►
From YouTube: 2/10/2021 - Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
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
A
Here,
thank
you.
Let
the
records
show
that
all
committee
members
are
present
before
we
begin.
Let's
take
care
of
a
couple
of
housekeeping
items,
and
I
want
to
first
of
all
thank
those
who
are
joining
us
remotely
and
anyone
else
who
might
be
listening
over
the
internet.
A
Today
we
have
a
presentation
on
the
work
of
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation
and
a
hearing
on
sb
75
on
the
agenda
in
terms
of
housekeeping
here's,
some
basic
things
that
I'd
like
for
us
to
adhere
to.
As
you
know,
the
legislative
building
is
currently
closed
as
a
public
safety
measure
to
reduce
the
spread
and
infection
rate
of
covet
19.
is
closed
to
the
public,
and
so
all
committee
meetings
will
be
held
virtually
meaning
that
committee
members
staff
and
everyone
else
will
participate
either
through
zoom
video
conference
or
by
telephone.
A
I
think
this
is
probably
a
more
accessible
way
for
the
public
to
participate,
because
if
there's
no
travel
involved,
all
you
have
to
do
is
turn
on
your
computer
and
watch
and
sign
up.
So
there
are
various
ways
that
you
can
do
that
we'd
like
for
you
to
engage
or
participate
through
number
one
in
all
previous
sessions.
All
committee
related
information
is
available
on
nellis.
A
This
is
accessible
from
the
legislators
website,
legislature's
website
four
ways
to
engage
the
committee,
and
these
include
registering
to
participate,
registering
to
participate
in
a
committee
meeting
through
the
new
system
on
nellis,
which
places
you
in
line
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
During
a
meeting
two
submitting
written
comment
to
the
committee,
email
address
or
fax
number
listed
on
the
agenda.
A
Sharing
your
opinion
share
your
opinion
via
the
legislature's
opinion,
application
on
nellis
or
by
viewing
committee
meetings
online
through
nellis
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
during
the
2021
legislative
session,
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
Members
of
the
public
public
must
first
register
for
the
meeting
register
for
the
meeting
you
would
like
to
participate
in
committee.
Members
are
listed
in
the
several
places
on
nellis
and
to
register
simply
click
on
the
participate
button
near
the
meeting
date
and
time
then
fill
in
the
required
information,
such
as
your
name.
A
Just
to
note
that,
while
we're
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate,
it
does
not
guarantee.
You
will
be
able
to
speak
similar
to
previous
sessions.
Comment
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
time
constraints,
and
so
at
the
beginning,
I
will
announce
the
time
frame
for
each
segment
as
how
many
minutes
we
will,
we
will
spend
on
or
against
and
neutral.
A
A
When
you
are
on
the
phone
line,
please
pay
attention
to
which
bill
is
being
considered
and
follow.
The
verbal
prompts
provided
by
bps
staff.
This
is
so
that
you
will
know
which
keys
to
press
to
raise
your
hand
or
unmute
yourself.
Staff
will
call
on
you
to
speak
by
the
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number.
A
A
Let
me
be
clear:
I
will
not
entertain
any
amendments
if
the
bill
sponsor
is
not
aware
of
the
amendment,
the
proposed
amendment
must
be
submitted
in
writing.
24
hours
prior
to
the
meeting,
please
include
the
bill
number.
A
statement
of
intent
and
your
contact
information
when
testifying
please
remember
to
unmute
your
microphone
and
clearly
state
your
name
and
the
entity
you
represent
at
the
beginning
of
your
testimony,
speak
clearly
and
project
your
voice
to
ensure
those
watching
remotely
and
hear
your
testimony.
A
This
is
particularly
important
for
many
of
our
the
public
who
are
watching
and
who,
who
might
be
hearing
impaired.
So
please
speak
clear,
clearly
get
close
to
your
mic
so
that
everyone
can
hear
and
remember
to
turn
your
microphone
off
when
you
finish
a
reminder
to
all
those
who
testified
pursuant
to
nevada,
revised
statute
nrs218,
it
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
knowingly
misrepresent
facts
when
testifying
before
a
legislative
committee.
A
A
When
the
committee
committee
secretary
calls
your
name,
please
answer
with
a
yes
or
no,
so
that
there
is
no
confusion.
Also,
if
you
have
a
question,
please
raise
your
hand
through
the
zoom
application
and
you
can
find
that
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
If
you
go
to
more
and
go
over
to
reaction,
you'll
see
raise
your
hand
function
that
will
that
will
allow
us
to
see
who
is
ready
to
ask
a
question
or
who
wants
to
make
a
comment?
A
A
C
B
And
while
we're
doing
that,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
elisa
caffereta,
I'm
the
director
of
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation
or
dieter,
as
we
know
it,
I'm
joined
today
just
going
around
the
room.
Dave
schmidt
is
our
chief
economist,
troy.
Jordan
is
our
senior
legal
counsel
for
the
employment
security
division.
B
Jeff
frishman
is
the
former
deputy
administrator
for
the
employment
security
division.
He's
back
with
us
as
a
consultant
and
a
subject
matter:
expert
in
unemployment,
jenny
casselman
is
our
deputy
director
and
chris
sewell
is
our
chief
operations
officer
and
legislative
liaison.
I'm
trying
to
read
senator
settlemyre's
note,
but
I
can't
read
it
from
here:
good.
E
B
B
So
we're
going
to
give
you
a
brief
overview
of
dieter
this
morning,
because
we,
we
know
you're
quite
familiar
with
some
of
our
work
and
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
you
sort
of
had
a
holistic
picture,
as
there
are
several
programs
that
we
run
and
we
just
want
you
to
be
aware
of
of
those
and
what
we've
been
working
on
over
the
year
beyond,
what's
been
in
the
headlines.
So
we
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
which
will
show
you
our
vision
and
mission,
pretty
much.
B
Our
our
goal
is
to
empower
a
vibrant
and
equitable
workforce
and
economy,
and
we
do
that
by
empowering
nevadans
to
realize
their
potential
through
meaningful
work
and
building
economic
prosperity
in
every
community
through
our
major
programs,
which
are
employment,
security,
rehabilitation
and
the
nevada
equal
rates
mission
and
on
the
next
slide,
you'll
see
really.
What?
If
you
don't
remember
our
vision
and
mission
verbatim?
What
we
really
want
you
to
understand
is
that
all
of
our
divisions
have
a
workforce
focus
so
at
the
core.
B
B
Here
you
can
see
the
three
divisions
that
we
have,
which
we
outlined
before
and
just
want
to
take
a
moment
to
let
you
know
that
we
also
have
four
units
in
our
administrative
branch,
which
really
do
a
an
amazing
job
of
keeping
us
going.
We
couldn't
do
the
work
of
the
divisions
without
the
support
of
our
financial
management
office,
information,
development
and
processes,
which
is
what
most
folks,
traditionally
think
of
as
I.t
research
and
analysis
and
human
resources.
B
Just
to
give
you
a
very
high
level-
and
I
promise
I
won't
read
these
to
you-
the
divisions
that
we
have
at
a
high
level-
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission.
I
believe
many
of
you
are
familiar
with.
It
is
the
only
state
mandated
training
and
enforcement
commission
that
is
monitoring
equal
opportunity,
compliance
for
nevadans,
so
the
laws
that
you
pass
about
equal
rights
and
equal
opportunities
are
investigated
and
enforced
by
nerc.
B
B
On
the
next
slide,
the
rehabilitation
division
is
focused
again
on
employment
opportunities,
re,
removing
barriers
for
people
with
disabilities
to
find
meaningful
employment,
and
there
are
several
programs
in
the
rehabilitation
division
which
we'll
talk
about
a
little
bit
later
as
well,
but
you
may
have
been
familiar
with
some
of
these
specifically
and
finally,
what
we
sort
of
have
been
a
little
bit
more
well
known
for
in
the
last
year,
is
our
employment
security
division,
which
has
three
major
programs,
workforce
development,
unemployment,
insurance
and
the
commission
on
post-secondary
education.
B
So,
with
the
theme
music,
we're
going
to
go
into
our
highlights
from
2020
and
take
a
look
at
really
what
went
right.
I
I
know
many
of
you
have
seen
updates
or
seen
news
articles
about
what
we've
been
doing,
but
we
really
have
tried
to
take
a
step
back
now.
B
That
2020
is
over
and
sort
of
look
back
and
get
get
our
arms
around
what
happened
and,
as
I
said,
what
we
accomplished
and
what
went
right,
because
we
have
spent
most
of
our
time
talking
about
unemployment
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
gave
a
little
bit
of
love
to
the
other
divisions
that
really
sort
of
allowed
us
to
do
our
work
by
continuing
on
with
their
work
and
without
the
need
for
a
whole
lot
of
time
and
attention
from
the
leadership
team
here
so
in
rehabilitation.
B
The
highlights
from
2020
are
that
529
people
were
successfully
employed
in
2020
as
a
result
of
our
programs,
with
average
wages
that
increase
to
13
and
40
cents
an
hour.
B
We're
very
proud
of
the
fact
that
we
were
the
first
state
to
bring
our
applications
online
to
virtual
setting
and
we
are
able
to
provide
many
of
our
services
online
for
people
with
disabilities,
and
it
was
something
we
were
moving
toward
before
the
pandemic
and,
of
course,
as
with
many
other
programs,
it
sort
of
provided
the
catalyst
to
make
these
services
available
virtually
which
for
people
with
disabilities,
has
been
very
helpful
about
25
000
people
were
served,
disability
benefits
and
over
1.3
billion
dollars
went
out
to
nevadans,
who
are
beneficiaries
of
the
social
security
disability
programs
last
year,
and
the
next
slide
you'll
see
that
the
equal
rights
commission
received
over
1600
complaints
and
was
able
to
close
over
600
of
those
discrimination
charges
on
the
behalf
of
nevadans.
B
B
B
The
state
economist
have
been
called
on
many
times
in
the
last
year
to
provide
insights
on
sort
of
the
magnitude
of
the
pandemic
in
terms
of
the
economy
and
employment
and
unemployment
rates,
some
of
which
you'll
hear
a
little
bit
later
in
this
program
and
again,
the
support
programs
of
financial
management,
idp,
cio
and
hr
really
kept
everything
else
going,
so
we're
giving
them
a
little
love
this
morning
as
well
on
to
the
employment
security
division
and
sort
of
what
happened
in
unemployment
in
2020,
a
lot
of
which
you've
heard.
B
B
So
I
think
a
lot
of
you
have
seen
this
slide
or
some
variation
of
it,
probably
already
in
presentations
you've
seen
in
the
legislature
when
the
pandemic
hit
unemployment
immediately
went
to
over
30
percent
in
nevada,
which
is
the
highest
percent
of
any
state
ever
ever
in
the
history
of
unemployment
tracking.
So
what
that
looked
like
in
our
workload
was
an
immediate
change
to
the
amount
of
work
that
the
unemployment
system
was
doing.
B
That
was
the
great
recession
of
20
or
2009,
and
just
one
feature
to
note
about
it
and
we're
going
to
go
to
another
slide.
So
you
can
kind
of
get
the
real
historic
perspective,
but
there
was
a
much
more
gradual
increase
in
the
number
of
unemployment
claims
and
then
along
decrease,
as
people
went
back
to
work.
So
the
agency
in
the
last
recession
had
much
more
time
to
ramp
up
and
respond
to
the
situation.
B
That
certainly
was
not
the
case
with
the
the
pandemic.
The
committee
did
ask
for
information
about
how
this
pandemic
and
the
unemployment
we've
seen
compared
to
previous
recessions.
You
can
see
this
chart
goes
back
1990
to
1990,
so
you
can.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
read
it,
but
the
1991
oil
shock
and
gulf
war,
the
9
11
stock
market
crash
and
then
the
housing
crash
in
a
great
recession
compared
to
the
pandemic
of
2020..
B
So
nothing
even
comes
close
to
the
magnitude
of
unemployment
claims
that
we
saw
last
year,
and
this
this
chart
shows
you
the
initial
claim,
so
the
sort
of
spike
on
a
weekly
basis
that
we
might
have
seen.
The
next
slide
shows
you
the
same
period
of
time
but
continued
playing.
So
this
is
week
in
week
out
how
many
claims
for
benefits
did
we
get?
B
You
can
see
that
the
great
recession
was
pretty
significant
in
comparison
to
the
previous
two
recessions,
but
we
are
still
at
very
high
levels
with
covid
and
I
think
once
we
get
out
of
this
situation,
the
overall.
The
number
of
claims
continued
claims
on
a
week
over
week
basis
will
be
significantly
higher
than
what
we
saw
in
the
great
recession
and
we'll
come
back
to
these
slides
later,
with
a
little
bit
more
with
a
little
closer
look
at
the
last
two.
B
If
you
have
questions
about
them,
so
in
addition
to
dealing
with
all
the
new
claims,
we
also
dealt
with
a
significant
number
of
new
programs
congress
decided
to
create
an
unemployment
program
for
self-employed
workers
and
1099
and
gig
workers,
which
is
the
pandemic
unemployment
program.
This
is
brand
new
program
that
had
never
been
implemented
before
in
previous
years.
These
folks
would
not
have
been
eligible
for
unemployment
benefits,
and
now
they
were
this
because
this
happened
at
the
same
time
as
the
federal
pandemic
unemployment
compensation,
which
was
the
additional
six
hundred
dollars
a
week.
B
B
But
a
lot
of
folks
don't
realize
there
were
these
other
programs
that
you
can
see
listed
each
one
of
them
either.
Adding
additional
weeks
of
benefits
are
additional
amounts
to
the
benefits
and
all
of
them
required
additional
computer
programming
regulations,
policies
and
procedures
so
going
into
a
huge
emergency
with
an
unprecedented
amount
of
claims
was
hard
enough,
but
then
adding
on
all
of
these
programs
to
deal
with
and
get
benefits
out
to
folks
was
incredibly
challenging.
B
B
On
top
of
all
of
that,
we
were
also
dealing
with
unrelenting
fraud,
and
this
is
probably
one
of
the
most
frustrating
things
for
us
is
when
we
see
folks
in
complaining
about
the
performance
of
our
work
and
saying
we
know,
there's
a
little
bit
of
fraud,
but
they
should
get
to
processing
our
claims.
B
In
point
of
fact,
there
is
a
tsunami
of
fraud,
so
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
high
level
look
at
this
nevada.
There
are
about
3
million
people
in
nevada,
about
half
of
them
are
in
the
workforce
because
their
students
are
retired
or
taking
care
of
family.
B
So
we
have
about
1.5
million
people
in
the
nevada
workforce.
As
of
december
26,
we
had
received
almost
1.6
million
initial
applications
for
unemployment,
so
we
have
received
more
applications
for
unemployment
than
there
are
people
in
the
nevada
workforce.
That
gives
you
a
sense
of
the
magnitude
of
the
fraud.
B
It
is
sort
of
catastrophic-
and
I
mentioned
this
on
a
phone
call
with
other
state
agencies
that
handle
workforce
and
no
one
else
had
seen
this
level
of
fraud
where
they
had
received
as
many
applications
as
they
had
workers.
In
their
state,
so
I
think
nevada
is
sort
of
singular
in
the
level
of
fraud
that
we
have
seen.
B
B
B
We
just
want
to
take
a
little
pause
to
sing
the
praises
of
our
I.t
department.
Many
states,
their
I.t
systems
went
offline
for
days
and
days.
Ours
never
went
offline
for
more
than
regularly
scheduled
maintenance
and
I
was
able
to
stay
online
I'll,
albeit
a
little
bit
slowed
down
at
times,
but
it
did
keep
sort
of
chugging
away.
So
that
is
a
real
credit
to
our
small
but
dedicated
I.t
team,
but
like
every
state,
our
system
was
overwhelmed
and
backlog
certainly
developed.
B
The
governor
created
the
strike
force
in
august
of
2020
and
with
the
help
of
the
strike
force,
we
brought
on
200
workers
from
welfare
who,
in
overtime,
have
helped
us
process
cases.
They
just
passed
processing
over
a
hundred
thousand
cases
for
us.
So
that
was
a
great
addition.
B
B
We
rebuilt
the
employment
security
leadership
team
and,
with
the
help
of
the
task
force
cleared
out
about
90
95
percent
of
the
backlog
from
august,
we
are
we're
almost
there
and
we
continue
to
work
on
the
backlog
so
sort
of
the
the
big
big
picture.
If
you
remember
nothing
else
from
today's
presentation
about
2020.
