►
From YouTube: 2/8/2021 - Senate Committee on Government Affairs
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
Thank
you
very
much
well
good
afternoon.
Welcome
to
the
second
meeting
of
the
senate
committee
on
government
affairs
thanks
to
everyone
who
is
joining
us
online
and
we
welcome
your
participation
members.
Please
remember
to
mute
your
microphone
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
will
the
secretary,
please
call
the
role.
D
A
A
Here,
thank
you.
All
members
are
present,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
first
before
we
begin
our
agenda
items,
I
want
to
briefly
explain
how
our
virtual
meetings
will
work
I'll,
be
giving
this
information
for
a
few
meetings
here,
as
we
continue
to
have
our
community
that
joins
us
along
the
way
virtually.
As
you
know,
the
legislative
building
is
currently
closed
to
the
public,
and
so
all
committee
meetings
will
be
held
virtually
meaning
committee
members
staff
and
everyone
else
will
be
participating
through
zoom
or
by
telephone.
A
A
A
Detailed
instructions
for
participating
in
committee
meetings
are
also
available
on
the
help
page.
If
you
need
assistance
with
any
of
these
processes
or
if
you'd
like
to
receive
electronic
notification
of
the
committee's
agendas
and
minutes.
Please
contact
our
committee
manager
at
the
committee
email
listed
on
the
agenda
meeting
materials
can
be
accessed
on
the
committee's
web
page
on
the
nevada
legislature
website
and
we'll
have
a
period
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
public
comment
and
bill.
A
A
D
Good
afternoon
and
thank
you,
chair,
dave
filgerson,
I'm
the
chief
of
the
division,
emergency
management,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
ability
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
14..
This
bill
draft
cleans
up
some
issues
we
found
in
utilizing.
The
current
language
first
allows
us
to
update
how
we
provide
a
guide
on
develop
an
emergency
response
plan
to
those
that
we
have
to
collect.
D
D
The
second
change
is
to
have
our
division
work
with
the
regulators
from
the
public
utility
commission,
the
division
of
environmental
protection
and
the
office
of
energy
to
compile
the
list
of
companies
that
should
file
their
plans
with
our
division
right
now.
The
definition
of
utilities
is
a
little
odd
and
so
working
with
these
three
groups,
we've
come
up
with
some
ideas
on
how
we
move
this
forward
better
by
working
collaboratively
together,
we've
met
with
these
partners
prior
to
introduction
of
the
spill
to
discuss
how
we
can
improve
the
intended
outcome.
D
D
A
Thank
you
very
much
committee
members.
Anyone
have
a
question.
A
All
right,
well,
no
questions,
then
we'll
go
to
support
on
this.
E
Bill
afternoon,
test
testify
in
support
of
bill
sb14.
Please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the.
E
E
D
Hello,
this
is
greg
lovato,
I'm
the
administrator
of
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection.
I
am
just
calling
in
to
indicate
our
support
for
the
bill,
we're
a
coordinating
agency
and
that's
it.
E
E
E
E
E
C
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
stephen
cohen,
for
the
record
stephen
with
a
v
cohen
c-o-h-e-n,
as
in
the
assembly
woman.
However,
no
known
relation
that
we
know
of
just
real
quick
want
to
in
light
of
this
new
covid
virtual
world
that
were
all
been
living
in
the
last
11
months,
ensure
that
emergency
responses,
planning
and
assessment
take
into
account
people
with
disabilities,
that
group
of
which
is
slowly
growing
as
a
result
of
the
pandemic.
A
D
No
ma'am
just
appreciate
the
committee's
time
to
hear
our
request
and
I
appreciate
any
help
and
support.
A
F
Good
afternoon,
chairman
luke
memphis
committee,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
kyle
george
and
I'm.
The
first
assistant
attorney
general,
with
the
office
of
the
nevada
attorney
general
I'm
joined
by
my
colleague,
chief
staff,
jessica,
adair
and
chief
of
our
investigation
division,
william
scott,
under
current
law,
before
a
district
attorney,
can
refer
matter
to
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
for
investigation
or
prosecution.
F
F
Historically,
district
attorneys
have
utilized
this
mechanism
when
there's
either
a
real
or
perceived
conflict
of
interest
that
revolve
their
office
from
investigating
or
prosecuting
a
matter.
More
rarely.
District
attorneys
have
also
referred
matters
to
our
office
when
they
lacked
resources
to
investigate
or
prosecute
a
complex
case.
F
The
office
of
the
attorney
general
has
conferred
with
stakeholders,
including
district
attorneys,
public
defenders,
the
aclu
and
the
nevada
association
of
counties,
and
none
of
these
stakeholders
have
articulated
any
concerns
of
this
bill.
We
stand
ready
to
answer
all
questions
this
committee
may
have
on
sb
37.
B
I
have
a
potentially
two
questions,
so
mr
george,
I
was
wondering
so
I
looked
at
the
history
on
this
bill
and
it
dates
back
to
of
well
a
version
of
this
from
2011
dealing
with
the
conflict
of
interest.
And
so
what
I
was
trying
to
gauge
is
how
have
conflicts
been
handled
if
it
involved
the
commission
from
from
2011
till
now
and
and
what
were
the,
I
guess,
the
issues
that
popped
up
where
it
requires
in
2020.
For
this
to
be
changed.
F
The
fourth
record-
kyle
george
first
assistant
attorney
general
historically,
the
way
that
district
attorney's
offices
have
dealt
with
this.
The
limitations
imposed
on
them
by
the
current
structure
is
they
will
call
another
dna's
office.
So,
for
example,
when
I
was
a
prosecutor
in
mineral
county,
we
would
call
churchill
county
if
they
had
a
resource
available
and
say
hey.
Can
you
cover
this
for
us?
So
it's
a
very
ad
hoc
process
when
they
wish
to
avoid
county
commission
discussion
public
discussion
of
of
the
matter.
