►
From YouTube: 3/11/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
A
Here,
thank
you
so
much
and
if
the
record
would
also
please
reflect
that,
we
have
pat
gein
in
with
us
from
the
legislative
council
bureau
and
our
committee
council
is
busy
drafting
legislation,
so
he
is
not
able
to
join
us
today.
As
always,
we
will
take
questions
back
to
him
that
need
to
be
answered
by
legal
counsel.
If
there
are
any
and
today
on
our
agenda,
we
have
a
work
session
on
five
different
bills.
A
I
think
we
have
subject
matter
experts
or
sponsors
here
for
all
of
them
to
answer
questions
if
there
are
any
and
the
work
session
document
has
been
posted
on
nellis
and
has
also
been
provided
to
all
of
the
members
of
the
committee.
With
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you,
mr
guyan,
to
walk
us
through
the
work
session
document.
Please.
E
Thanks,
madam
chair
for
the
record
patrick
guynan
committee
policy.
Analyst,
as
the
chair
mentioned,
we
have
five
bills
today,
beginning
with
senate
bill.
Seven.
I
will
just
start
going
through
them.
Stop
me
if
you'd
like
senate
bill
7
is
a
committee
bill
on
behalf
of
the
supreme
court
that
was
heard
by
this
committee
on
february
4th
it
provides
that
an
order
for
protection
against
domestic
violence,
harassment
in
the
workplace,
high
risk,
behavior,
sexual
assault
or
stalking
aggravated
stalking
or
harassment
is
sought
against
a
child
under
18
years
of
age.
E
E
The
judicial
branch
has
proposed
an
amendment
that's
attached
for
the
members
review
on
the
following
page.
To
summarize,
the
amendment
clarifies
that
the
district
court,
which
by
statute
is
the
juvenile
court,
has
jurisdiction
over
protection
orders
where
a
minor
is
the
adverse
party.
It
clarifies
that
a
hearing
master
may
hear
these
matters,
which
is
already
permissible
under
statute.
E
It
removes
contempt
of
court
as
a
matter
that
can
be
heard
in
relation
to
a
violation
of
an
order,
as
this
is
not
within
the
statutory
framework
set
forth
for
juvenile
courts
in
title
5
of
the
nrs,
and
it
deletes
language
from
the
bill
requiring
that
orders
be
submitted
to
schools
attended
by
the
protected
party
and
by
the
adverse
party.
And
that's
all
I
have
madam
chair,
and
I
believe
that
john
mccormick
from
the
court
is
with
us
today.
If
the
members
have
questions
thanks,.
A
Thank
you,
and
I
also
just
wanted
to
put
a
clarification
on
the
record
and
confirm
with
mr
mccormick
that
my
understanding
is
correct.
I
know
that
the
court
worked
with
a
lot
of
stakeholders
on
this
bill
to
to
make
amendments
that
everybody
needed.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
language
is
still
permissive
for
the
appointment
of
counsel
for
one
of
these
juveniles
and
that
our
public
defenders,
offices
in
the
north
and
south
are
in
disagreement
on
that.
A
So
the
the
bill
does
not
reflect
a
complete
resolution
to
all
the
stakeholder
issues,
but
it
does
reflect
a
permissive
appointment
of
counsel
for
juveniles.
Is
that
correct.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
scheible,
john
mccormick,
with
the
supreme
court
aoc
for
the
record
that
that
is
accurate.
The
public
defenders
offices
in
washoe
and
clark
county
were
not
able
to
come
to
an
agreement.
I
did
did
work
with
them
in
attempts
to
get
the
the
language
regarding
appointment
of
council
cleared
up,
so
we
decided
to
go
ahead
and
leave
the
permissive
language
that
existed
in
the
bill
in
there.
Rather
than
make
any
amendments.
D
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
I
just
I.
I
really
do
like
the
amendment
that
resolved
all
but
one
of
my
concerns,
and
that
is
just
if
we're
doing
a
blanket
exclusive
jurisdiction
and
someone
had
conditions
of
probation
that
lasted
three
years,
we're
bringing
a
22
year
old
back
to
juvenile
court,
but
other
than
that.