B
here's
what
I
want
you
to
know
about
what
went
right
for
dieter
the
first
one
is
that
we
have
been
helping
an
average
of
300
000
nevadans
week
in
week
out,
receive
their
weekly
unemployment
benefit
payments
and
we've
paid
out
over
at
the
time.
We
first
put
this
together.
It
was
over
8
billion
in
benefits.
I
believe
we've
passed
9
billion
dollars
in
benefits
that
have
gone
out
to
these
300
000
nevada
families
and
helped
keep
them
in
their
homes,
able
to
provide
food
and
and
address
the
health
of
their
families.
B
Certainly
there's
still
folks
in
the
backlog
that
we
need
to
get
to.
But
by
and
large
we
have
been
able
to
help
nevadans
to
the
tune
of
nine
billion
dollars
and
to
put
that
number
in
perspective,
over
the
last
12
years,
we've
only
paid
out
the
last
12
years
combined.
We
had
only
paid
out
6.4
billion
dollars
in
benefits,
so
it
it
was
a
an
amazing
year
and
really
amazing
that
we
could
keep
it
all
moving,
not
as
fast
as
we'd
like,
but
I
just
want
to
say.
B
The
team
here
did
an
amazing
amazing
job
and
deserves
the
thanks
of
a
lot
of
nevada
families
that
they
were
able
to
help.
I
know
you're,
not
a
budget
committee.
The
only
thing
I
want
you
to
get
from
this
budget
overview
slide
is
that
the
vast
majority
of
our
money
comes
from
federal
programs,
direct
federal
administrative
dollars
to
run
our
programs
or
grants
and
special
funding
streams.
B
Only
three
percent
of
our
funds
are
from
the
general
fund
and
those
are
specifically
for
vogue,
rehab
programs
and
the
nevada
equal
rights
commission,
so
as
we're
going
through
belt
tightening
with
the
rest
of
the
state.
Those
are
the
programs
that
are
hit
most
directly
and
it.
It
creates
challenges
for
us
to
bring
down
federal,
matching
grants,
but
that's
all
I'm
going
to
say
about
the
budget
unless
you
have
specific
questions
for
us,
but
those
probably
the
money
committees.
B
So
that's
the
overview
we've
been
providing
to
folks.
There
were
some
specific
questions
from
the
committee
that
I'm
just
going
to
go
over
at
a
high
level
and
then
we'll
stop
for
your
questions,
so
one
of
them
was
sort
of
how
does
this
this
pandemic
compare
to
the
great
recession
of
2009
and
just
coming
back
to
those
slides,
we
showed
you
a
little
bit
more
detail.
One
is
these:
are
the
initial
claims
for
unemployment?
B
You
can
see
the
huge
huge
spike
that
we
had
in
2020
for
initial
claims,
which
was
happened
right
after
the
shutdown
order,
so
not
surprising,
although
the
magnitude
certainly
was
the
next
slide
shows
you
the
continued
claims
and
again
once
we
sort
of
run
out
the
continued
claims
for
this
pandemic.
B
I
think
you'll
see
very
high
levels
over
a
long
period
of
time.
You
can
also
see
that
these
we
had
several
different
programs
which
provide
sort
of
extended
benefits
which
sort
of
complicates
administration
of
unemployment,
because
we
have
to
sequence
these
benefits
in
the
right
way
to
ensure
that
folks
get
the
maximum
weeks
they're
entitled
to.
B
We
did
have
a
question
about
demographics.
This
is
the
chart
from
january
of
2021.
This
is
available
on
our
website
and
we
could
share
the
link
with
you.
This
shows
you
sort
of
the
levels
of
unemployment
between
men
and
women
and,
of
course,
this
is
just
one
month.
So
it's
a
snapshot
in
time.
B
If
we
get
more
information
from
you
all
and
what
you'd
like
to
see,
we
can
put
that
together
on
the
you
can
see
also
by
ages
on
the
next
slide
you
can
see
by
race
and
ethnicity,
and
I
think
many
of
you
are
aware
that
this
this
recession
has
hit
specific
industries,
especially
hard,
which
then
I
think,
translated
to
what
we've
seen
in
terms
of
the
the
different
groups
that
have
been
hit
especially
hard,
and
we
we
do
have
dave
our
chief
economist
to
answer
questions
for
you
about
that.
B
Should
you
have
them?
I
think
the
next
question
had
to
do
with.
Are
we?
What
are
we
doing
to
pivot
back
to
providing
workforce
services?
So
most
of
our
workforce?
B
Employees
are
sort
of
reassigned
right
now
to
the
unemployment
backlog,
but
we
have
a
a
small
task
force
that
is
doing
sort
of
direct
matching
work
and
we
have
been
allowing
some
folks
go
back
to
the
workforce
programs.
B
B
We
are
working
with
the
local
partners
to
continue
to
provide
services
where
possible,
and
we
continue
to
sort
of
review.
When
will
it
be
safe
to
reopen
our
job
connect
sites
and
start
offering
those
services
in
person
again,
but
that
partly
has
to
do
with
the
governor's
directives
on
covid's
safety,
but
it
is
certainly
top
of
mind
that
we
need
to
pivot
in
2021
to
focus
on
workforce.
B
The
next
slide
is
in
response
to
the
question
was:
what
are
we
doing
to
focus?
Support.
Excuse
me
on
diverse
communities.
B
B
B
Ab465,
is
being
fine-tuned
and
rolled
out
in
disadvantaged
zones
and
they're
partnering
with
nevada
partners
and
hope
for
prisoners
and
we're
also
partnering
with
owen
on
supporting
and
advancing
the
grant.
That
is,
the
sandy
ground
supporting
and
advancing
nevada's
dislocated
individuals
and
hb1
healthcare
grants
to
target
these
populations.
B
So
those
are
just
some
of
some
of
the
initiatives.
As
you
know,
the
the
work
that
we're
doing
sort
of
continues
to
change
in
response
to
the
conditions
and
we're
we're
doing
everything
we
can
to
really
like,
I
said,
focus
on
pivoting
in
2021
to
workforce.
B
We
did
give
you
some
general
contact
emails
here
that
you
can
use
to
connect
with
us
and,
of
course,
your
staff
can
connect
with
our
staff
at
any
time
so
that
we
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
the
last
year
for
us,
because
we
know
you've.
You've
heard
some
of
it
in
the
news,
but
we
wanted
the
chance
to
kind
of
give
you
the
big
picture.
Look
at
our
agency
and
with
that
we
are
happy
to
take
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
mr
caferetta.
I
think
I'll
see
a
couple
hands
from
the
committee
members
vice
chair,
neil.
F
Thank
you
senator
spearman,
so
I
have
a
couple
of
comments
and
then
I
have
one
question
number
one.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
the
slide
that
showed
the
disparity
between
the
2011
recession
and
what
happened
in
2020,
because
I
know,
although
you
were
not
director
dr
tiffany
tyler
was
there
was
heavy
criticism
on
her
that
she
was
not
able
to
manage
that
369
a
week,
but
actually
she
had
done
a
excellent
job,
because
no
one
else
had
ever
been
placed
in
that
position
to
have
to
manage
that.
F
I
want
to
thank
my
colleagues
because
that
was
ab354,
that
my
colleagues
who
are
currently
some
of
them
serving
now
voted
out
of
the
legislature,
to
then
make
sure
that
we
were
going
to
get
demographics
and
break
it
down
by
subgroup.
So
we
could
understand
how
each
group
in
nevada
was
being
affected
by
unemployment.
So
thank
you
for
that
slide
and
then
to
my
question.
F
So
on
the
slide
where
you
listed,
the
pua
p:
p:
u
e
c!
I
had
a
question
around
can
do.
Are
we
going
to
have
like
wage
inflation
when
we
start
to
calculate
the
total
taxable
wages?
I
remember
the
discussion
that
was
going
on
was
that
when
folks
were
getting
the
600
weekly
that
this
was
more
than
what
they
were
making
in
their
normal
job,
now
we're
at
the
300
for
the
continued
assistance,
but
I
wanted
to.
Maybe
david
can
speak
to
this
about.
F
What
can
we
see
in
terms
of
wage
inflation
regarding
how
we
now
calculate
the
total
taxable
wages.
G
G
If
lower
wage
workers
were
disproportionately
displaced,
then
there
could
be
some
impact
to
average
wages
in
the
state.
However,
I
don't
think
that
would
be
a
very
large
impact,
mostly
because
even
at
the
worst
point
of
the
recession,
while
we
had
30
percent
unemployment,
we
still
did
have
70
percent
employment,
and
so
it
was
really
in
the
accommodation
and
food
service
industry
in
particular
that
we
saw
by
far
the
most
disproportionate
impact
every
industry
saw
increases
in
unemployment
that
industry
rose
from
about.
G
These
are
rough
numbers,
but
I
want
to
say
about
30
of
our
total
claims
to
about
50
of
our
total
claims
on
a
weekly
basis,
and
so
it
was
very
focused
in
that
industry.
That
is
a
somewhat
lower
paid
industry.
On
average,
the
average
wage
in
that
industry
is
a
little
over
600
dollars
compared
to
about
950
dollars
in
the
the
economy
more
broadly.
G
But
that
means
that
there
could
be
some
impact,
but
I
don't
think
would
be
a
large
impact
in
in
as
much
as
we're
looking
at
how
will
benefits
and
taxes
on
employers
be
calculated
in
the
future
as
far
as
the
replacement
rate
at
300
or
400,
I
don't
think
you're
going
to
see
any
broad
groups
where
there's
sort
of
a
categorical
earning
more
on
unemployment
than
you
were
earning
in
benefits
like
we
saw
with
the
six
hundred
dollar
amount
that
did
push
some
people
up
to
a
hundred
and
five
hundred
and
ten
percent
industry
average
wage
replacement,
but
with
the
significantly
lower
fpuc
amounts
under
current
and
proposed
law
nationally,
there
would
still
be
fairly
large
wage
replacement,
but
I
don't
think
it
would
get
up
to
that.
F
So
so
just
quick
follow-up,
so
you
don't
think
that
that
hundred
percent
or
105
percent
replacement
rate
that
you
need
to
do
any
additional
math
to
either
offset
that
for
a
new
calculation.
F
G
David
schmidt,
again
for
the
record-
I
I
I
I
hear
you're
saying,
but
I
don't
think
that
the
the
impact
would
be
large
enough
because
of
the
the
the
total
covered
wages
for
the
state,
even
with
so
much
impact
in
the
accommodation
and
food
service
industry
that
30
percent
unemployment
lasted
a
very
short
time.
G
G
I
think
the
impact
is
small
enough
that,
while,
while
there
might
be
something
happening,
it
would
be
on
the
order
of
maybe
a
few
percentage
points
which
is
not
unlike
things
that
we've
seen
when
the
economy
is
booming
and
wages
are
rising
rapidly.
It's
not
out
of
the
bounds
of
what
might
normally
be
expected
in
a
given
year
as
far
as
the
the
wage
base
for
for
either
taxes
or
or
future
benefit
determinations.
A
I
want
to
follow
up
on
what
vice
chair
neil
was
asking
so
the-
and
these
are
these
are
numbers
that
you
may
or
may
not
be
able
to
figure
out,
but
during
this
pandemic
there
have
been
some
people
who
moved
and
so
they're
no
longer
applying
for
unemployment,
and
the
tragic
fact
is
that
we've
also
had
some
people
who
are
probably
unemployed,
who
have
died
from
complications
of
covet,
and
so
has
there
been
any
any
effort
to
maybe
figure
out
how
we
might
look
at
that
and
how
does
that
play
play
a
role
in
projecting
future
trends
like
that,
like
happened
during
this
pandemic,
I
mean,
if
it
were
to
happen
six
years
from
now.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
david
schmidt,
again
for
the
record.
As
far
as
projecting
using
our
current
experience
to
project
our
future
potential
needs
in
the
ways
that
we
consider
the
the
solvency
of
the
trust
fund,
there's
a
number
of
different
methods
that
we
use
over
the
last
15
years,
we've
referred
to
the
federal
average
high
cost,
multiple,
which
is
a
if
you
did
had
the
rate
of
benefit
payment.
Pay.
Pay
outs.
Excuse
me
that
you,
you
had
in
a
particular
bad
period,
adjusted
for
your
current
employment
and
wage
levels.
G
Looking
at
specific
factors
like
have
people
moved
out
of
state
or
people
that
have
passed
away,
those
would
be
reflected
in
those
current
employment
and
wage
levels
that
we
use
to
adjust
those
solvency
calculations,
but
I
think
by
far
the
largest
impact
that
we'll
see
is
that
now,
when
we
look
at
either
the
worst
year
or
the
worst
three
years
in
in
the
state's
history
for
decades
to
come,
2020
will
stand
out
and
say
here's
what
you
might
face
as
a
a
potential
solvency
calculation,
so
that
definitely
will
come
into
play.
G
One
of
the
benefits
of
the
average
high
cost
multiple
is.
It
doesn't
just
use
your
worst
experience
ever
in
the
last
10
years.
It
averages
the
three
worst
years,
and
so,
instead
of
just
2020,
you
would
look
at
the
average
of
2020
2009
and
2010,
which
are
certainly
all
bad
years,
but
you're
not
trying
to
build
up
reserves
to
say
we
need
to
prepare
for
another
2020
to
happen
in
the
future.
G
Instead,
it's
taken
into
account
as
one
of
the
factors,
but
I
think
that
will
be
the
largest
thing
going
forward.
Is
how
much
money
might
we
need?
Now
now,
we've
seen
something
unlike
we'd
ever
seen
before,
and
I
think
that'll
certainly
play
a
role
in
thinking
about
the
future.
Moving
forward.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
sir
senator
pickard.
You
have
your
hand
up.
D
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
director,
cuff
red.
I
appreciate
the
fact
you've
only
been
on
the
job
and
you
inherited
a
herculean
task.
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
you
know
you
came
into
this
with
a
different
kind
of
administrative
experience
and,
and
I
think
the
fact
that
you're
still
standing
speaks
well.
D
The
thing
though,
and
and
and
so
I
don't
want
my
remarks
to
be
taken
as
negative
or
or
personal,
but
the
presentation
you
just
gave,
which
is
really
quite
rosy
and
and
complementary,
has
created
an
enormous
amount
of
dissonance
in
my
mind,
because
it's
probably
a
perfect
opposite
of
what
I
hear
on
a
daily
basis
for
my
constituents,
I'm
told
that
there
were
more
than
800
000
additional
applications
over
and
above
normal
for
welfare
assistance
from
people
that
couldn't
get
through
to
dieter
and
get
the
benefits
that
they
paid.
D
For
I
mean
they
paid
a
premium
for
this
insurance.
There
were
times
when
I
had
people
calling
my
office,
which
frankly
wasn't
terribly
caught
or
yeah
terribly
common,
but
they
were.
They
were
frustrated
because
they
had
tried
for
months
to
get
through
couldn't
get
through,
whether
online
or
on
the
phone,
and
so
the
the
presentation
you
just
gave
is
exactly
the
opposite
of
my
indirect
experience
through
my
constituents
and
mr
sewell.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
D
I
know
I
directed
a
lot
of
people
to
you
and
you
were
able
to
love
them,
and
I
appreciate
that
and
mr
schmidt,
I'm
always
impressed
with
your
command
of
of
the
facts.
D
Let
me
get
to
just
a
couple
of
things
since
we're
not
yet
talking
about
the
bill,
but
I'm
wondering
there
are
some
structural
things
that
I've
learned
over
the
past
few
months,
things
like
where
getting
payment
from
the
feds
and
arrears,
rather
than
in
advance,
which
we're
allowed
to
do
and
we're
we're
not
taking
steps
to
make
sure
that
we're
putting
money
in
the
hands
of
people
in
ways
that
we
could
also
identify
their
identity
and
so
deal
with
some
of
the
fraud
issues
and
we're
sending
letters
to
claimants
demanding
that
they
reimburse
the
state
and
yet
there's
never
been.
D
A
formal
hearing.
I
mean
due
process,
has
not
been
granted
to
them
that
they
haven't
been
given
an
opportunity
to
be
heard.
Let
alone
make
findings
that
they
were
improperly
paid
and
yet
they're
scrambling
to
repay
these
things
under
the
impression
that
they've
they've
been
improperly
paid
and
at
the
end
of
the
day.
I
understand
that
the
special
masters
report,
which
had
140
some
pages
of
recommendations,
findings
and
recommendations
which
have
yet
to
be
incorporated,
and
this
was
from
august.
D
What
are
we
doing
structurally
to
actually
address
the
issues
that
have
failed,
so
many
patterns.