F
F
Well,
one
particularly
jumps
out
a
county
commissioner's
grandson
in
a
rural
county
was
accused
of
a
crime,
and
the
d.a
believed
that,
because
of
the
nature
of
the
relationship
with
the
county
commission,
it
wouldn't
be
appropriate
for
that
particular
office
to
prosecute
the
case,
and
they
wanted
to
refer
it
to
us,
but
understood
that
going
through
the
normal
procedure
going
to
the
county
commission
would
mean
that
the
county
commission
was
ruling
specifically
on
account
commissioner's
grandchild.
B
So
my
second
question
was
involving
so
when
I
heard
the
explanation
that
it's
like
as
long
as
I
guess
there
won't
be
any
reimbursement
associated.
B
F
Again
for
the
record
kyle
george
for
assistant
attorney
general,
I
I
believe
the
answer
is
that
that's
a
statutory,
not
a
constitutional
parameter
under
current
statute,
the
the
process
outlines
going
to
the
county
commission
before
referring
the
matter
to
the
attorney
general's
office
and
therefore
totally
within
the
power
of
this
party,
your
body,
the
legislature,
to
change
that
that
process
to
bypass
this,
because
the
constitutional
considerations
that
I
was
concerned
about
is
the
county
commission's
duty
to
manage
the
budget
of
the
county
and
therefore
we
wanted
to
construct
this
mechanism.
B
Clearly
it
was
for
the
budget,
but
I
also
felt
like
there
was
a
public
interest
associated
with
the
commission
and,
although
you
know
your
example,
is
that
a
the
the
grandson
of
a
commissioner,
the
thing
that
popped
into
my
mind
was
what
about
the
public
interest
of
the
other
commissioners,
getting
a
little
bit
more
detail
just
to
know
what
is
going
on
and
how
that
works.
I
guess
because
it
seemed
like
there
was
also
a
knowledge
issue
for
the
commissioners
trying
to
understand
what
is
going
on
in
their
own
body.
F
Thank
you
senator
for
the
record,
kyle
george,
that's
a
good
point,
and-
and
I
I'm
I
understand
the
the
perspective
from
which
you're
asking
this
question
now.
I
will
point
out
there's
several
different
constitutional
considerations.
Here.
The
district
attorney's
offices
have
their
own
constitutional
guidelines
they're
constitutionally
independent
from
the
county.
Commissioner,
from
the
county
commissions,
I
should
say
the
the
other
problems
is
that
the
current
construction
we
have
puts
different
areas
of
statute
of
nevada's,
revised
statutes
in
conflict
with
each
other.
There
are
laws
that
say
it's.
F
So
on
one
hand
we
have
a
constraint
against
revealing
the
existence
of
an
active
criminal
investigation
with
the
the
need
to
go
and
publicize
it
to
get
a
referral
to
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
I
think
this
is
this
kind
of
removes
that
conflict
attention
between
different
areas
of
the
law.
G
G
If
a
county
commissioner
has
committed
crimes
that
those
residents
of
the
county
should
be
aware
of
by
statute,
we
also
and
by
constitution,
if
our
office
files
charges,
those
charges
will
be
public
and
that
process
has
to
be
public
has
to
be
conducted
publicly.
So
the
commissioners
and
anyone
in
the
county
would
be
aware
of
those
charges
and
the
resolution
of
that
case.
H
Make
sure
I'm
still
unmuted
I'm
just
concerned
about
the
way
this
reads
as
long
as
the
attorney
general
was
not
going
to
seek
reimbursement
for
the
action,
then
clearly
the
district
attorney,
the
district
attorney
can
request
the
support
and
if,
if
he
wasn't
going
to
seek
reimbursement,
then
in
fact
he
he
would
not
have
to
notify
the
board
of
county
commissioners.
My
concern
with
is
what
would
happen
if
you
had
a
district
attorney
that
I
had
a
number
of
cases.
H
He
didn't
particularly
want
anyone
to
hear,
so
he,
in
fact,
is
calling
the
ag's
office
every
week
and
saying
well.
I've
got
a
this
case
with
this
case
that
I
don't
want
to
just
because
he
doesn't
don't
want
to
do
the
work
on
it,
the
other
side
of
it
as
long
as
the
ag's
office
doesn't
request
reimbursement.
H
It
looks
to
me
like
the
ag's
office
would
then
have
to
go
ahead
and
provide
counsel
in
those
cases.
G
Thank
you
senator
to
the
chair,
and
and
through
you
to
through
the
chair,
to
senator
kokochi
and
jessica
dair
for
the
record.
G
I
would,
I
would
say
that
in
the
ag's
office
we
are
busy
enough,
as
it
is
that
we
cannot
accept
cases
that
don't
involve
a
conflict
real
or
perceived.
We
have
our
own
statutory
and
constitutional
obligations
to
and
we
frankly
have
a
limited
team.
However,
we
understand
that
there
are
cases
in
which
da's
rightfully
cannot
prosecute
those
cases,
but
they
are
important
for
us
to
prosecute.
G
So
I
would
say
that
most
ages
would
not
have
the
incentive
to
pick
up
the
slack
if
you
will
and
because
all
these
cases
will
be
will
be
public.
If,
if
they
come
to
a
charge,
I
would
say
that
the
voters
are
all
the
voters
would
ultimately
hold
that
da
accountable.
G
If
a
da
is
shipping
all
of
their
cases
to
the
ag's
office,
I
think
that
they
would
probably
have
an
earful
from
the
voters
when
our
in
our
conversations
with
the
da's
about
this
bill,
we
did
not
anticipate
that
they
would
be
sending
us
many
of
their
cases
that
they
would
otherwise
not
want
to
pursue.
H
H
F
Thank
you,
senator
gokuchi,
for
the
record,
kyle
george
senator.
I
believe
if
the
issue
will
in
fact
the
district
attorney
itself,
they
can
directly
complain
to
our
office
and
we
would
have
jurisdic
jurisdiction
on
the
current
law
to
directly
investigate
that
dea.
