
just
a
few
months
ago.
We
are
at
a
pivotal
time
for
our
students
and
have
new
leadership
at
every
level.
P
Sjr7
does
nothing
to
improve
higher
education
in
nevada.
It
does
nothing
to
advance
research,
it
does
nothing
to
improve
workforce
development
or
our
communities.
Most
importantly,
it
does
nothing
to
help
students,
the
delivery
of
instruction,
the
growth
of
campuses
and
the
retention
of
top
faculty.
Rather,
this
measure
creates
a
cloud
of
uncertainty.
Significantly
lowers
the
morale
of
our
faculty
and
staff
and
impedes
our
short.
J
I
A
Q
Q
The
nfa
appreciates
the
intent
to
reform
the
nc
to
reform
and
she
and
its
relationships
with
the
legislature
and
we
support
strong
accountability,
including
ab416.
The
audit
bill,
the
fundamental
confusion
about
question
one
was
that
the
ballot
said
at
the
top
that
the
election
and
duties
of
the
board
of
regents
would
be
removed
from
the
constitution.
Q
But
then
it
said
nothing
would
change
with
the
board
of
regents.
There
was
no
good
answer
for
exactly
what
changes
could
it
be
expected
in
the
future,
and
so
both
proponents
and
opponents
were
left
to
speculate.
Sjr
7
has
that
same
fundamental
problem.
I
would
like
to
point
out
two
issues
we
have
with
the
current
bill.
Language
first
sjr7
removes
the
clause
about
academic
freedom.
That
was
in
question
one.
Q
The
language
of
that
clause
unfortunately
did
not
have
followed
the
accepted
meaning
of
academic
freedom
and
potentially
would
have
allowed
increased
political
meddling
in
teaching
and
scholarship.
But
the
concept
is
very
important.
We
have
suggested
a
much
clearer
statement
for
the
protection
of
academic
freedom
and
a
corresponding,
whereas
clause,
please
see
our
submitted
materials.
Q
Second,
the,
whereas
clause
that
states,
whereas
amending
the
nevada's
constitution
to
remove
the
board
of
regents
constitutional
status,
will
not
repeal
either
expressly
or
by
implication
and
then
some
other
language
will
not
repeal
the
existing
statutory
provisions
that
provide
for
the
voters
to
elect
the
members
of
the
board
of
regents.
That's
technically
true,
but
it's
misleading,
because
the
whole
point
of
str7
is
to
allow
such
changes
in
the
future.
Q
A
A
C
C
So
with
that,
I
urge
your
support
and
thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
senator
good
to
see
you
here
so
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
close.
The
hearing
on
sjr7
next
item
we
have
on
our
agenda
will
be
public
comment
so
again,
we'll
take
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment.
Each
person
will
have
two
minutes
to
speak
on
something
that
is
under
the
purview
of
this
committee
and
so,
and
also
please
remember,
to
state
your
name
and
spell
your
name
with
that
broadcasting.
Can
you
will
you
open
the
line
for
public
comment.
I
A
A
Okay,
then
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
agenda
item
for
public
comment
with
that
just
a
few
reminders
of
what's
happening
next
week,
so
we
will
have
a
committee
hearing
on
may
4th
and
remember
on
tuesday
may
4th
we
are
taking
our
committee
pictures,
so
please
be
here
at
3
45,
so
that
we're
able
to
take
our
pictures
before
we
begin
our
hearing
with
that,
I'm
sorry
anything
else.
No!
Okay!
I
thought
I
heard
something
with
that.
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
today's.