B
Elisa
cappareta,
director
of
dieter,
thank
you
for
the
question
and
the
kind
words
and
the
reason
we
made
the
wanted
to
give
you.
The
overview
was
not
to
create
a
rosy
picture,
but
to
sort
of
give
you
a
a
an
overview
of
the
magnitude
of
the
task
and
the
the
and
so
really
the
impossibility
of
the
task
of
having
unemployment
operate
in
the
way
it
had
operated
in
any
previous
recession.
B
Just
because
of
the
sheer
magnitude
of
the
issues
for
those
who
were
here
the
whole
year
that
lived
through
it,
I
think
they
can
certainly
relate
to
your
experience
and
the
frustration.
This
was
certainly
agonizing
for
everyone
involved.
B
Our
our
staff
here
has
put
in
an
incredible
amount
of
overtime
and
given
up
most
of
their
weekends,
to
try
and
address
these
issues
that
you've
identified
and
and
the
the
intention
of
the
presentation
was
not
to
say
there
were
no
problems.
B
The
intention
was
to
say
this
was
this
was
a
herculean
task.
We
put
in
many
many
solutions.
As
the
year
went
on,
we
did
do
a
lot
of
things
right,
which
those
folks,
probably
weren't,
calling
you
saying
hey.
I
got
my
benefits
this
week
again,
but
you
did
hear
from
the
folks
that
we
couldn't
get
to
so
we
we
are.
We
are
as
aware
of
the
frustration
as
as
you
are
for
sure,
so,
just
to
answer
some
of
your
specific
questions.
B
I
did
read
the
special
masters
report
right
before
I
started,
and
I
would
not
characterize
it
as
having
140
pages
of
solutions.
I
know
we
have
implemented
many
improvements
to
the
system
over
the
six
months.
I've
been
here,
I
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
tracking
the
which
recommendations
from
the
special
masters
report
we've
implemented,
because
we've
we've
really
been
focused
on
sort
of
the
first
six
months
I
was
here,
we
were
focused
on
how
do
we
get
through
the
backlog
and
and
what?
B
What
solutions
can
we
put
in
place
for
that
and
this
year
we're
sort
of
taking
a
step
back
and
and
focusing
on
long-term
solutions,
but
we
could
probably
sort
of
go
through
that
report
and
look
for
the
highlights
and
see
which
of
them
we've
implemented
and
which
we
have
not.
B
I
would
say,
having
been
here
for
six
months,
it
takes.
It
takes
quite
a
while
to
really
get
up
to
speed
on
what
you
can
and
cannot
do
under
the
department
of
labor
guidelines.
B
So
those
all
of
those
suggestions
might
not
have
been
feasible,
legally
or
technically,
and
so
that's
what
I
would
say
about
the
special
masters
report
in
terms
of
getting
money
to
people
without
identifying
them
and
fraudulent
payments
going
out
the
other.
The
other
thing
we
want
you
to
understand
about
the
magnitude
of
the
problem
was
when
the
pandemic
first
hit.
B
There
was
incredible
pressure
from
all
quarters
to
get
payments
out
and
particularly
from
the
federal
government,
they
were
implementing
new
programs.
They
asked
us
to
waive
the
waiting
week,
which
was
sort
of
a
normal
fraud
protection
measure,
because
people
really
needed
their
benefits.
So
we,
we
probably
went
a
little
bit
on
the
side
of
providing
benefits
and
then
expecting
the
fraud
levels
to
be
similar
to
what
we've
seen
in
previous
years.
That
turned
out
not
to
be
the
case.
So
then
we
have
been
sort
of
pulling
back
and
putting
fraud
measures
in
place.
B
B
So
for
those
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
that
didn't
get
benefits,
we
believe
we've
prevented
over
two
billion
dollars
in
fraudulent
pay
payments,
going
out
to
hundreds
of
thousands
of
applicants
who
are
not
in
fact
legitimate
applicants.
So
could
you
come
back
in
and
say
you
could
have
done
this
a
different
way.
B
You
could
have
picked
a
different
calculus
and
come
up
with
a
different
result,
of
course,
but
we
were
doing
this
team
was
doing
the
best
they
could
and
we
continued
to
sort
of
re-examine
those
choices
and
that
balance
as
we
go
along
in
terms
of
the
overpayments.
B
I
will
say
yes
at
the
beginning,
we
had
a
sometimes
we
have
challenges
with
our
vendors
and
saying
you
know
we
need
to
add
this
module
to
be
able
to
do
overpayments
and
they
they.
It
was
a
little
ambitious
in
the
way
it
got
executed.
B
So
we
were
offsetting
benefits
to
pay
back
overpayments
before
giving
people
the
chance
to
appeal
and
then
get
a
decision
that
that
I
think
went
on
for
a
couple
of
weeks
when
we
realized
that
it
was
happening
and
we
stopped
collecting
those
overpayments
and
we
sent
the
notices
out
but
gave
people
the
chance
to
appeal
and
are
not
collecting
that
money
until
they
do
get
a
due
process
hearing.
B
So
that
was
a
temporary
problem,
which
you
probably
heard
about
a
lot
during
those
weeks,
but
we
aren't
doing
that
anymore
and
and
there's
a
lot
of
situations
like
that,
as
we
have
gone
through
and
implemented
different
parts
of
the
program,
I'm
gonna
turn
to
jeff
frishman.
I
I
don't
know
if
I
entirely
understood
your
your
question
about
getting
payments
from
the
feds
in
arrears
versus
in
advance.
H
Jeff
christian
for
the
record,
if
I
understood
your
question
correctly,
you
said
that
you
learned
that
about
getting
payments
and
arrears,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
meant
opponents
to
claimants
in
arrears,
or
you
were
saying
suggesting
that
we're
getting
our
funding
in
arrears.
Could
you
just
clarify.
D
Yes,
I
was
talking
about
the
funding-
the
decision-
I
guess
was
made
many
years
ago
to
obtain
that
in
careers,
as
you
know,
in
response
to
what's
paid
out,
and
yet
they
could,
because
I
know
there
have
been
some
questions
along
the
way.
I
know
during
special
session
we
were
talking
about.
You
know
the
fund
was
going
to
run
out
of
money
and
it
was
at
that
point.
D
I
learned
that
we
could
actually
get
some
of
this
stuff
still
in
advance,
so
we
were
working
off
of
a
pool
of
money
instead
of
waiting
for
it
to
be
replenished,
but
that
that's
actually
a
minor
thing.
I
I
guess
the
thing
that
I'm
most
alarmed
by
is
the
thought
that
you
know
we're
we're
gonna,
pat
ourselves
on
the
back
for
saving
a
bunch
of
money
in
the
process,
we've
denied
the
innocent
victims,
their
due
process
rights.
I
mean
it's
a
right.
D
Because
we
think
there
might
be
fraud,
there's
been
no
findings,
there's
been
no
hearing,
you
know
it.
It
makes
the
you
know.
I
I
think
in
terms
of
insurance
and
and
bad
faith,
it
makes
the
state
farm
v
campbell
case.
Look
like
chump
change
compared
to
what
hasn't
been
paid
out
that
these
people
are
entitled
to.
D
I
mean
it's,
it's
it's
and
and
with
respect
to
the
the
special
masters
report,
I
would
note
that
the
strike
force
speaker
buckley's
report
came
out
five
months
later,
just
recently
and
pointed
it
to
many,
if
not
all,
of
the
same
recommendations
that
the
special
master
report
had
so
I
mean
I'm,
I'm
alarmed
at
this
point
that
at
how
far
we
have
to
go,
knowing
what
these
options
have
been
for
such
a
long
time,
what
are
we
doing
to
it?
D
I
mean
I,
I
I'm
alarmed
that
we're
not
looking
at
this
as
a
pathway
out.
Why
aren't
we
shifting
our
attention
to
the
recommendations
and
making
that
our
focus
so
that
we
can
fix
the
problem
as
we
go
rather
than
wait
until
we
get
through
the
backlog
and
then
figure
out
what
we
did
wrong?
I
don't
we
have
that
backwards.
B
Elisa
caparetta
for
the
record,
so
I
I
would
say
it's
not
accurate
to
say
that
we
have
not
been
addressing
all
of
these
issues
as
we
have
gone
along.
We
have
been
implementing
these
recommendations.
If
you
read
the
strikeforce
report,
it's
a
combination
of
the
solutions
that
we
have
implemented
and
the
ones
that
we
still
have
to
go.
So
there's
a
couple
of
of
things
that
I
would
say
about
your
question
in
terms
of
denying
denying
innocent
people.
B
As
you
know,
unemployment
insurance
is
governed
by
federal
law
and
so
for
people
to
get
benefits.
They
must
meet
the
narrow
criteria
that
are
established
around
these
individual
benefit
laws
and
the
rules
for
regular
unemployment
are
different
than
the
rules
for
the
pandemic.
Unemployment
assistance
are
different
than
the
rules
for
the
lost
wages,
assistance
and
so,
while
a
lot
of
people
self-report
that
they
are
qualified
for
these
benefits.
B
B
So
I
do
believe
there
are
still
in
the
tens
of
thousands
of
people
who
we
need
to
look
at
their
cases
and
and
adjudicate
them
which,
as
you
note
in
regular
employment,
there's
a
due
process
requirement.
So
we
have
to
talk
not
only
to
the
person
who
has
applied
for
the
benefits,
but
also
to
the
employer,
who
has
reported
either
they
you
know
were
were
fired
for
cause.
You
know,
or
they
they
quit
without
good
cause.
We
have
to
hear
from
both
sides
that
is
a
fairly
time
consuming
process.
B
So
I
would
say
that
there
are
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
who
have
been
denied
without
any
good
reason
is
not
an
accurate
characterization
of
where
we
are
or
where
we
have
ever
been
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
that
have
been
disqualified
in
the
the
pua
program.
The
court
specifically
found
that
when
we
had
clear
and
convincing
evidence
of
fraud,
it
was
legitimate
for
us
to
deny
them
without
do
hearing
to
find
them
ineligible
without
a
hearing
and
and
what
we've
seen
and
what
we've
seen
in
other
states
is.
B
If
people
apply
and
they
they
possibly
have
name
address
social
security
number
most
likely
because
of
a
data
breach,
but
they
do
not
upload
documents
to
to
prove
their
identity
or
their
income
or
earnings.
B
Those
are
likely
fraudulent
cases,
and
so
yes,
we
have
found
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
to
be
ineligible
because
they
haven't
supplied
documentation
of
any
kind,
and
I
do
think
that
is
to
be
celebrated,
that
those
are
those
represent.
B
B
An
impossible
choice,
but
there
are
certainly
a
lot
of
very
challenging
choices
that
have
been
presented
to
us.
Let.
A
A
Director,
catherine,
I
need
to
jump
in
right
now
because
we
need
to
get
started
on
the
bill
hearing
the
bill.
Actually,
we
only
have
about
another
12
minutes,
or
so
I'd
like
to
start
that
about
9
30,
so
senator
picker,
if
you
can
take
a
lot
of
your
questions
offline
and
then
feel
free
to
bring
it
back
whenever
we
do
a
work
session.
I
just
got
a
couple
questions.
I
saw
that
on
the
budget
only
three
percent
comes
from
the
state
general
fund.
Is
that
right?
Yes,
alpharetta
for
the
record.
A
Yes,
so
by
inference,
would
it
be
fair
to
say
that
if
the
federal
monies
were
flowing,
especially
from
may
through
december,
that
some
of
this
might
have
been
avoided,.
B
Elisa
caferetta
for
the
record.
Yes,
I
mean
to
senator
pickard's
point
about
implementing
solutions.
We
there
is
no
minimum
amount
of
money
that
we
get
every
year
from
the
department
of
labor
to
administer
unemployment
programs.
It's
based
on
the
number
of
claims
that
we
get.
B
We
get
a
base
budget
amount
and
then,
at
the
end
of
every
quarter,
we
we
true
up
with
the
department
of
labor
and
they
give
us
above
base
funding
to
administer
the
sort
of
spike
in
the
program.
B
Clearly,
if
you're
waiting
until
a
quarter
later
before
you
get
sort
of
the
funding
to
address
the
30
unemployment
that
you've
seen,
it
makes
it
very
difficult
to
implement
programs
and
that
most
of
that
money
has
gone
directly
to
staffing.
It's
not
sort
of
the
magnitude
of
funding
to
put
in
extensive
sort
of
technology,
improvements,
stabilization
or
modernization
efforts.
B
So
we
could
staff
up,
but
unemployment
is
an
extremely
complicated
set
of
laws,
so
it
takes
almost
a
month
to
get
someone
trained
to
be
able
to
answer
the
phone
to
provide
information
to
folks.
So
there
really
was
a
lag
because
of
the
the
way
the
funding
comes
down.
A
Well-
and
I
guess
that
was
really
my
point
I
think
is-
I
think
it's
important
to
keep
all
of
this
in
context.
If
there's
only
so
much
that
the
state
can
do
and
then
the
rest
of
it
is
really
dependent
upon
people
at
the
federal
level
to
act
expeditiously
with
empathy,
so
that
many
of
these
things
don't
happen.
I
want
to
ask
a
little
bit.
You
don't
have
to
answer
right
now.
A
A
Are
you
able
to
use
that
to
look
at
improprieties
based
upon
perhaps
gender
identity,
and
maybe
that
one
might
be
a
little
bit
harder
because
we
don't
have
soji?
We
don't
have
so
excuse
me,
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity
right
now
on
any
forms,
but
I'm
I'm
looking
for
ways
that
we
might
be
able
to
use
the
data.
A
That's
already
collected
to
make
sure
that
there's
not
just
equality
but
equity
for
the
people
of
nevada,
because
bipark
and
other
marginalized
communities
so
often
are
overlooked
and
lumped
together,
aggregated
and
if
we
disaggregate.
I
think
that
we
can
find
some
trends
and
we
can
do
a
better
job.
We.
This
is
not
on
you
all,
but
we
collectively
can
do
a
better
job
of
helping
out
with
equity
everybody's
talking
about
equality.
But
I
want
to
talk
about
equity
now,.
B
Alisa
capareta
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
did
get
a
brief
report
from
nerc
on
the
the
number
of
cases
that
we've
seen
and
I
think
we
we
probably
need
to
work
together
to
do
more
to
publicize
the
sb
166,
because
I
I
think
we
have
had
very
few
cases
that
deal
specifically
with
pay.
B
We
do
get
discrimination
on
all
of
the
categories
that
you
listed,
but
we
haven't
seen
a
lot
of
pay
cases.
So
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
information
about
about
that.
But
we'll
we'll
provide
that
report
to
you
and
and
talk
about
ways.
We
could
get
that
information
and
disaggregate.
Those
statistics.
A
Okay,
well,
I
guess
we
will
get
ready
to
open
the
hearing.
I
just
have
one
last
comment,
my
privilege:
it's
we're
we're
waiting
now
to
make
sure
that
money
comes
down
from
from
the
federal
government
and
for
me,
it's
a
little
bit
obnoxious
to
hear
people
who
are
making
average
salary
of
177
thousand
dollars
a
year.
A
Fourteen
thousand
dollars
a
month,
three,
three
hundred
three
thousand
six
hundred
twenty
five
dollars
a
week,
complaining
that
two
thousand
dollars
a
week
or
a
month
is
too
much
for
for
citizens
who
are
hurting.
A
So
my
opinion
we're
obnoxious,
it's
it's
obnoxious!
So
can
we
move
now
if
we
have
no
further
questions?
Let's
move
now
into
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
75!
Please.
B
This
is
the
least
with
jeter.
Did
you
want
me
to
start?
Yes,
ma'am,
please
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
Switching
gears,
sp
75,
is
a
bill.
That's
designed
to
address
the
issues
that
have
risen
due
to
covet
19.,
it's
intended
to
solve
problems
that
we
dealt
with
during
the
pandemic,
including
the
lawsuit
and
updated
federal
guidance
and
laws
that
we
have
received.
B
Overall,
the
goal
is
to
make
sure
we
are
in
a
position
to
handle
future
economic
disruptions
more
effectively,
although
I
don't
think
anyone
could
have
ever
predicted
what
we
saw.
So
there
will
be
limits
on
that.
I
just
want
to
pause.
We
did.
We
have
had
several
conversations
with
different
organizations
that
had
questions
and
concerns
about
the
bill.
B
B
The
bill
want
to
make
sure
you
are
aware
there
are
two
kinds
of
employers:
contributory
employers
who
pay
into
the
unemployment
system,
that
the
benefits
come
out
of
that
money
goes
into
the
trust
fund
and
then
there's
also
a
category
called
reimbursable
employers.