So
this
wouldn't
implicate
that
in
any
way
that
I
could
see,
because
we
do
have
direct
jurisdiction
to
investigate
those
matters.
H
All
right,
so,
in
that
case
the
board
of
county
commissioners
would
put
the
agenda
out
and
it
would
let
the
district
attorney
know
in
that
case,
then
that
he
was
going
to
be
investigated.
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
fine
with
it.
It
makes
sense,
but
I
do
know
some
da's
and
role
nevada
in
the
past.
That
probably
would
have
loved
this,
because
you
would
have
got
a
call
once
a
week
until
they
took
care
of
it.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
chair
don
darrell
loop
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
just
a
couple
of
questions
under
current
law
under
nrs
228.130
is
the
reimbursement
usually
waived
by
the
attorney
general's
office
when
they're
requested
to
come
in
and
assist
clark
or
county
district
attorney,
just
wondered
if
there's
any
data
or
anecdotal
information
as
to
what
currently
happens
under
the
current
statute
as
to
reimbursement
or
not,
and
then
on
the
example
that
was
given
about
the
the
county
commissioner,
whose
grandson
was
the
subject
and
the
the
district
attorney
sought
assistance
from
the
attorney
general.
C
G
Thank
you
through
the
chair
to
senator
orrinshaw
jessica.
Dare
for
the
record,
I
can
answer
the
first
part
of
your
question
regarding
budget.
I
can
tell
you
under
a.g
ford's
administration.
We
have
not
sought
any
reimbursement
from
the
county
under
the
referrals
that
we
have
received.
G
Should
a
da
seek
to
refer
a
case
that
we
felt
like
went
beyond
our
existing
resources,
for
example
an
expert
witness.
Perhaps
that
would
be
extremely
expensive
for
us,
and
we
wouldn't
have
the
the
budget
to
cover
that.
I
think
that
would
be
an
appropriate
use
of
that
reimbursement
mechanism
under
under
aging
ford's
administration.
We
have
not
sought
reimbursement.
F
Thanks
sarah
for
the
record
tyler
george
first
assistant
agent
to
the
second
part
of
your
question,
the
inside
reference.
Unfortunately
I
don't
recall
how
it
played
out.
I
know
the
suspect
did
a
plea
bargain
at
some
point,
but
I
don't
remember
jurisdictionally.
It
was
through
our
office
or
through
the
da's
office.
I
have
some
recollection
that
the
issue
the
jurisdictional
issue
was
resolved
without
without
obstacles
that
I
discussed,
but
I
don't
recall
how
it
was
done.
This
was
subtitled.
Unfortunately,.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair.
Any
additional
questions
from
the
committee
senator
hansen.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
actually
kind
of
a
follow-up
on
what
senator
orrinshaw
was
asking
I'm
I
I
represent
seven
counties,
six
rural
and
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
How
often
do
you
guys
get
these
kind
of
calls?
I
I
mean
it
sounds
like
they're
fairly
rare,
but
you
know:
do
you
guys
have
any
it
was
a
hundred
a
year
or
and
is
there
any
counties
where
it
seems
to
be
a
you
know,
consistent
problem,
or
is
this
just
kind
of
a
thing
that
they
take
advantage
of
only
when
they
have
you
know
really
severe
criminal
cases
where
they
really
need
some
expertise.
F
Thank
you
senator
for
the
record
kyle
george
first
assistant,
hg,
that's
a
good
question.
I
don't
have
hard
data
to
to
answer
that
question.
My
gut
instinct,
it's
probably
about
maybe
a
dozen
a
year
ten
to
a
dozen
a
year.
I
know
in
monroe
county
we
I
was
there
three
and
a
half
years.
I
probably
had
to
deal
with
this
five
or
six
times
total.
I
Oh
okay,
I
I
was
getting
the
impression
it's
a
pretty
common
thing.
It
is
kind
of
funny
because
senator
goykicia
used
to
be
county,
commissioner
gleicke
and
when
he
was
county.
Commissioner
gokuchiya,
my
father-in-law
was
a
district
attorney
for
eureka,
county
alexis's,
dad
and
so
so
pete.
I
hope
when
you're
talking
about
a
lazy.
A
A
Okay,
well,
if
we've
asked
all
our
committee
questions,
we
will
go
to
hearing
testimony
and
support
and
please
testifiers
remember
just
a
reminder
that
it
will
be
two
minutes.
Go
ahead
when
you're
ready
broadcasting.
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Do
you
have
any
final
remarks
from
the
attorney
general's
office.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
kyle
george.
While
we
were
taking
calls
from
the
public,
a
member
of
our
staff
contacted
us
and
advised
that
we
get
about
10
of
these
calls
a
month
these
referrals
a
month
just
in
response
to
the
questions
previously
closed
on
this
one
of
the
supplement
record
with
that
information.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
all
right.
Well,
I
appreciate
your
time
and
expertise
today
and
I'll
close.
The
hearing
on
senate
bill
37.
F
F
Under
current
law,
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
is
granted
exclusive
authority
to
represent
the
state
of
nevada
on
legal
matters.
There
are
carve-outs
where
the
office
may
retain
outside
counsel
on
a
contingency
fee
basis.
When
quote
the
attorney
general
lacks
the
resources,
skills
or
expertise
to
provide
representation
in
the
matter.
That
is
the
subject
of
the
contract,
end
quote,
or
to
retain
special
counsel.
If
representation
by
the
attorney
general's
office
is
impracticable
or
could
cause
conflict,
excuse
me
could
constitute
a
conflict
that
precludes
its
representation.
F
F
Section
7
provides
that
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
shall
remain
the
ultimate
decision
maker
on
all
aspects
of
litigation
or
matters
on
which
pro
bono
counsel
is
retained.
This
provision
preserves
constitutional
role
of
the
attorney
general
as
the
ultimate
determiner
of
what
is
in
the
best
legal
interests
of
the
state.
F
Section
8
mainly
provides
that
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
shall
promulgate
a
form
that
must
be
included
in
all
contracts
issued.