I
I
like
the
amendment
so
I'll,
be
voting.
Yes
with
a
reservation.
A
F
Thank
you
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
let
the
committee
know
that
I
am.
I
am
a
deputy
public
defender.
I
am
employed
at
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
in
the
juvenile
division
reaching
out
to
our
legislative
council.
I've
been
told
this
does
not
affect
me
any
differently
than
anyone
else,
similarly
situated
and
that
I'm
okay
with
participating
the
discussion
and
voting
on
this
bill.
A
F
C
G
D
A
E
Thanks,
madam
excuse
me
thank
you
again,
patrick
geinin,
for
the
record,
as
you
mentioned,
we're
on
senate
bill
19
now,
which
is
a
committee
bill
on
behalf
of
the
records,
communications
and
compliance
division
of
the
department
of
public
safety.
The
committee
first
heard
this
bill
on
february
senate
bill
19
establishes
provisions
in
accordance
with
federal
law,
allowing
certain
qualified
entities
to
obtain
information
on
the
records
of
criminal
history
of
employees,
volunteers,
applicants,
independent
contractors
and
vendors
of
the
entity
who
have
access
to
children,
elderly
persons
or
disabled
persons.
E
Qualified
entity
must
create
an
account
with
the
repository
for
criminal
excuse
me
for
records
of
criminal
history,
provide
any
person
subject
to
these
requirements,
written
notification
of
his
or
her
rights
and
obtain
a
signed
waiver
prior
to
conducting
a
record
screening,
and
that
person's
fingerprints
must
be
submitted
to
the
repository
and
forwarded
to
the
fbi.
As
part
of
this
process,
qualified
entities
must
determine
after
receiving
information
under
these
provisions,
whether
the
person
is
fit
to
have
access
to
vulnerable
persons
named
above
the
com.
E
The
records
repository
has
proposed
an
amendment
which
is
attached
on
the
following
pages,
along
with
an
explanatory
memorandum.
The
amendment
is
intended
to
ensure
that
nevada's
statute
complies
with
federal
authority
and
provide
clarification
where
the
bill's
original
language
was
deemed
overly
broad.
E
Specifically,
there
are
a
few
bullet
points
describing
the
amendment.
It
replaces
the
phrase
independent
contractor
or
vendor
with
the
term
covered
individual
in
section
1.2
of
the
bill.
It
strikes
federal
language
regarding
exemptions
and
replaces
it
with
the
phrases
otherwise
not
confidential
pursuant
to
statute
or
law.
In
section
1.4,
it
broadens
language
to
cover
pending
criminal
charges.
E
In
section
1.5,
it
narrows
language
relating
to
liability
by
referring
to
the
quote,
unquote
accuracy
of
any
information
included
or
omitted
from
records
in
section
1.8,
and
it
adds
language
requiring
qualified
entity
to
retain
signed
waivers
or
one
audit
cycle,
as
determined
by
the
department
for
the
purposes
of
auditing
these
entities,
as
described
in
section
1.9
of
the
bill,
and
that's
all
I
have
chair
schreibel
and
I
believe
there
are
actually
several
representatives
from
dps
and
other
entities
available
for
questions
today.
Thanks.
A
Fantastic,
do
any
members
of
the
committee
have
questions
for
the
sponsors
or
subject
matter
experts.
A
F
C
C
C
A
Yes,
and
with
the
unanimous
vote,
the
motion
carries
to
amend
and
do
pass
sb
19.
and
is
there
a
volunteer
to
take
the
floor
statement?
I
see
senator
pickard's
hand.
Sorry
senator
hansen
said
our
figure
was
faster
than
you,
so
senator
pickard
will
get
the
floor
statement
on
sb
19
and
that
takes
us
to
sb
31.
Mr.