B
These
folks
reimburse
the
trust
fund
for
the
actual
unemployment
benefits
that
are
paid
out
to
their
employees.
Most
governments,
school
districts,
nonprofits
and
religious
organizations
fall
into
this
category,
and
employment
benefits
are
based
on
a
person's
previous
wages.
B
So
section
one
and
I'm
gonna
give
you
a
very
high
level
overview
of
the
bill,
not
super
detailed
and
then
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
section
one
of
the
bill,
basically
to
take
a
step
back
deals
with
setting
the
rates
for
unemployment
benefits
and
section
1
and
section
14
go
together.
B
Section
14
is
currently
where
the
this
calculation
is
done
and,
basically
under
current
law.
What
we
do
is
we
sort
of
look
at
the
highest
benefit
payout
rates
in
the
last
10
years,
and
that
gives
us
an
estimate
of
the
potential
benefits
that
we
might
need
in
a
downturn,
obviously
not
so
great
for
2020..
B
It
isn't
a
required
calculation
for
setting
the
rates
right
now,
and
it
certainly
doesn't
when
you
have
the
months
and
months
and
years
and
years
of
sort
of
economic
growth
that
we've
had
aside
from
the
pandemic.
It
really
isn't
sort
of
a
very
reflective
of
the
experience
that
we
might
expect
so
section.
One
of
the
bill
basically
addresses
these
challenges.
B
It
puts
into
place
a
prescriptive
unemployment
tax
rate
process
using
the
federal
average
high
cost,
multiple,
which
is
really
what
we
have
been
using
to
set
the
the
rates
since
2005.,
but
it
actually
puts
it
into
statute
and
it
really
provides
a
more
stable
and
predictive
tax
rate
setting
process.
B
So,
instead
of
sort
of
an
open-ended
calculation
it,
it
calculates
an
average
contribution
rate
for
employers
based
on
the
current
adequacy
of
the
trust
fund,
and-
and
this
is
probably
the
most
important
point
for
employers-
is-
it
limits
the
magnitude
of
change
in
the
tax
rates
from
years
to
year
and
it
provides
a
more
stable
tax
rate
for
employers.
B
Basically,
we
kind
of
take
a
look
at
what's
needed
to
stabilize
the
trust
fund,
and
then
we
we
will
not
raise
the
rate
more
than
10
percent
in
any
given
year
and
we
will
not
lower
the
rate
10
percent
in
any
given
year,
but
we'll
continue
to
invest
in
the
trust
fund
to
make
sure
that
it
is
sustainable
and
stable.
That's
the
non-math
version
of
what's
happening
in
section
one
and
and
dave
isn't
scowling
at
me,
so
I
must
have
done
that.
Okay,
section
two.
B
This
would
basically
remove
the
alternative
base
period
calculation
option
from
state
law
right
now,
under
unemployment
benefits.
Your
benefit
is
based
on
the
first
four,
the
wages
from
the
first
four
quarters
of
the
last
five
quarters,
and
that's
because
it
takes
us
a
little
while
to
get
wages
from
employers.
So
those
are
the
ones
we
can
actually
see,
but
there's
an
option
under
current
law.
B
If
you
don't
have
enough
wages
there,
you
can
use
the
most
current
quarter
and
that
actually
creates
quite
a
bit
of
administrative
work
for
us,
because
we
have
to
contact
the
employer
and
try
and
get
your
actual
your
actual
wages
and
some
employers
are
very
cooperative
and
some
are
not
so
one
of
the
things.
B
The
reason
that
we
suggested
taking
this
out
is
that
we
we
don't.
It
has
not
historically
benefited
a
lot
of
folks,
but
it
creates
additional
work.
We
believe
that,
needing
to
do
this,
calculation
contributed
significantly
to
the
backlog,
and
so
when
we
asked
for
the
bill,
we
said,
if
you
want
to
solve
this
problem
in
the
future,
you
might
consider
taking
it
out,
and
I
will
note
that
we
have
been
contacted
by
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers.
B
They
would
like
the
alternative
based
period
to
remain
in
state
law,
so
we're
in
conversations
with
them.
We
can
provide
information
to
you
about
the
costs
and
the
number
of
folks
who
use
that
if
you
are
interested,
but
that's
that's
why
it's
in
the
bill-
and
you
are
the
policy
makers,
you
will
decide
who
we,
who
we
cover
and
provide
unemployment
benefits
for,
and
we
will
administer
it.
B
We
think
this
is
a
better
approach
by
conforming
with
the
federal
law
and
because
it
doesn't
distinguish
at
the
federal
level
between
state,
local,
federal
or
county
governments,
our
state
law.
There
is
some
sort
of
discrepancy
between
those
different
agencies
and
it's
been
challenging
to
implement.
So
we
think
this
cleans
it
up
and
makes
it
easier
to
implement
and
is
consistent
with
federal
law.
B
Section
4
create
corrects
a
math
issue
in
terms
of
allowing
people
to
work
and
earn
in
the
the
the
old
statute
you
could
earn
up
to
your
weekly
benefit
amount.
In
the
special
session
we
passed
a
law
allowing
folks
to
earn
up
to
one
and
a
half
times
their
benefit
amount
and
then
created
a
math
problem
for
ourselves.
So
this
this
keeps
the
special
session
flexibility
and
corrects
the
math
error,
and
if
you
want
to
know
how
I'll
have
to
defer
to
dave.
B
So
going
pretty
quickly
now
sections
the
changes
in
sections:
5,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
15,
17
18,
and
I
think,
there's
one
more
further
down
I'll
make
it.
So
we
have
permission
to
provide
notice
through
electronic
transmission
as
well
as
mail
or
other
formats.
We
tried
to
get
this
done
in
the
special
session.
We
didn't
quite
get
there,
so
this
would
allow
us
to
provide
email
or
electronic
notices
to
folks
who
opt
in
or
request
that
it
doesn't
prevent
us
from
mailing.
But
it
gives
us
the
option.
B
Employers
specifically,
would
really
like
to
not
have
to
wait
to
get
mail
to
get
a
notice.
They
would
like
to
get
it
in
their
portal
more
quickly,
so
they
can
respond
more
easily
and
if
you
have
questions
about
any
of
these
specific
sections,
we'd
be
happy
to
discuss
them
in
section
15,
specifically,
in
addition
to
the
electronic
mail
we
are
proposing-
and
I
believe
you
have
our
conceptual
amendment.
B
We
are
proposing
to
codify
the
relief
that
we
provided
by
regulation
for
charging
relief
for
contributory
employers
in
the
second
and
third
quarters
of
2020,
so
that
those
charges
that
we
relieved
last
year
will
not
be
applied
to
employers
in
subsequent
years,
as
well
as
the
50
charging
relief
that
we
offer
to
reimbursable
employers
for
the
same
quarters.
B
For
the
same
reasons,
jumping
down
to
section
six,
we
were
looking
to
clarify
unemployment.
Insurance
federal
law
doesn't
allow
teachers
to
get
unemployment
insurance
if
they
are
not
working
during
the
summer,
if
they've
got
a
job
to
go
back
to
in
the
fall
and
in
nevada.
That
law
also
applies
to
the
support
services,
not
just
teachers,
but
bus
drivers,
food
service
folks
and
this
sort
of
clarifies
the.
B
It
includes
an
error
so
in
our
conceptual
amendment,
you'll
see
in
section
6
and
section
7
that
we
need
to
require
contributory
and
reimbursable
employers
to
pay
for
these
benefits.
We
can't
take
them
off
the
hook,
that
is
in
violation
of
federal
law.
So
we
do
have
that
correction
for
you,
and
we
also
would
let
you
know
here
that
we've
been
contacted
by
the
nevada
state
education
association.
B
They
would
like
to
amend
this
section
to
allow
unemployment
eligibility
for
9,
10
and
11
month.
Educational
support
professionals
we're
in
conversation
with
them
about
that
and
again.
This
is
a
policy
question
for
you
who
who
gets
unemployment
benefits
and
who
does
not
within
the
flexibility
of
state
law.
This
is
allowable
under
federal
guidance
and
the
one
thing
I
would
note
here
for
you
is
as
far
as
we
know,
all
the
school
districts
are
reimbursable
employers.
B
B
As
noted,
section
7
has
the
same
error
as
section
6..
This
covers
educational
folks
in
university
and
community
college
settings
section.
14
is
the
next
change.
This
is
this
the
companion
piece
about
dealing
with
the
rates,
so
we
would
be
taking
out
the
old
calculation
that
we
were
required
to
do,
but
it
wasn't
binding
on
what
the
rate
is.
So
that's
why
you
see
it
taken
out
here.
B
Section
16,
allows
or
clarifies
that
indian
tribes,
nonprofits
political
subdivisions
have
the
option
of
either
contributing
as
contributory
employers
or
opting
in
to
be
a
reimbursable
employers.
Section
19
is
also
something
that
conforms
with
federal
legal
requirements.
It
prohibits
the
jury,
commissioner,
from
using
our
information
for
purposes
of
using
for
purposes
of
creating
a
list
of
qualified
electors
to
be
trial,
jurors
and
then
a
couple
of
new
sections
that
we're
proposing
to
add
again
to
conform
to
what
we
did
in
response
to
cobit
19..
B
We
are
looking
to
add
a
section,
and
I
don't
have
on
my
notes,
which,
which
section
this
goes
to,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
anyone
who
is
serving
wants
to
serve
a
petition
for
judicial
review
serves
us
at
our
carson
city
location,
so
that
we
are
it's
clear
to
us
when
we've
been
served
and
it's
clear
to
claimants
how
to
serve
us
so
that
all
the
legal
paperwork
gets
to
the
right
place
and
can
be
responded
to
on
time.
B
Section
21
clarifies
that
the
state
and
the
agency
cannot
be
charged
fee
for
any
kind
of
proceeding
by
the
board
of
review
or
the
administrator
and
section
22
takes
advantage
of
a
change
that
specifically
was
implemented
under
the
continued
assistance
act,
which
allows
us
to
provide
extended
benefits
during
periods
of
high
unemployment
rates
without
turning
that
option
off
for
13
weeks.
B
A
And
thank
you,
mr
alfaretta,
so
I'm
sorry
director
caferetta,
so
I
have
questions
from
senator
settlemyre
and
then
vice
chair,
neil
and
senator
picker.
D
Thank
you,
chair
spearman.
I
appreciate
the
time.
Let
me
start
off
with
this.
I
had
actually
tried
to
talk
earlier,
but
unfortunately,
my
digital
hand
wasn't
recognizing
it.
So
that
being
said,
what
we
did
in
the
previous
regular
session
when
we
cut
dieter's
budget
was
very
problematic
and
it
unfortunately
set
deader
into
the
situation
they're
at
I
mean
they
told
us
back.
Then.
D
C
Masters
report,
44
pages,
the
38
pages
from
former
speaker
buckley,
you
know-
is.
D
D
D
An
overly
cumbersome,
overly
complex
system
that
I'm
talking
to
experts
that
are
out
there
online
that
are
in
the
industries
and
they're,
not
able
to
figure
out
how
this
is
going
to
work.
I
mean
why
are
we
going
to
a
concept
of
peaks
over
a
20-year
period?
It's
just
way
too
long.
What's
wrong
with
the
system
we've
had
in
the
past,
where
we
do
a
special
assessment.
D
It's
always
worked
in
the
past.
I
mean
in
the
last
recession,
which
was
we
thought
was
catastrophic,
but
the
comparison
was
nothing
but
a
baby
bump.
We've
done
this
and
been
able
to
do
it.
You
know.
B
Oh
elisa
caparetta
for
the
record.
I
I
will
respond
to
a
couple
of
things
so
several
of
the
com,
the
recommendations
from
the
strike
force
are:
will
you
will
see
them
in
another
place
this
this
bill
doesn't
address
all
of
the
issues,
so
there
certainly
are
budget
bills.
There's
stabilization
money
in
the
governor's
budget
there
may
be
a
standalone
deal
to
address
technology
issues.
That's
a
funding
issue,
not
a
policy
issue.
B
The
same
with
the
claimant
advocate
we
are
implementing
that
with
existing
staff
and
then
looking
at
the
staff
additions
that
we
have
to
identify
that
position.
So
you
will
see
that
in
a
budget
bill
not
in
a
again
not
in
a
policy
bill
to
the
specific
issue
of
electronic
records,
we
again
just
to
be
clear:
we're
asking
for
the
ability
to
do
electronic
and
mail
records
and
allowing
folks
to
opt
in.
So
if
you
don't
have
an
email,
you're,
obviously
not
going
to
get
email
notifications,
you
will
continue
to
get
mail
notifications.
B
It
was
specifically
employers
that
we
have
traditionally
mailed
a
notice.
Hey
so-and-so
at
your
business
has
applied
for
unemployment.
Is
it
true
that
they
were
laid
off
through
no
fault
of
their
own?
If
you
are
waiting
for
that
to
arrive
in
the
mail
and
then
are
responding
that
way?
It's
it's
not
instantaneous
and
employers
specifically
have
asked
for
that
notification
by
email,
so,
but
there's
nothing
in
this
bill
that
prevents
us
from
mailing
people
who
want
the
information
by
mail.
B
It
just
would
allow
us
to
offer
email
communications
to
people
who
want
that.
Overall
again,
I
would
say
about
the
rates
this
is.
This
is
designed
to
stabilize
the
stabilize
the
rates
and
it
does
set
a
it
does
set
limits
on
how
much
we
can
increase
or
decrease
the
rate,
so
it
will
provide
much
more
stability
and
predictability
for
the
business
community
and
I'll
I'll.
Let
dave
talk
about
sort
of
conceptually
why
we
think
this
is
much
better
than
what
we've
always
done
so
I'll
just
turn
over
to
dave.
G
David
schmidt,
for
the
record,
and
and
to
to
try
to
to
sum
it
up
for
the
senator
sort
of
high
level.
Why?
20
years?
Because
that's
the
federally
recommended
standard
in
part
to
bring
it,
make
it
a
little
bit
consistent
with
other
states.
G
Also
because,
since
two
of
our
last
three
economic
expansions
have
lasted
10
years
or
more
120
months,
and
about
10
and
a
half
years
for
the
the
most
recent
one
right
before
covid,
there
was
a
an
awareness
that
the
formula
that's
currently
in
statute
would
be
rapidly
dropping
and
recommending
something
far
lower
than
what
we
recognized
might
be
necessary.
Given
our
prior
experience,
and
so
the
the
20
years
is
an
attempt
to
update
the
the
formula
in
the
process
to
look
at
what
we've
experienced
over
the
last
several
decades.
G
Historically,
expansions
were
five
and
a
half
years,
and
ten
years
was
a
pretty
reasonable
number.
But
we've
hit
the
10-year
mark
of
ongoing,
uninterrupted
growth
nationally,
frequently
enough
that
a
broader
standard
might
be
necessary
and
so
and
also
the
three-year
average
again
to
help
smooth
out
the
potential
highs
and
lows
that
exist
in
the
current
formula
and
statute
that
the
existing
process
does.
G
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
work
work
fairly
well
because
we
have
some
flexibility,
but
it
also
has
the
risk
of
large
swings
in
the
rate.
In
the
great
recession,
we
went
from
a
rate
of
one
point,
three
percent
to
two
percent
in
one
year,
which
was
a
fifty
percent
increase
on
average
for
employers.
That
was
a
much
larger
increase
than
what
would
be
allowable
under
this
current
statute.
This,
or
this
proposed
statute,
which
would
smooth
out
those
increases
from
year
to
year.
G
It
would
delay
the
the
the
payment
for
what
we're
about
to
see
with
covid.
If
we
were
to
try
to
repay
in
one
year
the
the
formula
that
will
be
coming
up
based
on
our
experiences
in
2020,
the
proposed
rate
that
you
would
have
to
have
to
implement
the
the
standard
and
statute
is
about
two
and
a
half
times
the
maximum
theoretical
rate
possible.
G
If
we
put
every
employer
at
the
highest
possible
rate
of
5.4
percent,
it's
so
far
beyond
what
we
can
accomplish
now
the
the
the
rate
and
statute
is
actually
not
all
that
far
off.
It
would
say
about
ten,
ten
and
a
half
percent.
I
think
it's
in
the
presentation
we
put
together
last
night,
but
by
capping
the
increase
or
decrease
from
year
to
year
it
smooths
that
out
and
makes
it
a
more
predictable
thing
that
employers
can
hopefully
plan
for
over
multiple
years,
instead
of
every
single
year
being
a.