Pursuant
to
this
bill
and
section
9
imposes
an
affirmative
duty
on
global
law
firms
and
attorneys
retained.
Pursuant
to
this
bill
to
maintain
billing
records
related
to
their
work
for
a
period
of
four
years,
these
documents
are
public
records.
F
Sections
10
and
11
are
intended
to
provide
transparency
by
requiring
the
office
to
one
post
all
pro
bono
contracts
on
our
website
within
five
days
of
final
signature
and
the
two
provide
annual
pro
bono
activity.
Reports
to
this
legislature,
sections
12-14,
conforming
changes,
section
15
of
the
bill
amends
the
gift
statute
to
explicitly
provide
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
may
accept
legal
services
provided
on
a
pro-bono
basis
by
an
attorney
or
law
firm.
F
A
B
You
so
I
had
a
question
on
was
a
couple
questions.
Does
this
do
require
the
approval
of
the
governor
when
I
was
looking
at
a
bill
that
was
similar
to
this
from
2015,
I
believe
of
senator
browers,
and
he
had
similar
language,
but
it
was
dealing
with
contingency
fee.
G
Quasi-Prosecutorial,
thank
you
senator
to
the
chair
and
through
you
to
senator
neil
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
to
answer
your
question
regarding
board
of
examiner's
approval?
No,
it
would
not
require
board
of
examiner's
approval
and
that's
because
there
wouldn't
be
a
dollar
amount
associated
with
the
contract,
which
is
a
very
different
statutory
requirement
from
contingency
fee
council
or
special
counsel,
where
they
would
be
paid
for
their
services
and
regarding
quasi-prosecutorial.
G
B
Madam
care
follow-up,
please-
and
I
guess-
and
I
guess
my
concern
was:
although
the
board
of
examiners
reviews
things
for
a
dollar
amount,
isn't
their
relationship
to
the
ag
a
little
bit
stronger
than
just
dollar
amount?
Isn't
there
more
isn't
there
some
substance
to
their
relationship
as
well.
G
No,
I
I
don't
believe
so.
The
board
of
examiners
only
approves
contracts
that
is
obligated
by
the
state
over
a
specific
fiscal
threshold.
But
to
but
to
answer
your
question
about
a
stronger
relationship.
G
The
aeg
is
a
member
of
the
board
of
examiners.
So
in
that
way
we
do
have
a
stronger
relationship
and
we
provide
legal
counsel
to
the
board
of
examiners,
but
the
board
of
examiners
typically
does
not
approve
any
work
that
the
ag's
office
performs
only
contracts
that
the
ag's
office
may
enter
into
above.
A
financial
threshold.
B
I
understand
the
whole
pro
bono
piece
of
this,
but
based
on
all
of
the
things
like,
I
was
listing
out
all
of
the
the
things
that
the
ag
would
oversee
and
this
relationship
with
the
pro
bono
contract
and
it's
more
than
just
advice,
because
there
wouldn't
be
this
need
of
this
intimate
oversight.
If
it
was
just
advice
right
there
there
they,
yes,
they
don't
get
to
agree,
but
for
a
settlement
but
clearly
they're
negotiating
a
settlement
because
it
seems
like,
I
guess
everything.
G
Thank
you,
senator
jessica,
dare
for
the
record,
so
the
ag
would
retain
all
decision-making
authority.
The
board
of
examiners
normally
does
not
prove
any
approve
any
settlements
that
the
ag's
office
enters
into
with
any
any
party.
The
the
board
of
examiners
only
approves
contracts
in
which
we
enter
into
the
board
of
examiners
does
not
have
any
oversight
over
the
ag's
office.
G
I
would
say
that,
in
terms
of
this,
these
contracts,
or
with
pro
bono
council,
the
ag
still
has
to
maintain
and
enter
into
agreements
within
our
constitutional
and
statutory
authority
and
ag
is
the
final
say
and
a
any
any
council,
whether
pro
bono
special
counsel,
contingency
council,
it
does
not
have
authorization
to
enter
into
any
agreements
without
the
explicit
approval
of
the
attorney
general,
but
thank
you
for
asking
that
question,
because
I'm
glad
you're
able
to
put
that
on
the
record.
G
B
I
Thanks,
madam
chair,
actually
one
of
them
was
already
addressed.
That
is,
this
will
not
apply
in
any
way
shape
or
form
any
kind
of
criminal
proceedings.
I
G
Thank
you,
senator
jessica,
dear
for
the
record
regarding
individual
lawyers
or
organizations,
any
any
person
or
firm
that
we
would
enter
into
a
pro
bono.
Contact
with
would
have
to
be
either
a
law
firm
or
an
attorney
who
is
entitled
to
practice
law
licensed
to
practice
law.
So
a
policy
organization
that
does
is
not
licensed
to
practice
law.
They
would
not
be
considered.
G
They
would
not
be
eligible
for
this
kind
of
work
if,
for
example,
the
aclu
or
any
organization
that
has
licensed
attorneys
working
for
them.
I
think
they
would
be
considered
eligible
for
this
kind
of
pro
bono
work
to
your
first
question
in
terms
of
when
would
this
happen
so,
for
example,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
federal
issues
or
very
nuanced
areas
of
law,
there
are
attorneys
who
specialize
in
that
work.
That
may
not
be
our
bread
and
butter,
but
would
be
very
happy
and
willing
and
able
to
assist
us
in
those
matters.
G
So
I
will
give
an
example,
nuclear
energy,
so
that
we
have
outside
counsel
right
now,
who
are
very
specialized
attorneys
who
are
on
retainer,
who
assist
our
office
at
under
these
normal
special
counsel,
statutory
provisions.
However,
there
are
experts
in
the
field
who
would
love
to
assist
us
if
we
were
able
to
enter
into
a
contract.
We
can't,
however,
because
of
these
statutory
provisions,
but
more
importantly,
we
have
to
have
a
scope
of
work
that
is
agreed
upon.