E
E
It
also
requires
the
repository
to
provide
an
authorized
entity,
the
criminal
history
of
a
person
generally,
rather
than
limiting
that
information
provided
to
convictions
only
or
two
incidents
for
which
the
person
is
currently
involved
in
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
there
are
no
amendments
to
the
bill
scheible.
That's
all.
I
have.
A
F
G
C
C
A
Yes,
and
with
another
unanimous
vote,
the
motion
to
do
pass
sb
31
carries.
Do
we
have
a
volunteer
to
give
the
floor
statement
pick.
E
And
thanks
chair
schreibel,
again
patrick
gein,
for
the
record
we're
now
on
senate
bill
72.
As
you
mentioned,
this
is
a
committee
bill
that
was
brought
on
behalf
of
the
real
estate
division
of
the
department
of
business
and
industry.
The
committee
heard
it
on
the
15th
of
february
senate
bill
72
revises
provisions
concerning
common
interest
communities.
E
More
specifically,
it
provides
that
a
limited
purpose
association
must
comply
with
requirements
of
the
uniform
common
interest.
Ownership
act
pertaining
to
the
establishment
and
foreclosure
of
a
lien
for
assessments.
Revises
provisions
concerning
fines
that
may
be
imposed
by
the
executive
board
of
the
union.
E
Association
specifically
bill
stipulates
that
when
a
violation
causes
an
imminent
threat
to
health
safety
or
welfare,
fines
cannot
exceed
a
thousand
dollars
for
each
violation
or
a
total
amount
of
a
thousand
dollars
per
hearing,
and
when
a
violation
does
not
cause
a
threat
to
health
safety
or
welfare,
clients
cannot
exceed
a
hundred
dollars
per
violation
or
a
total
amount
of
a
thousand
dollars
per
hearing.
We'll
also
eliminates
the
requirement
that
an
executive
board
may
only
meet
an
executive
session
with
an
attorney
for
the
association
on
matters
relating
to
proposed
or
pending
litigation.
E
The
committee
will
remember.
There
was
discussion
of
the
amendment
with
the
sponsor
when
the
bill
was
heard
and
the
sponsor
has
submitted
an
amendment
in
response
to
those
concerns,
and
it
is
attached
on
the
following
pages
for
the
committee's
review.
The
amendment
deletes
language
in
subsection
2b
of
section
2
of
the
bill
providing
for
monetary
limits
on
the
fines
and
association
may
impose
as
I've
summarized
above.
E
It
replaces
that
language
with
provisions
allowing
the
commission
for
common
interest
communities
and
condominium
hotels
to
adopt
regulations,
establishing
criteria
to
be
used
in
determining
whether
a
violation
poses
an
imminent
threat
to
health,
safety
or
welfare
severity
of
such
a
violation
and
limitations
on
the
amount
of
fines
that
an
association
may
impose,
and
that
is
the
substance
of
the
amendment
cherish
scheible,
and
I
believe
that
we
have
administrator
chandra
with
us
today
to
answer
questions.
If
the
committee
has
any
thanks.
D
Indeed,
I
almost
said
your
honor
again
I'm
about
to
elevate
your
status
again.
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
appreciate
the
amendment.
I
really
like
the
idea
of
sending
the
fine
limitations
through
the
regulation
process,
where
we're
going
to
have
an
opportunity
to
really
vet
the
the
concepts
and
and
whether
or
not
they
make
sense,
and
at
that
at
that
point,
what
amount
makes
sense.
So,
I'm
now
in
full
support
of
the
bill.
G
Thank
you,
man.
I'm
sure
I
appreciate
the
opportunity,
like
my
colleague,
the
amendments
have
really
helped
one
of
the
things
that
concerns
me,
though,
in
the
last
portion
of
the
amendment
it
says
the
commission
may
adopt
regulations
establishing
the
criteria
used
and
determined.
May
part
of
me
wants
to
almost
say
that
you
know
everybody
whatever
you
think
about
the
ideas
until
you
adopt
those
regulations,
you
can't
change
your
fee
structure
up.