D
So
then
that's
kind
of
a
red
herring.
That's
where
I'm
a
little
offended
that
you
said
that
because
again
saying
that
we
wouldn't
have
to
pay
in
one
year,
we've
never
done
that.
So,
if
we
haven't
done
that,
why
would
you
bring
it
up
saying
you
didn't
have
to
because
we've
never
had
to?
I
mean
that'd,
be
ridiculous
to
try
to
repay
the
billions
of
dollars
and
do
we
also
have
to
repay
the
fraud
or
we
just
have
to
pay
the
legitimate
stuff
back.
G
In
this
case,
it
would
be
how
many
dollars
do
we
need
to
have
in
the
trust,
and
any
recoveries
would
also
go
into
the
trust
fund
and
would
be
he
picked
up
in
that
that
deed
and
the
the
the
large
tax
rate
is
for
what
comes
out
of
the
formula
as
it
is
in
statute.
It's
the
the
unpredictability
of.
Will
it
be
a
50
increase,
100
percent
increase
a
10
increase.
G
D
I
I
appreciate
that
the
other
thing
you
discussed
earlier,
though,
was
the
concept
that
nothing
prevents
you
from
mailing
as
well.
I
would
like
to
make
sure,
within
this
language
that
you
still
have
to
you,
shall
mail,
in
addition
to
the
concept
of
email,
so
that
we're
not
cutting
off
opportunities
for
constituents
to
be
able
to
get
information
I'll.
Let
that
go
obviously
there's
some
serious
concerns
with
me
within
this
piece
of
legislation,
so
I'll
just
let
that
go
for
now.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Thank
you
question.
F
F
So
in
section
one
I
I
heard
the
overview
the
high
level,
but
I
want
to
go
a
little
bit
deeper
right,
so
so
we're
going
into
a
change
for
the
contribution
rate,
that's
a
certain
percentage
of,
and
I
think
that
the
issue
that
I
was
having
or
the
questions
that
I
need
answered
are,
if
you
go
to
section
1,
sub,
1
b,
I
want
to
get
into
this.
The
economic
cycles,
the
peaks,
the
three
monthly
economic
cycle,
peaks
I
need-
and-
and
this
is
to
david-
because
I
want
you
to
break
this
down.
F
G
David
schmidt,
for
the
record,
so
I
I
believe
it
could
be
two
if
the
timing
is
just
right,
if
you
are
when
you're
doing
the
calculation,
if
you
are
at
or
just
beyond
an
economic
cycle
peak,
it
would
only
look
back
to
two
recessions.
The
reason
that
I
went
with
that
particular
definition
instead
of
the
the
the
fed's
more
generic
three
recessions,
is
in
our
experience.
G
We
typically
see
the
largest
increases
in
benefits
shortly
after
the
economy
peaks
when
it
starts
going
downhill
and
so
to
look
back
to
the
last
third
peak.
There
would
be
sort
of
three
of
those
down
slopes
from
the
peak
to
the
trough
captured
in
the
20-year
period,
and
that's
why
I
went
with
that
term.
F
Okay
and
then
my
second
question
is
because,
because
this
is
where
my
mind
was
going
so
so
since
this
peak
that
going
forward,
if
this
bill
is
passed,
one
of
the
recessions
is
going
to
include
the
pandemic
recession,
correct
and-
and
so
what
I
was
trying
to
understand,
is
what
then
are
the
indicators
in
the
peak
like
so
the
peak
is
created
by
which
factors
I
had
wrote
down,
that
you
know
it's
payroll
employment
measures
and
then
are
the
special
circumstances
of
the
pandemic,
and
so
I
guess
what
I
was
trying
to
understand
is:
what's
this
aggregate
economic
activity
that
we're
examining
by
you
setting
that
sentence
in
this
bill.
G
Thank
you,
david
schmidt,
again,
for
the
record.
The
the
key
thing
that's
being
measured
is
the
benefit
cost
rate
or
the
cost
rate,
which
is
the
share
of
benefits
being
paid
after
the
total
benefits
paid
out
divided
by
taxable
wages.
At
that
point
in
time,
you
can
think
of
it
as
the
ui
tax
rate
that
would
be
necessary
to
pay
for
those
benefits
on
a
cash
flow
basis,
and
then
how
that
is
updated
for
current
the
current
year
is
in
the
current
year.
G
Assuming
that
we've
been
growing
and
wages
have
been
rising,
the
total
taxable
wages
are
higher
and
that,
therefore,
if
you
take
that
rate
and
multiply
it
by
our
current
taxable
wages,
you
get
if
we
had
to
pay
out
benefits
as
fast
as
we
did
back
then,
but
on
the
current
level
of
wages
and
employment
in
the
state.
What
benefits
might
you
might
be
necessary
to
be
to
pay
if
that
makes
sense,
and
then
those
three
benefit
cost
rates?
G
The
three
highest
are
then
average,
which
would
end
up
being
the
rates
currently
for
2020
for
2009
and
2010
is
the
three
highest
years.
F
Okay,
okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
what
I
really
wish
that
you
would
have
done
before
I
gotta
get
into
my
next
two
questions
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
indulgence
is
to
be
able
to
have
a
chart
that
would
have
showed
us
a
comparison
right.
Here's
the
old
model-
and
here
is
the
new
model.
We
are
composing,
and
so
we
can
see
that
comparison,
contrast
and
really
get
it.
You
know
poor
visual
learners
to
really
see
the
distinguishing
patterns
of
the
two
and
the
effects
right.
F
So
I
I
was
listening
to
the
conceptual
amendments,
so
my
question
is
on
I'm
still
in
section
one,
but
I'm
on
sub
j
that
will
be
line
24,
where
we
are
changing
to
the
june
30th
date
on
line
25
to
march
31st,
and
so
the
question
that
I
had
in
my
mind
when
you
guys
made
the
conceptual
amendment
shift,
is
what's
the
effect
of
the
change
of
that
date.
G
Certainly
david
schmidt
again
for
the
record
that
comes
down
to
where
we
get
the
data
from
the
data
to
make
all
of
these
calculations.
We
use
from
the
quarterly
census
of
employment
wages,
which
is
a
bureau
of
labor
statistics
program
which
uses
unemployment
insurance
data.
That's
been
reviewed
and
cleaned
to
make
sure
that
the
number
is
coming
in
as
accurately
as
possible
and
because
that
data
is
available
only
on
about
a
five
month,
delay
basis
june
would
have
been
too
ambitious.
G
We
wouldn't
have
that
porter's
data
available
as
of
september
30th
when
we
typically
go
through
the
rate
setting
process,
and
so
the
most
current
data
that's
available
at
that
time
is
from
march
31st,
and
you
can
see
this
actually.
If
you
look
at
existing
statute
in
a,
I
want
to
say
it's
in
our
612
550
section
7,
but
in
the
current
calculation
we
use
the
payroll
information
as
of
march
31st.
For
that
same
reason,
and
so
it's
to
bring
it
into
line
with
what
we
have
available.
F
Okay
and
then
madam
chair,
my
last
question
and
let
other
people
get
into
whatever
they
want
to
so
so.
Staying
on.
Staying
on
that
framework
of
now,
thank
you
for
explaining
march
31st
will
help
you
get
the
data
and
now,
if
you
go
to
line
31
j
or
that's
sub,
three,
where
it's
like
by
september
30th
of
each
year,
the
administrator
shall
determine
so.
This
is
the
hcm
right,
so
it's
the
that
average
high
cost
multiple,
but
what
it
does
is
it.
F
F
F
How,
then
I
guess
I
was
still
it
helped?
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
were
dealing
with
this
pandemic
kind
of
factors
that
are
that
are
tied
into
this
measurement
of
the
economic
downturn
right,
because
our
current
economic
downturn
is
not
traditional,
it
is
actually
abnormal
and
it
is
unusual,
and
so
I
was
trying
to
understand
if
the
thing
that
we're
setting
in
statute
is
the
appropriate
measurement,
because
the
next
downturn
will
be
significantly
different,
and
so
does
that
make
your
calculation
in
the
data
set
that
you
will
need
different
as
well.
G
Thank
you,
senator
david
schmidt
again
for
the
record,
because
of
how
crazy
this
recession
has
been.
I
think
any
measure
that
tries
to
look
back
to
see
what
you
might
need
in
the
future
would
be
affected
by
this.
And
so
is
this
a
tailored,
coveted
response,
except
for
the
reduction
in
effort
in
what
it
takes
to
plan
out
a
number
of
different
rate
scenarios.
G
G
If
we
had
had
this
in
place
back
in
1985,
and
we
had
this
sort
of
process
for
setting
rates
through
the
the
growth
that
we
had
in
in
the
80s
and
the
90s,
and
even
through
the
early
2000s
through
those
very
small
recessions
that
you
saw
earlier
it.
G
It
would
have
clearly
had
an
impact
in
growing
the
the
trust
fund
more
than
we
did
during
those
times
to
the
point
where
the
the
estimates
that
I
did
out
with
the
parameters
that
we
have
in
the
proposed
legislation
here
would
have
made
it
through
both
the
great
recession
and
as
of
when
I
did
these
estimates
a
couple
of
months
ago.
The
decoded
pandemic,
without
needing
to
borrow
funds
from
the
federal
government.
G
Because
of
the
course
of
continuing
to
build
the
trust
fund.
Through
those
times
of
economic
prosperity,
with
a
more
stable
rate,
it
would
have
significantly
dampened
the
increase
that
employers
saw
in
rates
during
the
last
recession.
It
would
have,
it
would
propose
increasing
rates
for
the
next
several
years
in
response
to
what
we
saw
with
covid
and
the
drawdowns
we've
had
in
the
trust
fund,
but
I
would
think
of
it
as
a
long
term.
G
How
could
we
prepare
the
trust
fund
to
weather
storms
like
this
in
the
future
if
they
keep
coming
at
this
pace?
You
know
that
that's
an
impossible
thing
to
prepare
for,
but
if
we
were
to
get
back
to
something
a
little
more
normal.
Hopefully
this
could
help
to
to
build
those
reserves
over
a
long
period
of
time,
so
that
we're
we're
more
prepared
for
something.
Like
we've
seen
in
the
last
10
years,
15
years.
A
Senator
senator
neil,
I
I
wouldn't
expect
anything
less
of
you.
I'd
be
disappointed,
have
senator
hardy
and
then
senator
scheible.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
to
go
on
the
record
of
thanks,
particularly
for
the
powerpoint
that
was
so
transparent
to
the
extent
that
we
look
at
the
fraud,
and
you
know
what
we
took
from
the
federal
government
and
what
we
where
we
were
and
how
we
did.
I
I
think
it
was
masterfully
done
and
I
appreciate
it.
C
You
know
I
appreciated
the
talk
on
the
electronic
upon
request.
I
think
the
opt-in
obviously
is
very
needed
because
by
the
time
you
get
into
a
problem,
you
may
find
that
the
mail
that
you
said
you
didn't
need,
but
you
needed
to
opt
into
it.
C
H
C
C
The
rate
next
month,
what
is
the
rate
next
year?
What
is
the
rate
change
from
year
to
year
going
along
what
senator
neil
was
talking
about
that
the
graph
that
we
can
say
looking
backward
looking
forward
from
right
now?
What
where
are
we
now
and
where
are
we
going
to
be
so
that
people
who
are
in
business
can
say
well?
This
is
the.
C
C
We
do
insured
the
insurance
with
a
certain
amount
of
money,
or
do
we
always
re
depend
on
the
federal
government
and
an
interesting
phrase
was
used.
The
federal
government
we
borrowed
from
the
federal
government.
Does
that
mean
I
have
to
pay
back
9
billion
dollars
or
eight
billion
dollars,
depending
on
how
you
do
the
math
to
the
federal
government?
And
you
know
those
are
my
observations,
questions
and
wishes
that
I
knew
more
if
somebody
could
address
those.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Matt.
B
Thank
you
senator
dr
hardy.
This
is
alisa
cafaretta
for
the
record,
so
we
we've
noted
your
comments
and
concerns
about
electronic
and
snail
mail.
B
Let
me
add
a
couple
of,
let
me
add
a
little
bit
of
information
for
all
of
you,
which
isn't
related
to
the
bill,
but
is
what
we've
done
with
the
rate
and
then
I'll
speak
to
the
trust
fund,
and
if
I
haven't
answered
all
your
questions,
we'll
give
dave
a
crack
at
it.
B
So
the
the
the
rate
that
employers
pay
for
unemployment
benefits
is
a
yearly
rate
and
traditionally
employers
get
charged
for
sort
of
they
get
set
at
a
rate
and
then
based
on
the
experience
of
the
actual
number
of
unemployment
claims
that
are
submitted
against
them.
Their
rate
may
go
up
depending
on
sort
of
if
they're,
within
a
range
or,
if
we're
seeing
high
level
of
claims
against
them.
So
your
experience
rating
could
go
up
sort
of
like
car
insurance.
B
If
you
get
in
a
bunch
of
crashes
or
you
have
a
bunch
of
unemployment
claims
filed
against
you,
that's
sort
of
how
it
works
in
a
regular
time
and
then
then
we'll
set
the
rate
for
the
next
year.
What
we
have
done
for
because
of
the
unusual
and
dramatic
nature
of
the
covet
pandemic,
is
we
adopted
regulations
to
say
we
are
not
charging
employers
for
that
experience
in
quarters,
2
and
3
of
2020..
B
So
the
vast
majority
of
claims
that
came
in
were
in
the
middle
of
2020
and
we're
sort
of
saying
to
employers
no
harm,
no
foul.
We
know
that
had
nothing
to
do
with
sort
of
the
normal
course
of
events.
So
we
are
not
charging
employers
they'll
just
see
their
same
regular
rate
for
the
second
and
third
quarters
which
we're
codifying
in
the
bill.
So
you
know
as
we're
looking
at
rates
over
time,
they
won't
ever.
Those
charges
won't
ever
come
back
into
their
accounts.
B
B
We
are
not
changing
the
rates
again,
just
because
it
was
something
no
one
could
predict,
and
it's
not
the
time
to
try
and
sort
of
get
this
money,
because
employers
are
hurting
just
as
well
as
claimants,
so
that's
sort
of
the
rate
setting
and
then
what
we've
proposed
in
the
bill
and
is
that
you
know
we
would
sort
of
slowly
and
gradually
make
the
rate
the
right
thing.
B
B
B
B
It's
a
very
standard
thing
to
do
so.
I
would
also
say
about
the
trust
fund,
because
we
were
in
such
a
solid
position.
We
we
expect
that
we
are
looking
at
about
borrowing,
250
million
dollars
more
or
less
on
average,
because
the
other
thing
that's
happening
is
employers
are
still
paying
in
and
as
benefits
go
past
the
sort
of
the
traditional
unemployment
weeks
people
go
on
to
extended
benefits
which
are
covered
100
by
the
federal
government.
B
So,
even
though
there's
a
lot
of
money
going
on
benefits,
as
you
get
past
sort
of
the
first
six
months,
most
of
those
are
being
paid
by
the
federal
government.
So
we
expect
we're
going
to
be
borrowing
about
250
million
dollars
from
the
federal
government.
It
is
currently.
We
are
borrowing
that
interest-free
right
now.
We
expect
that
that
the
interest-free
option
expires
in
march,
but
they
may
extend
it
to
august.
B
B
H
Jeff
krishnan
for
the
record,
just
to
clarify
so
it's
not
taken
out
of
context
is
that
the
average
tax
rate
will
not
change.
So
employers
may
see
some
change
in
their
tax
rate
depending
on
their
experience
rating,
but
the
average
tax
rate
will
remain
the
same,
so
just
to
clarify
that.
So
you
understand
that
naturally
you're
going
to
see
some
adjustments
based
on
that
experience,
rating.
C
E
Thank
you,
mr
spearman.
I
also
have
a
couple
of
questions
on
a
couple
of
different
sections:
if
that's
okay
and
I'm
gonna
start
at
the
very
beginning
in
section
one,
I
I've
been
reading
through
these
definitions
and
you've
done
a
great
job
going
over
them
summarizing
them
talking
about
some
of
the
different
impacts
that
they
have.
But
I'm
concerned
about
the
trust
fund
adequacy
level,
because
I
see
this
term
three
times
in
the
bill
and
it
is
used
to
inform
the
net
average
or
sorry
the
high
cost
multiple.
E
But
I
what
I'm
not
seeing
that
I
expected
to
see
when
I
first
started
reading
the
bill
was
some
kind
of
trigger
for
that
trust
fund
adequacy
level
that
we
have
to
meet
that
we
have
to
stay
at
that.