Written
has
a
beginning
and
end
to
maintain
that
attorney
client
or
attorney
to
attorney
confidentiality.
G
So,
for
example,
if
in
nuclear
nuclear
energy
or
any
particular
environmental
lawsuit,
we
can't
share
privileged
information
that
they
might
be
able
to
confidential
information
from
our
client
with
anyone
outside
of
the
office
unless
there
is
a
legal
contract
in
place.
That
would
protect
that
information.
So
that's
really
a
good
example,
I
think,
of
what
we're
envisioning
and
why
we
would
need
this
kind
of
contract.
I
Okay,
so
so
the
attorney
general
previously
didn't
have
this
kind
of
authority,
so
you
were
unable
to
access
that
in
the
past.
I
mean
is
this
something
that
that
is
is
brand
new
and
the
other
quick
question.
How
many
staff
attorneys
are?
Are
there
actually
in
the
attorney
general's
office?
I
have
50
100.
I
have
no
clue.
G
Thank
you,
senator
jessica
dave
for
the
record.
We
have
about
150,
but
we
right
we
repre,
and
that
includes
prosecutors,
who
wouldn't
be
that's
not
what
this
statute
is
envisioning,
but.
B
E
G
In
the
state
of
nevada
and
all
occupational
licensing
boards,
so
it
is
quite
a
client
and
caseload
here,
but
I
think
what
we're
really
trying
to
get
at
is
those
specialized
attorneys
who
would
be
able
to
assist
us
and
I'm
I
apologize.
I
forget
the
first
part
of
your
question.
G
Yes,
thank
you
senator
jessica,
dare
for
the
record
they
did
not.
They
just
simply
did
not
accept
that
help
and
if
they
did,
that
would
have
been
illegal
so
that
that
would
not
have
been.
That
would
be
frowned
upon.
So
we
haven't
done
that
here
in
the
ag's
office.
We
have
people
reaching
out
to
us.
Saying
hey,
I
know
about
this
area
of
law.
Can
I
help
you
and
we
said
no,
because
we're
not
permitted
to
take
them
up
on
that,
so
how
has
been
handled?
Hopefully
it
has
not.
F
Madam
chairman
supplement
that
answer
as
well.
Please
absolutely
please
record
kyle
george
first
assistant
attorney
general.
The
way
all
our
office
is
currently
structured.
The
majority
of
the
civil
litigation
that
takes
place
from
office
is
under
me,
and
I
can
give.
I
can
give
you
two
specific
examples
where
we
may
have
deficiencies
within
our
office.
One
would
be
anti-trust
and
the
other
would
be
bankruptcy.
These
are
not
things
that
we
generally
litigate
in
our
office.
F
So
right
now
we're
in
a
position
if
someone
if
we
are,
if
it
isn't
necessary
for
us
to
litigate
anything
in
that
space,
we
are
forced
to
either
pay
someone
to
do
it
through
a
special
counsel
contract
or
set
up
a
contingency
fee
arrangement
which
again
involves
us
paying
them,
whereas
there
might
be
experts
who
can
just
give
us
the
quick,
some
quick
guidance.
We
need
to
get
past
that
stumbling
block,
and
we
cannot
lawfully
do
so
at
this
time.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
on
section
nine-
and
this
is
coming
off
of
the
amendment-
I
guess
I
was
just
trying
to
reconcile
what's
public
versus
work
product,
I
know
that
certain
facts
can
be
on
the
public
record
as
long
as
it's
not
associated
with
strategy,
but
I
guess
my
question
is
since
there
was
an
assertion
of
239,
what's
left
to
be
disclosed
for
inspection.
F
Thank
you
senator
for
the
record.
Kyle
george,
I
think
there's
still
a
lot
left
so
one
one
example
of
I'll
back
up
legal
strategy
is,
in
fact,
privileged
legal
theories
that
we
explore
is
privileged.
F
It's
meant
to
promote
frank
discussion
among
attorneys
and
clients,
so
we
understand
the
ramifications
of
any
any
legal
pathway
we
choose
to
follow.
Building
records
that
are
sufficiently
detailed
might
actually
reveal
some
of
our
legal
contemplation.
For
example,
a
building
record
that
says
research
on
the
topic
of
abc
might
expose
that
we
contemplating
a
b
and
c.
So
what
what
I
intended
to
preserve
with
the
amendment
with
the
closed
amendments
is
the
ability
to
to
not
compel
attorneys
to
otherwise
disclose
privileged
information
in
the
interest
of
maintaining
public
records.
F
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
go
too
far
with
the
language
of
this
bill
so
that
we're
compelling
this
disclosure
of
otherwise
privileged
information.
B
Right,
so
thank
you
for
that.
So
so
the
question
was
so
what's
left
to
be
disclosed,
privilege
is
broad,
and
it's
wide.
So
in
terms
of
that's
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at
like
for
the
public
record.
What
is
what
is
open
for
inspection
under
239
0,
1
0?
That's
the
question.
G
G
Another
thing
that
would
be
disclosed
would
be
the
beginning
and
end
date
of
the
contract,
and
that
would
keep
the
ag's
office
accountable
to
the
public
to
ensure
that
any
pro
bono
council
then
wasn't
later
given
a
paid
for
contract
within
that
year,
cooling
off
period
after
the
completion
of
the
contract,
as
well
as,
I
think,
a
general
scope
of
work.
So
we
couldn't
just
say
pro
bono,
legal
advice,
for
example.
G
In
order
for
the
contract
to
be
valid,
it
would
have
to
be
the
scope
of
work
would
have
to
be
sufficient
such
that
we
would
get
into
at
least
some
detail
about
the
topic
of
whatever
that
area
of
law
would
be
so.
Assistance
with
yucca
mountain
licensing
matters.
Things
like
that.
So
I
I
think
that
you
know
without
getting
into
too
much
detail,
there
would
be
quite
a
bit
left
that
would
give
the
public
and
and
the
legislative
legislators
sufficient
detail
to
ensure
that
the
ag's
office
was
going
to
be
held
accountable.