E
We
have
to
establish,
and
so
I
was
hoping
that
you
could
kind
of
explain
to
me
how
that
adequacy
level
interacts
with
the
high
cost,
multiple
to
ensure
that
we
have
the
funds
to
cover
what
we
need
to
cover
in
a
given
year.
G
David
schmidt,
again
for
the
record.
In
short,
the
the
intention
that
I
had
and
if
it's
not
clear,
can
certainly
try
to
address
that
is
that
the
adequacy
level
is
essentially
the
dollar
amount
of
the
average
high
cost.
Multiple,
the
high
cost.
G
Multiple
is
a
ratio,
so
1.50
would
mean
that
you
have
essentially
one
and
a
half
years
worth
of
benefits
as
measured
by
the
the
balance
in
your
trust
fund
or
what
you
might
need
adequacy,
I'm
trying
to
get
away
from
the
word
solvency,
which
is
often
used
in
these
contexts,
because
that
implies
whether
you're
above
or
below,
zero,
and
we're
really
talking
about.
G
Do
you
have
a
certain
dollar
amount
or
not
prior,
and
that
for
context,
a
an
average
high
cost
multiple
of
one
prior
to
copied
was
about
1.3
billion
dollars.
An
average
high
cost
multiple
of
one
post
covet
is
probably
going
to
be
closer
to
2.5
billion
dollars.
That.
E
G
I
was
just
looking
at
this
last
night
and
the
numbers
are
a
little
garbled
in
my
head,
but
there's
definitely
been
a
large
increase,
but
the
central
thought
there
is
how
many
dollars
would
represent
a
year's
worth
of
benefit
payments.
And
if
the
adequacy
level
is
measured
against
a
multiple
of
1.5,
then
it
would
be
how
many
dollars
do
you
need
in
the
trust
fund,
to
represent
one
and
a
half
years
worth
of
benefits
at
that
that
high
cost
payout
rate.
G
So
I
I
want
to
say
subsections
four
and
five
or
maybe
four.
Let
me
look
it
up
real,
quick,
but
there's
a
provision
that
says
if
the
average
high
cost
multiple
is
above
1.5,
then
the
original
transplant
or
the
provisional
rate
would
be.
Your
average
benefit
cost
over
the
last
five
years,
specifically
the
median
cost
over
the
last
five
years
times
1.1.
G
So
you
say
what
what's
our
current
cash
flow
need
for
benefits
and
then
10
above
that
to
ensure
some
level
of
default
toward
a
little
bit
of
growth
in
the
long
term,
sub
section
four
and
then
the
other
side
is
if
it's
below
1.5,
then
you
take
what
was
last
year's
benefit
cost
rate.
G
How
much
would
you
need
to
repay
any
loans
that
you
have
and
what
would
it
take
to
get
up
to
that
level
of
1.5
over
the
course
of
six
years,
and
then
all
of
that
in
in
either
case
it's
sort
of
bracketed
by
the
you
can't
go
up
or
down
more
than
10.
So
you,
you
have
your
1.5
and
you
have
either
10
above
cost,
if
you're
you're
good
or
what
we?
G
What
is
our
actual
need
to
get
to
where
we
want
to
be,
but
then
both
of
those
are
ultimately
bracketed
at
the
end
of
the
section
by
you
can't
go
up
or
down
by
more
than
ten
percent.
So
if
it's
more
than
a
hundred
percent
ten
percent
of
last
year's
rate,
then
it's
just
a
hundred
and
ten
percent
of
last
year's
weight.
If
it's
below
ninety
percent
of
last
year's
rate,
then
it's
just
ninety
percent
of
last
year's
rate.
E
I'm
sorry,
I
can't
remember
the
exact
term
the
alternative
base
period
and
also
to
remove
school
professionals,
because
now
we're
talking
about
two
additional
ways
to
reduce
the
number
of
claims
that
we
have
to
pay
or
the
amount
of
money
that
we
have
to
pay
out
of
the
fund
and
are
both
of
those
measures
in
this
bill
for
the
express
purpose
of
getting
us
to
that
adequacy
level.
Or
are
these
in
there
for
some
other
reason,
and
we
can
go
one
by
one,
if
that's
easier,
I'm
just
I'm
seeing
a
parallel.
B
The
intention
of
clarifying
the
language
around
alternative
around
the
school
professionals
and
taking
out
the
option
for
alternative
based
periods
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
amount
in
the
trust
fund.
The
trust
fund
was
quite
robust
and
we
have
these
so
they're,
they're
unrelated,
it's
just
all
in
sort
of
6
12..
B
So
the
reason
we
put
not
using
alternative
base
period
in
our
our
bill
was
we
felt
it
contributed
significantly
to
the
backlog,
because
it
requires
a
manual
review
and-
and
we
can
certainly
discuss
that
in
more
detail,
but
we
we
felt
that
it
wasn't.
Very
few
people
were
using
it.
It
contributes
a
lot
of
work
for
us
and
and
a
lot
of
the
people
that
use
it,
at
least
in
the
case
of
covid,
actually
ended
up
because
their
ui
benefits
were
lower.
B
They
they
they
would
have
made
more
money
in
the
pandemic
unemployment
assistance
because
they
were
disqualified
from
ui.
That
may
be
so
so
unique
to
this
covid
situation
that
it
shouldn't
be
considered,
but
just
at
the
time
we
proposed
the
bill,
we
felt
that
it
really
wasn't
that
helpful
to
folks.
It
really
added
to
the
backlog
and-
and
those
folks
would
have
been
better
off
in
pua.
B
As
you
said,
there's
there's
a
proposal
to
change
that,
so
that
will
be
a
discussion
for
you
on
a
policy
level
and
the
school
professionals
they
are.
They
cannot
apply
for
unemployment,
so
they're
they're,
not
currently
in
the
the
trust
fund
and
if
they
were
applying
for
unemployment.
If
you
made
that
policy
decision
the
they're
under
reimbursable
employers
generally
and
and
we
would
have
to
be
reimbursed
directly
for
those
benefits,
so
it
wouldn't
have
an
impact
to
the
trust
fund
at
all.
B
H
Jeff
freshman
for
the
record
to
talk
about
abp
just
a
little
bit,
so
you
get
a
grasp
on
what
we're
talking
about,
and
you
know
we're
doing.
A
cost
benefit
analysis
on
this
is
essentially
what
we're
doing.
Let
me
give
you
some
numbers
to
even
better
grasp
on
this.
H
In
2019,
there
were
2
318
abp
claims,
processed
of
which
1
302
claimants
were
paid,
the
cost
of
doing
that
2
318
the
cost.
In
terms
of
time
it
requires
57
extra
minutes
in
order
to
work
or
process.
An
abp
claim
that,
in
terms,
if
we
call
it
an
hour,
let's
just
round
it
off,
2
318
hours
was
spent
on
this.
H
H
H
That
is,
we
ended
up
paying
out
of
that
8113
claimants,
but
what
that
prevented
us
from
doing
and
spending
that
time
of
answering
116
000
calls,
so
the
cost
benefit
analysis
on
it.
Where
would
be
the
wisest
time
to
spend
our
time
working
the
abp
claims
or
servicing
10
times
more
people,
and
that's
really
the
crux
of
the
question
of
the
policy
question
here
is
this
suggests
opening.
Where
should
we
be
spending
our
time?
What
is
the
most
benefit
to
the
most
people,
and
we
feel
as
though
by
removing
the
ab2
it's.
H
That
would
be
the
why
you
know
a
suggested
method,
so
I
hope
those
numbers
give
some
context
to
what
we're
talking
about
when
we're
saying
it
creates
a
huge
workload
and
what
it's
taking
away
serving
so
many
other
nevadans.
E
Thank
you
that
does
help
answer
my
question,
and
I
also
want
to
ask
a
follow-up
clarifying
question.
So
if
we
put
that
time
that
you're
talking
about
that,
it
takes
to
evaluate
those
claims
into
terms
of
money,
we're
talking
about
overhead
staff,
salaries
or
hourly
wages.
Things
like
that
that
money
comes
from
a
completely
different
plot
than
the
money
that
would
actually
be
paid
to
the
claimants.
Should
they
be
approved.
Am
I
right.
E
C
Security
division.
That
is
because.
C
C
20
cfr
603
defines
a
public
public
agency
or
public
official
that
we
can
share
data
with
broadly
more
than
the
average
person
would
understand.
It's
not
just
an
elected
official
but
also
state
agencies
and
certain
things.
C
The
department
of
labor
jumped
in
and
said
do
not
pass
that
regulation.
It
will
be
a
major
conformity
issue.
The
way
we
see
it,
you
have
to
send
it
directly
to
the
judges.
Well,
senator
shadow,
I
happen
to
know
you're
also
an
attorney.
C
You
know
that
that's
not
how
we
do
that
in
nevada.
It
goes
to
the
jury,
commissioner,
who
then
puts
it
out
to
the
jea
or
representative
of
the
court
and
then
the
jury's
poll.
It
turned
out
that
we
just
can't
get
there
in
nevada
under
our
current
system
and
what
made
it
even
more
complex
was.
I
found
out
doing
my
research
and
I
vetted
this
for
months,
trying.
C
E
Is
very
interesting
and
I'm
so
sorry
to
do
this,
but
it
is
the
nature
of
virtual
meetings.
Could
you
repeat
your
name
again
either
for
the
record
or
for
me.
C
C
E
And
when
you
say
the
department
of
labor,
do
you
mean
the
federal
department
of
labor.
F
C
E
All
right,
thank
you
that
was
very
educational
for
me.
I
appreciate
you
going
into
so
much
detail
and
helping
us
understand
that
those
are
all
my
questions.
Chair.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I've
got
a
dozen
questions
that
I
won't
ask.
Let
me
just
the
important
pieces
are
the
parts
that
I
want
to
really
get
on
the
record.
First.
Is
there
a
reason
that-
and
I
don't
know
what
other
bills
you
may
have
proposed
that
I
haven't
seen,
but
we
seem
to
be
doing
this
kind
of
in
a
piece
meal
effect
rather
than
looking
at
you
know
all
of
the
different
things
that
have
been
discussed.
D
Frankly,
one
of
the
things
that
I
note
is
that
we've
got
a
third
of
the
claimants
are
the
1099,
the
gig
workers
and
we
don't
seem
to
have
addressed
the
issues
with
them
at
all.
So
I'm
concerned
that
a
third
of
our
constituents
aren't,
I
mean
we're
not
doing
anything
to
help
them,
but
is
there
another
bill?
D
That's
out
there
that
we're
just
not
aware
of
yet
that
would
fix
the
rest
of
this,
or
is
this
your
one
shot
and-
and
we
need
to
you
know
this-
is
all
you're
trying
to
correct
this
round.
B
Elisa
caferetta
for
the
record,
as,
as
you
know,
the
pandemic
unemployment
assistance
program
is
a
brand
new
program
that
was
implemented
by
congress
and
the
rules
and
regulations
are
completely
dependent
on
the
guidance
from
the
federal
department
of
labor.
I
I'm
fixing
the
problems
is
kind
of
a
general
content.
If
you
have,
if
there's
something
specific
that
you
were
expecting
to
see,
that
would
be
helpful,
but
we
don't
have
other
bills
out
there
to.
B
We
we
certainly
wish
congress
would
help
us
make
this
easier
to
implement.
There
is
no
doubt,
however,
we
don't
have
any
anything
else
besides
this
bill
other
than
the
budget
bills,
to
address
that.
So
all
right,
maybe
we
can
work
out
what
your
specific
recommendations
are,
that
you
were
expecting
to
see.
D
Well
again,
we
could
go
on
for
some
time,
let's
not
get
into
the
specifics
of
what
I
think
should
be
in
a
bill.
We
can
do
that
offline,
but
let's
focus
on
this
bill
a
couple
of
things.
First,
we've
got
in
section
three.
Let
me
look
at
my
notes.
D
Employees
are
not
expressly
given
access
to
information
on
contributions
made
wired
or
is
that
the
intent
are
we
is
there
a
problem
with
letting
the
employee
have
access
to
their
their
information,
or
is
there
something
that
I'm
missing
in
terms
of
the
authorization
for
access,
because
we're
cutting
a
whole
lot
of
people
out?
D
We
seem
to
be
making
the
data
less
transparent.
Can
you
tell
me
why
the
the.
D
Why
the
bill
doesn't
allow
employees
access.
H
Jeff
bushman
for
the
record.
Let
me
clarify
something
and
something
that
was
said
a
little
earlier
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we're
working
on
the
same
page
here.
H
Information
is
they're
not
really
paying
for
the
claimants
to
look
at
it.
There's
really
not
something
for
them
to
look
at
and
say
you
know
my
employer
paid
in
x
amount
of
money.
For
me,
that's
really
not
the
way
that
it's
put
together.
It's
it's
not
the
way
it
works
there.
It
isn't
a
contribution
on
behalf
of
the
employee,
if
that
makes
sense.
D
D
So
I
I
would
argue
that
any
employer
contribution
ultimately
is
coming
out
of
the
pocket
of
the
employee
if,
if
not
somewhat
indirect,
but
let's
move
on,
you
know
we
talked
about
the
pua,
which
I
I'm
not
sure.
I
understand
why
that's
separate,
since
it's
paid
through
the
ui
system,
but
when
we're
talking
about
overpayments
to
claimants
is
there
my
concern?
D
Is
that
or
my
understanding
is
that
federal
law
requires
a
a
hearing
at
at
least
some
level
of
due
process
before
those
claims
are
denied
or
withheld?
Can
you
explain
how
this
bill
fixes
that
problem.
H
Jeff
fishman
for
the
record
pua
is
a
federal
program,
stolen
separate
from
unemployment
insurance.
H
The
two
programs
work
very
differently
in
order
to
collect
to
be
eligible
for
unemployment
insurance,
you
must
have
earned
covered
wages
for
us
over
a
certain
amount
during
the
first
four
of
the
last
five
completed
quarters,
pua
is
stolen,
separatists
were
independent
contractors,
and
it's
something
we've
never
ever
seen
before.
H
The
pua
program
has
an
end
date
on
it.
The
end
date,
the
original
end
date
was,
I
believe,
december
26th
that
was
extended,
and
you
may
remember
it
got,
kicked
around
a
little
bit
on
the
federal
level
and
they
ended
up
extending
it
through
march.
We're
expecting
to
see
it
extended
again.
However,
we
don't
know
so
to
put
together
any
statutes
or
anything
for
that.
This
is
a
program.
H
That's
fixing
to
end
it's
a
very
short-term
program,
so
I
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
on
the
difference
between
who-
and
you
are
regarding
the
hearing
process
and
such
that
you're.
Referring
to,
let
me
explain
basically
how
the
system
the
process
works
is
that
the
division
collects
as
much
information
as
they
can,
typically
from
in.
H
H
Ultimately,
if
they
are
still
unhappy
either
party
with
with
the
appeals
tribunal,
the
hearing
is
held.
That
is
then
kicked
to
board
of
review.
H
H
So
when
determination
are
issued
in
pua,
they
also
have
the
ability-
and
there
are
certain
time
frames
required
once
they.
If
they
disagree
with
that
determination,
they
have
the
right
to
request
an
appeal
and
we
are
in
the
process,
and
you
know
all
of
this
had
to
be
built
because
none
of
this
existed
on
the
pool
side
prior
to
march
of
last
year.
H
H
D
But
sort
of
I
mean
I
understand
the
difference
between
an
appeal
and
the
initial
determination,
but
isn't
it
true
that
that
federal
law
requires
a
hearing
before
any
payments
are
suspended
and
at
least
what
I'm
getting
from
my
constituents
is
they're
saying
that
they
were
approved,
but
then
they're
not
getting
their
their
payments
and
then
they
get
a
letter
saying
that
there
is
apparent
fraud,
so
we're
holding
up
and
I'm
not
suggesting.
As
director
cafaretta
said,
you
know,
we'd
probably
be
breathing
down
your
neck.
D
If
we're
finding
out
that
you're
paying
all
these
apparent
fraudulent
claims
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that
we
go
that
far
but
shouldn't
there
be
a
hearing
before
the
determination
is
made
that
fraud
exists
and
and
so
we're
gonna
hold
up
the
payment.
I
mean:
isn't
that
required
by
federal
law.
H
Jefferson
for
the
record,
as
you
explained
it
yes,
however,
regarding
flawed,
we
can
get
into
some
terminology
here.