A
Okay,
any
additional
questions.
A
So
I
have
one
and
it's
it
I
think
it's
been
answered,
but
I
just
need
some
clarification
not
being
of
the
legal
field.
A
So
when
you
were
talking
about
these
experts,
so
if
they're
an
expert
in
nuclear
law
and
then
they
come
and
they
pro
bono
they're
retained
to
be
a
pro
bono
attorney
and
then
they
go
back
and
do
nuclear
laws.
So
I
don't
I'm.
Can
you
confirm
or
clarify
that
legal
piece
in
there
where
they
can't
where
they
have
the
cooling
off
period?
I'm
not
sure.
I
quite
understand
that,
because
if
that's
the
kind
of
law
they're
doing
it
seems
to
me,
there
would
be
an
overlap
and
that
would
be
difficult
for
them.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
jessica,
dear
for
the
record,
so
the
cooling
off
provision
was
really
important.
After
after
reviewing
the
bill
and
talking
to
stakeholders,
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
public
would
have
trust
in
the
ag's
office
that
there
wouldn't
be
any
kind
of
quid
pro
quo
that
if
you
gave
us
free
legal
advice
here,
we
would
give
you
a
paid
contract
later.
So
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
there
was.
G
There
was
some
provision
in
here
to
ensure
that
that
quid
pro
quo,
whether
this
ag
or
future
ags,
would
not
be
able
to
engage
in.
But
in
terms
of
your
question
about
you
know
what
it,
what
would
be
their
business
incentive
essentially
for
giving
pro
bono
legal
advice
to
us.
So
already,
lawyers
have
to
abide
by
ethical
considerations
that
if
they
are
working
on
for
a
particular
client,
they
cannot
engage
for
for
fee
or
for
free
in
another
case
that
might
negatively
impact
their
current
client.
G
So
there's
plenty
of
folks
out
there
who
would
not
be
able
to
give
us
any
advice
because
they're
conflicted
out,
but
if
an
if
an
attorney
wanted
to
out
of
the
goodness
of
their
heart
or
because
they
particularly
believe
in
a
thing
that
the
ag's
office
is
trying
to
achieve,
wanted
to
offer
their
advice,
we
would
like
to
be
able
to
take
them
up
on
that.
So
you
know
there
will
be
plenty
of
attorneys
who
would
not
have
an
incentive,
financial
or
otherwise
to
engage
in
a
pro
pro
bono.
G
Pro
bono
contact
with
us-
and
that
is
perfectly
fine.
But
if
there
are
attorneys
out
there
who
would
be
willing
and
able
to
assist
us
on
a
nuanced
legal
matter,
whether
that's
just
being
able
to
answer
a
few
questions
one
day
or
a
longer
term
contract,
we
would
like
to
be
able
to
to
off
to
take
them
up
on
that
assistance,
but
to
ensure,
with
that
cooling
off
period,
that
there
isn't
the
appearance
of
impropriety.
A
Okay,
see
none,
thank
you
very
much
and
we
will
move
to
hearing
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
38
and
just
as
a
reminder.
Two
minutes
for
each
person
go
ahead.
Broadcasting
when
you're
ready.
E
E
E
C
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
stephen
cohen,
for
the
records
stephen
with
the
v
cohen
c-o-h-e-n,
as
previously
identified
pic
just
picking
up
real
quick
on
madam
chairs
question
at
the
end
and
through
you,
I'm
happy
to
work
with
the
sponsors
on
this
based
on
the
last
meeting.
Is
there
anything
existing
or
with
this
bill
that,
in
these
special
counsel,
situations
would
prevent
either
the
special
counsel
from
coming
to
work
for
the
ag's
office
or
the
reciprocal
situation?
A
Thank
you,
mr
cullen,
and
I
appreciate
your
thoughts
and
we
do
not
respond
to
testimony
so
in
support,
neutral
or
opposition.
So
we
appreciate
your
comments.
Thank
you
very
much
all
right
with
that.
I
will
invite
the
sponsor
back
up.
If
you
have
any
closing
comments.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
and
we
thank
you
for
your
time
and
we
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
38
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
46..
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
committee.
I
hope
you're,
not
tired
of
me
for
the
record.
This
is
kyle
george
first
assistant
attorney
general.
Once
again,
I'm
joined
by
chief
of
staff,
jessica,
adair
and
chief
of
investigations,
william
scott
jr,
sb
46
touches
on
several
different
statutes,
but
this
still
to
his
essence.
All
provisions
of
this
bill
pertain
to
the
safety
of
personnel
in
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
F
I
would
note
that
the
language
of
this
of
these
provisions
applies
to
quote
any
person
employed
by
the
office
of
the
attorney
general,
who
prosecutes
the
defense
actions
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
nevada
or
any
agency
in
the
executive
department
of
the
state's
government.
This
construction
is
purposeful.
F
For
this
reason,
the
proposed
bill
language
is
not
limited
only
to
the
criminal
prosecution's
division.
The
last
provision
of
this
bill,
section
5,
pertains
to
the
sworn
and
bad
officers
of
our
investigations.
Division
under
current
law
law
enforcement
agencies,
including
sheriff's
offices,
dmv
police
and
the
state
fire
marshal,
are
authorized
to
equip
their
vehicles
with
lights
and
sirens
that
readily
identify
them
as
law
enforcement
vehicles.
F
The
likelihood
of
misidentification
is
high
and
unnecessarily
increased
the
risk
to
both
officers
and
the
public.
During
an
encounter
emergency
labs
on
attorney
general
vehicles
will
permit
investigators
to
visibly
convey
their
status
as
law
enforcement
officers
from
some
distance
and
provide
some
safeguards
against
misidentification.
F
Additionally,
providing
statutory
authority
for
these
peace
officers
to
install
lights
and
sirens
on
their
vehicles
will
put
them
on
equal
footing
with
every
other
law
enforcement
agency
in
the
state.