We
cannot
the
majority
of
the
what
you
and
I
and
most
logical
people
would
call
fraud.
What
we
would
refer
to
as
fraud
is,
for
instance,
these
impostor
claims,
stolen
identity
that
these
claims
are
being
filed.
H
However,
when
we,
if
you're
asking
about
what
the
feds
require
dol
requires
us
in
order
to
establish
fraud,
to
be
able
to
prove
that
number
one,
it's
willful
and
number
two,
we
have
to
talk
to
both
parties.
Well,
it's
impossible
to
talk
to
both
parties
when
somebody
is
an
impostor
from
living,
whether
they're
in
europe
or
another
state-
or
you
know
another
continent
to
find
these
people
to
talk
to
so
we
technically
under
dol
those
are
not
considered
fraud
which
doesn't
make
sense.
I
agree
but
yeah
well,.
D
Okay-
and
I
I
don't
mean
to
cut
you
short
here,
but
I
think
you
just
highlighted
just
exactly
the
problem
that
my
constituents
are
saying,
which
is
they
know
who
they
are
you
opportunity
to
learn
who
they
are
someone
else.
I
mean
I
had
a
claim
that
was
filed
in
my
name
and
the
only
reason
I
found
out
about
it
was
because
I
am
my
own
employer
and
I
got
the
the
letter
from
my
deiter
saying.
D
You
know
tell
me
about
this.
Unemployment
claim
well,
I'm
still
employed,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
it's
the
james
ritchie's
of
the
world
who
call
my
office
and
say
I
haven't
previously
submitted
a
claim
and
they're
telling
me
I
did.
How
do
I
fix
this,
and
yet
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
process
for
that
and
yet
their
their
claims
were
were
rejected,
or
at
least
they
were
postponed.
D
They
ultimately
got
it
figured
out
and
he
was
very
glad
he
was
very
thankful
for
that.
But
this
is
the.
This
is
the
problem
with
the
system
as
it
exists
today.
People
are
not
getting
their
benefits
and
they're
not
getting
a
hearing,
and
I
think
that's
violative
of
federal
law
under
any
construct,
and
I
think
we
need
to
fix
that.
First,
setting
p
aside,
it's
the
ui
claimants
that
aren't
getting
paid
that
need
to
be
as
welfare
services
suggested.
H
Jeff
christian
for
the
record,
let
me
just
put
to
you
that
as
far
as
imposter
claims
right
now,
we
have
been
able
to
deny
and
with
great
certainty,
stop
claims
on
244
000
claims
that
were
filed.
We
currently
have
holds
on
approximately
that
many,
so
we're
dealing
with
about
500
000
claims
that
we
believe
half
of
them
we're
sure.
H
But
though,
that's
the
pool
you're
talking
about-
and
you
know
yes,
there
are
probably
10
000
claims
or
so
in
there
that
are
real
claims,
but
we're
having
to
work
through
such
a
huge
hit
on
regarding
forward
this
is
this
hit
on.
Fraud
has
really
slowed
down
the
entire
process
of
being
able
to
get
these
people
paid.
H
We
want
to
get
them
paid,
trust
me,
but
we
also
don't
want
to
send
bad
money
out
the
door
you
know
and
as
director
kathleen
said
earlier,
you
know
we'll
be
answering
those
questions
as
well
before
too
long.
B
And
this
is
this:
is
a
lisa
caprada.
If
I
could
just
add
one
one
thing:
we
do
know
that
we
are
currently
paying
right
around
the
neighborhood
of
300
000
people,
weekly
benefits,
which
is
consistent
with
almost
20
percent
unemployment.
If
the
workforce
is
one
in
one
and
a
half
million
people,
that's
about
20
unemployment,
which
probably
is
reflective
of
people
in
both
the
employment
situation
and
self-employed.
B
So
the
idea
that
there
are
800
000
people
applying
for
welfare
because
they
can't
get
unemployment
benefits,
would
imply
that,
on
top
of
the
20
unemployment,
half
of
the
workers
in
nevada
feel
that
they
should
be
getting
unemployment
and
are
applying
for
welfare
just
on
a
logical
sort
of
what's
happening
out
there.
That
doesn't
feel
like
it's
an
accurate
set
of
numbers.
So
you
know
we'd
be
happy
to
dig
further
into
it
and
and
look
at
numbers
with
you.
C
A
B
A
D
A
It's
okay,
I
just
I
just
want.
I
want
to
be
want
to
be
conscious
of
the
people
who
have
been
holding
holding
on
the
line
and
want
to
want
to
speak
on
the
bill.
A
Okay,
thank
you
committee
members.
A
Anyone
else,
okay,
so
thank
you
all
for
the
presentation
and
what
we
will
do
now
is.
We
will
go
to
testimony
for
people
who
want
to
support
the
bill.
E
A
A
E
C
Hi,
my
name
is
michael
ross.
I'm
an
entertainer
here
in
las
vegas.
I've
been
here
at
on
one
show
for
eight
years
on
the
w-2
been
paying
my
taxes.
I've
done
1600
shows
on
the
keyboard
is
for
raiding
the
rock
vault.
I
lost
my
gig
from
at
the
rio
because
the
governor
shut
us
down.
I
got
a
denial
letter.
C
C
It's
not
filling
my
refrigerator,
and
on
top
of
that
I
am
a
diabetic
and
you
can
look
on
my
beautiful
social
media.
I
went
into
the
hospital
and
I
had
surgery
last
month
and
I
wouldn't
be
around
if
my
fans
didn't
send
me
donations
so
yeah.
I
want
you
guys
to
hear
from
me.
I'm
michael
t
ross.
I
want
to
get
paid.
C
C
E
C
Here
representing
the
people
who
are
jobless
and
suffering
unnecessarily
due
to
failure
to
pay
out
eligible
claims
in
a
timely
manner,
I
feel,
like
claimants
are
lacking
guidance
and
this
process
is
unnecessarily
confusing.
There's
a
disconnect
between
jeter
and
the
claimant.
I
have
personally
experienced
this
because
I've
continuously
been
told
there
are
no
longer
any
issues
with
my
claim
and
that
I
should
continue
to
wait
patiently,
as
these
cases
are
reviewed
by
an
adjudicator
in
the
order
has
received.
C
C
C
A
D
A
E
A
Thank
you
so
we'll
move
now
to
opposition
and
the
same
rules
will
apply.
We'll
have
20
minutes
for
that
two
minutes
per
speaker
and
remember:
ditto
is
a
response
that
will
allow
more
people
to
get
in
and
make
comments
in
opposition,
so
we're
ready
now
for
opposition.
It's
opposition,
only
not
neutral
opposition.
Only
thank.
E
E
C
Good
morning
chris
bailey,
the
a-l-y
university
education
association
nsca,
represents
educators
across
the
state,
pretty
many
thousand
education
support
professionals
for
escu
to
provide
vital
services
to
the
children
in
the
united
states
system,
csus
perform
a
wide
range
of
essential
work
from
the
nutrition
services,
instructional
assistants,
school
secretaries,
maintenance
operations,
student
participation
and
more
nine
ten
and
eleven
month.
Education
employees
are
not
clearly
eligible
receive
unemployment
interest
in
the
summer
months
if
they
have
a
reasonable
chance
to
return
to
the
next
few
years.
Under
normal
circumstances,
most
cfts
and
other
employment
opportunities
can
be
coming.
C
This
system
is
vital,
especially
for
those
who
make
less
than
wooden
days
during
their
working
months.
Unfortunately,
with
the
social
media
pandemic,
job
opportunities
last
summer
were
severely
windows
and
many
efc
struggles
to
make
ends
meet
the
likelihood
of
another
summer
with
limited
job
opportunities
through
the
segregation
crisis
would
mean
another
summit
with
no
income
for
thousands
of
nevada,
educators
and
fda's
210.
C
Amendments
1975
will
allow
education
support
professionals
to
be
eligible
for
entertainment
during
the
summer,
but
I
know
that
this
is
not
a
money
committee,
but
ultimately
it's
going
to
come
down
to
money
and
he
was
very
concerned
about
the
dollars
going
before
this.
That
starts
with
the
outstanding
legislature
in
the
hundreds
weren't
read
on
monday
about
that
funding.
Public
presentation
with
that
said,
every
dollar
cost
to
the
director
for
your
unemployment
benefit
would
be
a
dollar
anonymous.
Pocket
of
a
struggling
educator
over
the
summer.
E
E
E
C
Hi
good
morning,
alexander
marks
m-a-r-k-s
also
with
the
nevada
state
education
association.
You've
no
doubt
received
over
150
160
emails
over
the
last
several
days
from
esp
throughout
nevada,
who
support
the
amendment
from
nsca
to
senate
bill.
75
esps
are
the
backbone
of
the
school
districts
and
with
nsca's
theme
of
listen
to
educators.
I'd
like
to
read
just
a
few
comments
of
the
emails
that
were
sent
to
you
into
the
record
quote.
I
was
at
a.
I
was
a
school
bus
driver
before
the
pandemic.
C
Had
I
been
able
to
draw
unemployment,
I
would
still
be
driving
a
school
bus
full
time,
rather
than
working
elsewhere
with
the
shortages
in
the
education
field,
not
allowing
9
to
11
month.
Employees
to
draw
unemployment
makes
that
shortage
worse.
We
lose
good
folks
by
not
adapting
with
the
times
another
story,
I'm
at
a
loss
for
words.
My
husband
has
been
unemployed
for
11
months
and
still
waiting
for
unemployment.
C
C
I've
received
the
vaccine
so
hopefully
I'll
be
able
to
find
a
position
this
year
during
the
summer,
but
who
knows
what
the
market
will
be
like?
If
all
else
fails?
Please
allow
me
and
many
others
like
me
to
collect
unemployment
for
just
the
two
months
at
the
very
least,
to
stay
afloat,
so,
whether
we're
saying
backbone
or
lifeblood
esps
make
our
schools
run.
C
You
know
from
fixing
kids
cuts
and
scrapes
to
keeping
our
schools
safe.
They
do
it
all.
We
ask
that
you
adopt
this
amendment
so
that
they
can
make
a
living
wage.
I
think
we
owe
that
to
them
and,
like
my
colleagues
said,
you
know
what
might
likely
looks
good
on
paper,
doesn't
necessarily
look
good
in
the
real
world
and
every
dollar
that
is
in
the
district's
pocket
is
a
dollar
that
is
not
being
used
to
buy
food
or
rent
for
our
members.
C
The
state
district
got
help,
esps
did
not,
and
that
is
why
we're
offering
this
amendment.
Thank
you.
A
G
C
Was
just
because,
as
written
we're
supporting
an
amendment
to
that,
that
was
why
we're
at
the
opposition
table.
A
Yeah,
I
just
I
need
to
be
clear
because
we're
in
opposition,
and
so
if
the
bill
as
it's
currently
written,
are
you
in
opposition
or
are
you
for
it.
C
E
C
C
So
our
amendment
proposes
to
remove
the
language
referencing,
the
other
service
and
other
capacity
employees,
so
that
there
would
no
longer
be
a
flat
out
prohibition
on
providing
those
benefits
to
these
non-professional
employees,
and
this
is
consistent
with
federal
law,
which
does
give
the
states
the
discretion
regarding
the
non-professional
employees
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
there
are
any.
A
And
so
again
for
clarification
unless,
unless
the
amendment
is
adopted
and
anyone
else
who's
going
to
speak
in
opposition,
please
make
that
plain
if
you're
in
opposition
you're
in
opposition,
unless
something
else
is
adopted,
so
we
can
so
we
can
make
sure
that
we
have
the
record
correct.
Okay,
thank
you.
Man,
broadcast.
E
C
C
C
My
name
is
jason
gately
g-a-t-e,
I'm
calling
and
speak
to
to
speak
to
opposition
to
the
bill
unless
the
nsea
amendment
that
has
been
proposed
is
added,
and
I'd
just
like
to
address
a
couple
of
comments
that
during
the
the
recent
year
when
pandemic
unemployment
assistance
was
passed
by
the
federal
government
it
was
created
for
those
that
are
not
traditionally
eligible
for
unemployment.
My
understanding
is,
it
was
that
we
didn't
leave
any
citizens
hurt
by
the
pandemic
by
no
fault
of
their
own
behind.
C
What
has
happened
is
that
nine
month,
employees,
school
bus
drivers
and
10
and
11
month,
employees
were
left
out
of
the
system,
support
professionals,
and
during
this
time
you
had
low
wage
earners
unable
to
find
work
unable
to
collect
unemployment
during
the
summer
months
and
left
struggling
and
starving
by
themselves,
and
I
would
like
to
see
that
in
this
bill
that
issues
like
that
get
corrected.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you,
callers
left
on
the
line
we
we're
down
now
to
about
seven
minutes
for
this
section.
So
if
you
can
use
brevity
and
again,
if
someone
has
already
said
what
you
wanted
to
say,
ditto
is
all
right.
A
E
C
B-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E-R
I
serve
as
the
senior
vice
president
of
the
retail
association
of
nevada.
I
want
to
thank
you
to
spearman
and
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
commerce
and
labor
rand
stands
opposed
to
senate
bill
75
we're
even
more
opposed
to
it.
With
the
proposed
amendment.
The
unemployment
trust
fund
was
one
of
the
few
portions
of
deter
that
was
working
as
intended
and
expected
during
these
trying
times.
C
There
aren't
any
good
taxes,
but
the
very
worst
ones
are
overly
complicated
to
comply
with
and
pay,
and
they
increase
the
cost
of
government
to
be
able
to
administer
such
a
complicated
process.
We
specifically
disagree
with
building
in
three
peaks
or
20
years
is
far
too
long
and
a
needless
attempt
to
increase
rates
in
a
non-century
defining
economic
condition.
C
While
the
covet
pandemic
is
unique
in
modern
history,
the
sudden
need
to
utilize
the
trust
fund
in
excess
of
its
current
assets
is
not
new,
and
many
of
you
on
this
committee
were
here
during
the
great
recession,
when
business
and
theatre
worked
together
to
restore
confidence
and
liquidity
in
the
trust
foot.
The
mechanism
that
was
utilized
the
last
time,
nevada
was
forced
to
borrow
money
from
the
federal
government,
was
clean,
easy
to
understand
and
as
temporary
as
the
situation
called
for.
We've
heard
from
dieter
that
the
trust
fund
was
robust.
C
We
adamantly
disagree
that
the
policy
choice
of
the
legislature
should
be
to
attempt
to
avoid
any
loan
from
the
federal
government.
At
a
time
when
dieter
has
been
unable
to
stop
hundreds
of
thousands
of
nevadans
from
having
fraudulent
claims
filed
on
their
behalf,
when
deiters
struggled
to
allocate
funds
from
the
trust
fund
and
when
businesses
are
struggling
and
operating
at
reduced
capacity
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Now
is
not
the
time
to
quickly
and
without
proper
vetting
completely
change
and
make
more
complicated
the
process
for
deciding
the
rate
of
unemployment
insurance.
C
The
retail
association
of
nevada
is
committed
to
doing
our
part
to
contribute
to
a
strong
and
vibrant
trust
fund
that
provides
employees
with
the
assurances
that
they
require
that
the
funds
will
be
available
when
they're
needed.
The
current
system
does
that
senate
bill
75
is
a
solution
and
we
would.
A
Thank
you,
mr
walker,
and
submit
the
rest
of
the
testimony
in
writing
and
we'll
make
sure
that
it's
part
of
the
record.
Thank
you
so
much.
E
A
E
C
G-Y-L-E-R-W-I-N-K-L-E-R
I'm
an
attorney
of
the
ua
center
of
southern
nevada.
I
am
speaking
in
opposition
specifically
to
section
two
of
sb
75
relating
to
the
alternate
base
period.
We
would
support
the
rest
of
this
bill
if
this
change
or
removed
and
we're
hoping
we
can
work
with
mr
lisa
capareta
to
make
sure
access
to
unemployment
assistance
isn't
reduced
at
a
time
when
people
need
it
most.
The
alternative
base
period
simply
allows
workers
to
use
earnings
for
a
more
recent
working
period
to
be
considered.
They
can
get
benefits
sooner
at
the
time
they
become
unemployed.
C
These
workers
have
sufficient
earnings
to
qualify
for
unemployment,
but
without
the
alternative
base
period
might
need
to
wait
for
up
to
six
months
before
their
earnings
can
be
counted.
Denying
unemployment
to
otherwise
eligible
workers
under
the
traditional
base
period
test
undermines
the
goal
of
unemployment
insurance.