Thank
you
again
for
the
committee's
time
and
efforts
on
this
bill
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you
very
much
committee
questions.
B
I
guess
my
concern
is
the
the
first
thing
I
circled,
which
is
it's
repeated
in
several
parts,
is
or
any
agency
in
the
executive
department
of
the
state
government.
We
had
this
bill
in
government
affairs
and
assembly
2017
and
that's
when
it
added
judges-
and
I
remember
bringing
up
the
attorney
general,
because
that
was
the
time
where
I
believe
he
was
threatened
and
some
strange
person
had
jumped
over
his
gate.
B
However,
it
was,
I
don't
believe
it,
I
think
he
may
have
been
added,
but
no
one
else
and
then
the
bill
died,
because
I
tried
to
add
legislators
because
I
was
just
like
why.
Why
is
everyone
getting
protection
and
saying
that
they
are
being
threatened
and
the
legislators
are
just
stuck
out
there
like
we?
We
don't
have
that
same
capacity,
so
I'm
confused
on
who
are
these
the
any
agency
piece
and
why
is
it
so
broad
to
be
inclusive?
Because
when
you
say
any
person,
that's
the
secretary,
that's
everybody.
F
Thank
you
senator
for
the
record
kyle
george
first
assistant
attorney
general.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
we
are
referring
to
any
dag
any
deputy
attorney
general
from
our
office.
That
represents
any
state
agency.
We're
not
extending
this
to
any
state
agency
we're
this
is
limited
to
the
dags
in
our
office.
Just
to
be
clear,
the
reason
is,
I'm
sorry.
B
F
Thank
you,
senator
kyle
george,
for
the
record.
It's
it
should
be
read
as
who
prosecutes
or
defends
actions
on
behalf
of
any
agency.
So
if
you
read
the
preparatory
clause
early
in
that
sentence,
you
will
see
it
is
limited
to
those
who
prosecute
to
defend
for
the
attorney
general's
office.
B
Well,
I
guess
the
reason
why
I
don't
I
mean
I
guess,
because
it's
an
ore,
so
I
guess
I
guess
you
could
see
it
that
way
instead
of
an
and
but
I
just
thought
every
time
I
see
any.
I
have
a
problem
on
who's
included
and
more
so
that
legislators
are
not
even
being
considered.
B
That's
my
question.
I
don't
have
any
other
question.
F
Thank
you
senator
for
the
record
kyle
george.
This
language
was
supplied
to
us
by
lcb.
I
I
believe-
and
I
think
lcv
does
but
we'd
be
happy
to
revisit
this
in
a
markup
process.
At
some
point,
I
believe
that
the
the
construction
of
this
is
anyone
who
prosecutes
the
defense
actions
across
two
agencies:
two
two
descriptors,
the
state
of
nevada
or
any
agency
in
the
executive
branch.
I
believe
that's
where
they
or
what
the
over
modifies.
F
C
Thank
you,
chair
donderloop,
and
my
question.
If
this
passes
with
this
language,
would
this
apply
only
to
the
the
attorneys
at
the
at
the
ag's
office,
or
would
it
also
apply
to
investigators
who
maybe
have
had
contact
with
someone
and
that
person
might
be?
You
know
angry
or
have
a
grudge
or
something?
C
And
then
my
that's
my
first
question
and
if
cheryl
indulged
me
in
a
second
question,
would
this
only
apply
to
current
members
of
the
attorney
general's
or
if
somebody
had
retired,
you
know
five
years
ago
and
is
maybe
concerned
that
someone
they
had
prosecuted
or
something
like
that?
Has
a
vendetta
out
for
them?
Would
they
also
be
able
to
seek
that
protection.
G
Thank
you
vice
chair
jessica,
there
for
the
record,
so
in
terms
of
our
investigators
with
their
information
be
confidential,
so
under
the
existing
nrs,
any
peace
officer
or
retired
peace
officer
is
already
covered.
So,
whether
or
not
they're
employed
by
the
ag's
office
or
a
local
law
enforcement
agency,
they
are
they're
covered,
so
in
terms
of
retired,
a
retired
peace
officer.
G
C
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
appreciate
it,
mr
darren,
mr
george
and
and
chair.
Maybe
that's
something
that
maybe
looking
at
expanding
that
to
folks
who
maybe
didn't
seek
the
protection,
but
now
I've
left
the
office
and
are
have
a
concern
that
might
be
perhaps
something
to
think
about,
maybe
not
now
maybe
future
sessions.
Thank
you.
A
Additional
questions
from
the
committee.
A
Okay,
seeing
none-
I
just
have
one
section:
five:
where
you
talk
about
the
designated
authorized
emergency
vehicle,
how
many
emergency
vehicles
does
the
district
attorney's
office
have
currently-
and
I
notice
there's
no
fiscal
note.
So
would
there
be
a
fiscal
note
if
we,
if
we
outfit
those
with
those
emergency
lights
and
or
sirens
or
any
other
emergency
piece
that
needs
to
go
on
those.
G
G
We
are
able
to
procure
lights
and
sirens
through
some
other
fiscal
means,
namely
forfeiture
funding,
but
we
don't
have
the
statutory
authorization
to
do
so
so
before
we
go
make
those
purchases
we
want
to
ensure
we
have
the
statutory
authorization
and
those
the
fleet
services
vehicles
that
that
we
do
have.
You
can
incorporate
lights
and
sirens
into
those
vehicles
without
a
a
large
or
extensive
retrofitting
that
would
be
different
than
we
are.
G
We
are
not
asking
for
painting
the
vehicles
to
indicate
those
vehicles
are
with
the
attorney
general's
office,
just
the
lights
and
sirens,
and
we
believe
that
is
sufficient.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
that
clarifies
that
any
additional
questions
one
more
last
round
from
the
committee.
Just
yes.
B
Go
ahead,
please
yeah
just
really
quick,
because
when
I
guess
I
I
mean
because
you're
you're
on
you're
on
finance,
so
I
guess
you're
going
to
see
this
forfeiture
request,
use
the
forfeiture
funds
to
buy
this.
So
I
guess
this
is
a
complaint
I
just
want
to
make
sure
like
this
is:
is
this
the
cart
before
the
horse,
or
has
that
already
been
that's
going
to
be
presented
at
some
point
as
a
companion
piece,
the
request
to
use
forfeiture
funds
to
put
the
sirens
on
the
vehicles.
G
Thank
you,
senator
jessica,
dare
for
the
record,
we
could
use
forbidden
funds
or
we
could
use
existing
funding,
so
lights
and
sirens
are
are
really
not
that
expensive.
But
no,
we
don't
believe
that
there
will
be
a
companion
piece.
If
there
is
a
companion
work
program,
it
will
just
be
authorization
for
us
to
use
the
funding
for
us.
That's
available,
like
we
use
forfeiture
funds
for
bulletproof
vests,
other
ppe
that
we
use
in
order
for
our
investigators
to
do
their
job
safely.
G
But
no,
we
don't
believe
that
any
taxpayer
dollars
would
be
necessary
for
this,
and
thus
we
I
believe
we
have
not
submitted
a
fiscal
note
for
this.
A
A
G
G
We
do
have
funds
available
for
our
office
to
use
for
safety
of
our
officers,
training,
ppe,
ballistic
equipment,
etc,
whether
that's
forfeiture
funding
or
other
funds,
depending
on
the
budget
code
in
which
our
investigators
are
employed
by
so
not
all
our
general
funds.
Some
are
funded
by
assessments
through
various
interest
industries
in
which
they
are
dedicated
to
to
investigating
those
particular
crimes.
So
I
don't
want
to
get
too
far
into
the
weeds
because
we
have
about
22
different
budget
accounts.
G
So
I
I
but
the
important
piece
that
we
want
to
bring
to
you
in
front
of
this
policy
committee
is
that
we
don't
have
the
statutory
authorization
and
it
represents
a
situation
that
is
extremely
unsafe.
If
someone
comes
behind
drives
up
behind
my
car
in
my
driveway
gets
out
of
their
vehicle,
that's
unmarked
does
not
have
any
lights
and
sirens
and
says
you
are
under
arrest.
G
I
don't
have
any
indication
to
me
that
that
person
is
a
peace
officer,
so
I
make
it
they
make
a
decision
to
resist.
What
I
don't
know
is
a
lawful
arrest
or
even
worse,
pull
my
weapon,
because
I
believe
someone
is
is
trying
to
commit
a
crime
and
direct
it
at
me,
so
that
is
unsafe
for
both
civilians
and
for
our
peace
officers.
So
that's
the
important
piece
that
we
wanted
to
bring
here
today
is
that
statutory
authorization.
G
But
if
you
have
fiscal
questions,
I'm
happy
to
get
back
to
you
in
terms
of
the
fiscal
impact
of
this
bill.
So
I
know
we're
not
in
front
of
a
money
committee
right
now,
but
if
you
have
specific
questions,
I'm
happy
to
get
you
that
that
data.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
I
very
much
appreciate
what
you're
saying
and
the
reason
for
this
bill
I
just
didn't
want
to.
I
just
didn't,
want
to
pass
a
policy,
and
then
you
not
have
the
funding
to
actually
follow
through
with
anything,
that's
here.
So
I
appreciate
your
time
and
explaining
that
to
me
with
that
being
said,
I
see
no
more
questions,
so
we
will
go
to
testifying
in
support
reminder.
You
have
two
minutes
and
broadcasting.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're.
E
A
E
C
A
A
No
callers
at
this
time.
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
being
said,
I'll
ask
the
attorney
general's
office.
If
you
have
any
other
comments.
F
A
Thank
you
for
yours
and
thank
you
for
your
service.
We
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
46
and
we
will
move
on
to
our
period
of
public
comment.
A
We'll
pause
for
just
a
minute
to
give
members
of
the
public
a
chance
to
call
in
remember
to
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes,
we'll
time
each
speaker
to
make
sure
everyone
has
a
fair
opportunity.
You
may
also
submit
your
public
comments
in
writing
and
public
broadcasting
when
you're
ready.
Please
go.
A
A
I
Madame
chair
whoa
hold
it
whoa,
okay,
senator
hey!
I
want
to
do
one
thing
really
quickly.
Sorry,
I
should
have
tipped
it
off
a
little
earlier.
In
the
last
our
first
meeting,
we
had
the
state
treasurer
and
we
had
a
little
conversation
about
a
bill
that
was
passed
back
in
2011.
I
after
the
meeting
the
gaming
control
board.
Folks
got
a
hold
of
me.
This
actually
has
to
do
with
back.
I
Then
it
was
chairman,
william
horn
and
chairman
horn,
passed
that
bill
back
in
2011
took
a
took
effect
in
2013
and
thanks
to
chairman
horn's
efforts,
we
have
raised
72
million
dollars
from
the
unredeemed
slot
machine
wagering
voucher,
so
just
wanted
to
give
a
little
shout
out
to
william
for
really
something
that
no
didn't
raise
any
taxes,
but
has
been
averaging
over
10
million
dollars
a
year
and
the
state
treasurer
wasn't
aware
of
it
apparently,
but
I
thought
that's
something
that
we
should
really
point
out,
because
you
know
we'll
all
see
william
and
he's
still
lobbying,
but
to
have
a
bill
that
brought
72
million
dollars
and
still
bringing
in
the
money
is
really
quite
an
accomplishment.
A
And
absolutely
thank
you
very
much
senator
hansen.
We
hope
that's
what
all
good
legislators
do
is
look
out
for
our
state,
and
I
appreciate
your
time
pointing
that
out
and
I'm
sure,
former
assemblyman
and
former
majority
leader,
william
horn,
will
appreciate
your
comments
as
well.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
ending
our
meeting
on
a
positive
note,
and
we
will
see
you
all
on
wednesday
if
there's
no
more
discussion.