C
For
example,
the
glade
center
worked
an
unemployment
claim
in
march
of
2020
after
she'd
been
laid
off
due
to
pandemic.
She
had
been
denied
unemployment
benefits
due
to
her
lack
of
work
history
in
her
base
period.
This
was
because
she
was
on
leave
the
first
three
quarters
of
her
base
period
due
to
pregnancy
complications
when
she
came
back
to
work
after
her
maternity
leave.
She
was
then
soon
laid
off
through
the
cove
19
shutdown.
She
was
a
single
mother
with
a
new
baby
and
had
no
family
to
assist
her
with
her
expenses.
C
Another
client
was
on
disability
leave
during
the
first
two
and
a
half
quarters
of
her
base
period
due
to
hip
replacement
surgery
and
recovery.
She
returned
to
work
full
time
of
the
supporters
before
the
covered.
19
shutdown
closed
her
business,
she
was
denied
under
her
original
base
period,
but
with
the
alternative
space
period
was
able
to
get
benefits
until
her
business
reopened
without
the
alternative
based
period.
These
individuals
and
many
others
would
not
have
received
assistance
when
they
did
while
reviewing
an
unemployment.
C
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir.
You
can
submit
the
rest
of
your
testimony
in
writing.
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you
for
everyone
who
has
taken
the
time
to
comment
in
this
section.
We
will
now
move
to
neutral,
neutral.
E
E
E
C
A-M-B-E-R-H-A-N-S-E-N,
I'm
basically
been
running
a
large
19,
000
claimant,
pua
pandemic
facebook
group
and,
first
and
foremost,
I
want
to
commend
obviously
dieter
and
cafferetta
for
taking
on
such
an
arduous
task.
C
We
cannot
continue
to
keep
negating
the
fact
that
there
are
many
nevadans
that
are
in
fact
eligible
for
this
program
and
do
need
to
speak
to
a
human
being
and
be
treated
with
the
dignity
and
respect
that
they
deserve.
We
were
asked
to
stay
home
for
nevada.
We
were
asked
to
shut
our
businesses
down.
We
were
asked
to
do
all
of
these
things
and
we
complied,
and
we
would
like
nothing
more
than
for
deer
to
continue
to
be
doing
the
work
that
it's
done
and
also
continue
to
take
into
the
considerations.
C
C
I
know
that
ms
cafferetta
has
expressed
that
that
was
a
valuable
resource
and
I
would
love
to
see
that
continue
to
be
pipelined,
so
we
can
collectively
work
on
these
issues
and
it
be
a
neutral
conversation
with
both
sides
and
not
just
dieter
speaking
to
claimants,
as
if
there
is
a
lack
of
compassion
and
empathy
for
their
circumstances,
as
many
have
expressed
today
in
this
meeting
that
their
constituents
tell
them
an
exact
opposite
story
of
what
is
being
reported
today.
But
I
appreciate
and
respect
again
what
was.
E
H
C
Good
morning,
chair,
spearman
paul
moratkin
m-o-r-a-d
with
the
vegas
chamber.
The
chamber
is
currently
neutral
as
we
look
to
fully
understand
how
senate
bill,
what
senate
bill
75
would
impact
our
members
in
proposed
sections,
1
and
14..
I
would
like
to
thank
the
director
jeter
for
speaking
with
me
yesterday
regarding
the
bill
and
appreciate
her
time.
Of
course,
as
an
informational
component,
the
chamber
did
support
the
assessment
that
was
sleeping
in
2013
to
help
repay
the
balance
to
the
federal
government.
C
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
that
took
about
four
years
and
was
an
expert
process
to
stabilize
and
repay
the
federal
government,
the
solvent
fund
was
extremely
solvent
in
preparation
for
economic
downturn.
In
january
2020,
there
was
over
two
billion
dollars
in
the
fund,
so
the
chamber
does
believe
as
a
policy.
The
fund
has
been
operating
as
it
should
and
we
could
change
it
dialogue
with
peter
any
concerns
that
may
emerge
from
the
chamber.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
your
time.
Today.
E
C
First
name:
thea,
t-h-e-a
last
name:
bell
b
is
in
boy
e-l-l.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
my
thoughts.
I
would
like
to
profess
pre-face
by
saying
my
comment
isn't
related
to
this
bill.
However,
I
feel
it
needs
to
be
said
currently
when
a
pua
claimant
calls
the
pua
phone
line.
C
C
So
if,
whenever
we
call
it
somebody
that
answers
the
phone
could
actually
do
anything
on
the
claim
or
make
any
changes
or
anything
like
that,
actually
handle
the
reason
why
we
called
then
we
would
we
wouldn't
have
all
the
problems
and
delays
and
anger
and
frustration
that
we're
having
now
and
that's
all.
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
your
time.
E
B
C
To
the
right
of
nevadans
to
have
their
voices
heard
and
I
yield
the
rest
of
my
time.
Thank
you.
E
C
Name
is
jan
j,
a
n
giles
g-I-l-e-s
good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jan
giles.
I'm
the
president
of
the
education
support
employees
association,
which
represents
in
education,
support
professionals
in
clark,
county
esea
is
concerned
about
the
impact
of
the
summer
unemployment
for
our
9,
10
and
11
month.
Education
support
professionals,
so
we
are
asking
for
you
to
support
the
amendment
for
sb
75
to
allow
esps
to
receive
unemployment
benefits
during
the
summer
months.
C
Most
educators
are
ineligible
for
unemployment
during
summer
months,
and
many
rely
on
additional
income
during
the
summer
months
simply
to
make
ends
meet
I'd
like
to
share
one
story
from
an
esp
in
clark
county.
They
are
a
specialized
program,
teacher
assistant
for
ccsd
and
during
the
summer
months
they
applied
for
extended
school
year
work,
but
due
to
the
pandemic,
they
were
not
able
to
work.
C
Their
food
ran
short
all
summer
and
it
was
impossible
to
play
catch
up
with
their
bills
and
mortgage.
It
was
an
extreme
hardship
to
them
and
others
like
them
with
the
stay-at-home
order
and
other
circumstances.
Last
summer.
Unfortunately,
because
of
the
coveted
19
pandemic,
job
opportunities
for
them
have
been
limited
and
they
need
your
help.
They
are
not
hopeful,
they
will
see
anything
different
this
summer.
This
is
just
one
of
hundreds
of
stories
from
our
educators
across
the
state.
Job
opportunities
this
summer
have
a
high
probability
of
being
just
as
bad
this
summer.
C
E
C
C
I
was
about
to
start
a
job
working
for
the
census
and
then
everything
closed
down.
I'm
a
single
mom
with
two
kids,
a
former
foster
youth
with
nowhere
to
go.
If
you
know
the
rates
of
homelessness
in
nevada
and
how
they
reflect
and
foster
youth,
it's
kind
of
a
big
deal
that
I'm
not
getting
anything
from
pua.
C
C
I
had
all
of
my
information
already
uploaded,
showing
that
I
was
ineligible
for
regular
unemployment.
However,
like
when
the
other
lady
said,
whenever
you
call
all
they
can
do
is
escalate,
you
I've
been
told
to
wait
on
my
appeals
to
go
through.
I
appealed
august
7th.
I
know
in
our
collective.
We
saw
that
a
lot
of
us
were
all
denied
on
that
same
day,
and
so
I
mentioned
that
to
apua
representatives,
and
they
said
it
must
have
been
an
error.
C
I
don't
know
what
to
do
and
I
just
felt
that
that
needed
to
be
heard.
Thank
you.
A
E
C
D-A-W-N-E-T-C-H-E-V-E-R-R-Y
I've
been
a
teacher
teaching
music
in
washoe
county
for
27
years
and
I'm
currently
serving
as
the
vice
president
of
the
nevada
state
education
association.
I
am
calling
in
neutral
out
of
concern
for
my
esps
last
march,
when
school
shut
down
the
support
staff
still
went
to
work.
Food
service
workers
quickly
developed
a
plan
to
make
sure
children
who
depended
on
them
for
meals
were
still
receiving
meals.
Parapros
made
sure
that
every
child
in
the
school
had
the
supplies
they
needed
to
continue
their
learning
while
attending
zoom
team
or
meets
with
their
students.
C
They
worked
with
every
day
in
the
classroom.
Bus
drivers
delivered
their
mill
supplies
and
packed
their
park,
their
buses
and
locations,
so
students
could
link
to
into
wi-fi
in
may
these
same
employees
seek
summer
employment
working
with
many
of
the
same
children.
They
work
with
during
the
school
year.
Our
esps
work
in
summer
learning,
programs,
city,
rec
camps,
boys
and
girls,
clubs
and
the
list
goes
on,
but
last
may
those
jobs
and
other
summer
employment
opportunities
were
not
there.
C
The
employees
who
made
sure
nevada's
children
needs
were
met
were
left
to
figure
out
how
to
feed
their
families
and
make
their
bills
being
an
esp
is
more
than
a
job,
it's
their
passion
and
it's
time
that
we
take
care
of
them
and
make
sure
that
they
do
not
have
to
choose
between
their
families
and
nevada's
families.
Again.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Let
me
let
me
let
me
give
a
little
bit
of
clarity,
we're
in
neutral
now
and
neutral
means.
You
don't
have
a
comment
for
or
an
opposition
to
the
bill.
If
there
is
a
story
that
you
want
to
tell
or
give
anecdotal
information,
please
hold
your
comments
until
we
get
to
public
comments
so
neutral
is
I'm
coming
to
speak
with
no
opinion
and
anything
other
than
that
is
public
comment
and
we'll
have
time
for
that
too.
So
I
think
we've
got
about
four
minutes
left.
E
C
Minutes
my
name
is
chastity,
luke,
c-h-a-s-s-I-d-y
l-u-k-e,
and
I'm
calling
because
this
issue
hasn't
been
addressed
and
thank
you
senators
for
listening
as
a
in
las
vegas.
We
all
have
two
jobs
and
I
work
for
the
school
system
and
I
work
the
minimum
four
days
a
month
and
with
a
gig
worker
full
time
so
because
of
the
limbo
between
the
pua
and
the
regular
ui,
they
made
me
go
back,
reclaim
all
for
ui.
Now,
I'm
stuck
owing
both
and
it
took
seven
months
to
get
an
appeal.
C
I
I
feel
that
gator
has
really
let
down
so
many
people
and
I
apologize
I'm
crying,
but
this
has
been
such
an
emotional
journey
with
dieter,
and
I
want
to
thank
barbara
buckley
for
having
a
voice
for
everyone
as
well,
and
I
hope
that
pua
and
dieter
addressed
that
most
people
that
live
in
this
town
have
two
jobs
and
we
were
greatly
affected
by
this
as
a
community.
So
I'm
speaking
for
the
single
moms
and
dads
out
there,
who
are
struggling
every
day
to
do
the
best
they
can
for
their
children.
E
C
F
C
Started
that
it
was
going
great
that
they
were
having
no
issues,
so
why
are
they
today
here
trying
to
amend
and
change
things
that
only
concern
regular
unemployment,
because
eventually
the
pandemic
is
not
going
to
be
here
anymore,
so
I
just
think
it's
insulting
and
a
shame
that
they're
only
trying
to
change
the
things
that
they
brought
up
today
and
not
trying
to
do
anything
to
solve
the
issues.
Thank
you.
That's
all.
I
have
to
say.
A
Thank
you
callers.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
voice
your
opinion
and
let
me
just
state
for
the
record
that
we
do
not
have
an
internal
amount
of
time
and
there
are
other
committees
that
have
to
meet,
and
so
we
must
have
time
constraints.
Anyone
who
wants
to
testify
and
make
their
opinion
known.
There
are
ways
that
you
can
do
it.
You
can
always
fax
or
email
your
testimony
to
the
committee.
A
So
if
you
did
not
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
today,
your
voice
can
still
be
heard
simply
send
an
email
or
fax.
You
can
also
go
on
the
website
and
there
is
an
opinion.
Excuse
me,
opinion
button
that
you
can
push,
and
so
that's
the
reason
that
we
have
to
have
time
constraints.
We
cannot
go
on
for
eight
nine
or
ten
hours,
because
there
are
people,
people
that
have
other
meetings
and
people
that
are
waiting
and
want
to
do
other
things
too.
A
So
hope
you
all
will
understand
that
thanks
so
much
we'll
close
now,
opposition
senator
lang,
you
you
had
a
question-
is
that
related
to
the
bill
I
want
to.
I
want
to
get
that
in
before.
I
close
the
hearing
on
the
bill.
A
Thank
you.
So
if
there
are
no
other
comments,
then
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
75,
and
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
idea,
director
cafaretta
and
you
and
your
staff
to
meet
with
those
who
are
in
opposition
and
had
submitted
amendments.
Let's
see
if
you
can
work
them
out,
work
it
out
before
we
do
work
session.
A
There
may
be
a
happy
medium,
so
if
you
all
can
just
get
together
and
figure
out
how
to
how
to
get
to
go,
I
certainly
would
appreciate
that
would
like
to
work
session
this,
though,
before
the
middle
of
session.
So
please
do
that
as
expeditiously
as
you
can
thanks
so
much.
A
E
E
C
Adam
adam
francis
francis,
this
entire
presentation
today
has
been
difficult
to
listen
to
frankly,
nothing
short
of
putting
lipstick
on
a
pig
I
applied
in
march.
I
still
haven't,
I
haven't,
received
a
dime.
Apparently
they
could
not
verify
my
identity.
I've
uploaded
over
30
documents
through
my
identification.
C
C
C
C
G
I'm
a
u.s
vet.
I
have.
C
C
People
are
struggling.
There's
people
out
there
that
have
been
pushed
so
low
that
they're
committing
suicide
over
this
and
peter
just
is
up
there
they're
up
there
today,
laughing
and
joking,
like
they
had
a
great
time
in
2020,
and
they
did
great
things.
Apparently
they
saw
a
different
2020
than
the
rest
of
us.
C
E
E
C
Hi
good
morning,
chairman
spearman
and
rest
of
the
committee,
this
is
dora
like
the
explorer
d-o-r-a
martinez
m-a-r-t-I-n-e-z.
I
am
speaking
towards
the
theater,
especially
the
work
rehabilitation
programs
for
people
who
are
blind
and
disabled.
I
have
been
out
of
I
graduated
since
three
years
ago
and
they
have
not
helped
with
my
employment.
C
C
I
think
that
they
should
have
a
sensitive
sensitivity,
training
to
train
their
employee,
to
how
to
help
people
with
disability
and
to
help
and
help
them
find
a
job
and
also
my
friend,
who's
also
have
a
disability
has
been
trying
to
get
on
the
pua,
because
her
husband
was
laid
off
work,
they
had
kobet
and
he
is
not
able
to
get
pua.
E
C
Hi,
my
name
is
michael
ross.
I
spoke
earlier
today
my
apology
for
speaking
again,
but
I'm
going
to
keep
speaking
I'm
not
going
to
sit
here
anymore
and
be
silent
for
11
months,
because
I
don't
have
my
apartment
anymore
to
sit
here
with
and
I'm
going
to
keep
speaking.
I
want
to
go
to
the
news
I
came
from
california
10
years
ago
as
a
musician,
because
I
believe
in
nevada,
the
best
state
in
the
country
and
I'm
a
musician,
I'm
not
second-hand.
C
C
C
It
wasn't
for
her
I'd,
be
lost
in
what's
going
on
over
there
because
it
sounds
like
a
bunch
of
mumbo
jumbo
to
me
fill
my
fridge.
Give
me
my
insulin.
Give
me
my
benefits,
and
I
will
you
guys,
will
be
relying
on
me
when
those
doors
open
to
bring
that
business
back
into
town.
I'm
going
to
be
up
there
shaking
my
ass
and
I'm
going
to
be
there.
But
I
want
my.
A
C
C
A
Thank
you
broadcast
anyone
else
in
the
cube.
We
have
three
minutes
left
on
public
comment.
A
Thank
you,
ma'am.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
who
took
the
time
to
comment
either
affirmative
opposition
neutral
and
in
public
comment.
I
I
recognize
that
that
this
particular
time
in
our
country's
history
is
perilous,
to
say
the
least,
and
I
know
that
the
people
who
are
trying
to
fix
this
and
get
this
right
are
doing
the
very
best
that
they
can
and
I'm
sure
that
they
will
take
all
the
suggestions
and
the
comments
that
have
been
made
under
advisement.
A
A
Okay,
all
right
just
wanna,
make
sure
I
didn't
miss
anyone,
and
so
with
that
we
will
adjourn
this
session
of
the
committee
senate
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
Thank
you
all.