G
D
Thank
you,
cherish
ibul,
sharat,
chandra
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division.
The
may
the
may
was
put
in
there
with
the
understanding
that
the
regulation
process
takes
a
while,
so
without
pending
anything,
the
current.
The
way
things
are
being
done
now
will
be
followed
and
the
intent
is
to
put
a
regulation
in
place.
D
We
just
anticipate
it
might
take
a
little
while
to
do
it
and
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
discussion,
and
so
we
just
don't
want
to
kind
of
pull
the
rug
from
under
what
the
current
status
is.
So
we
leave
it
as
that
we
go
through
the
regulation
process
and
then,
when
the
regulation
is
adopted
that
goes
into
effect.
That
was
at
least
the
thought
behind
it.
G
Appreciate
that
this
is
senator
settlemeyer
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
that
explanation
and
I'll.
Let
it
go
for
now,
but
hopefully
future
legislators
around
here,
maybe
start
thinking
about
the
concept
of
saying
yeah,
we'll
let
you
raise
fees
and
fines
and
things
that
nature,
but
you
have
to
do
something
first,
rather
than
just
getting
to
do
it
lock
and
stock
anyways.
That
was
my
concern.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Absolutely
any
other
questions
on
the
bill
not
seen
any.
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
amend
and
do.
D
A
Okay,
so
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
orenshall
to
amend
and
do
pass
sb
72.
We
have
a
second
from
senator
picker
to
amend
and
do
pass
sb
72
any
discussion
on
the
motion
not
seeing
any
hands
raised.
I
will
ask
the
esteemed
secretary
to
please
take
the
roll
call
vote.
C
G
B
C
C
A
E
Thanks
chair
schaible,
again
patrick
geinin,
for
the
record
committee
policy
analyst.
This
is
our
final
bill
on
the
work
session
for
today
is
senate
bill
95.
As
you
mentioned,
it's
a
bill
sponsored
by
senator
orrin,
shaw
and
heard
on
this
committee
on
february
22nd.
This
is
the
traditional
omnibus
bill
sponsored
by
the
business
bar
in
the
state
of
nevada.
E
So
I
don't
know
that
you
want
me
to
read
through
this
entire
summary
I
will
senate
bill.
95
is
beyond
this
measure
that
revises
provisions
governing
nevada
business
entities,
among
other
provisions,
the
bill
transfers
from
the
clerk
of
the
court
to
the
party
who
serves
the
document
responsibility
for
mailing
certain
documents
to
a
company's
management.
E
It
moves
their
definition
of
quote-unquote,
publicly
traded
corporation
to
a
different
section
of
statute,
to
make
it
more
generally
applicable
allows
a
corporation
to
include
a
federal
forum
selection
clause
and
its
articles
of
incorporation
or
bylaws.
It
clarifies
fiduciary
duties
for
corporations.
It
expands
the
definition
of
distribution
regarding
classes
or
series
of
shares.
E
It
revises
provisions
concerning
the
ability
of
a
corporation
to
hold
virtual
meetings
and
who
may
attend
those
meetings
revises
provisions
concerning
the
applicability
of
certain
voting
agreements
and
time
limits
placed
on
such
agreements
as
well
as
clarifying
voting
requirements
for
certain
types
of
entities.
It
expands
the
corporation's
ability
to
indemnify
managers
in
certain
circumstances.
E
The
committee
will
remember
that
when
we
heard
the
bill,
mr
kim
provided
a
thorough
outline
of
the
bill's
provisions
and
that
outline
also
included
discussion
of
an
amendment
that
was
proposed
initially,
along
with
the
bill
by
senator
orrinshaw.
All
those
documents
are
attached
for
the
committee's
review.
E
E
E
I
think
it's
been
discussed,
but
then
the
second
amendment
that
we
also
have
under
consideration
today
was
proposed
more
recently
and
is
from
the
executive
committee
of
of
the
bar,
the
business
bar,
and
that
second
amendment
addresses
concerns
that
were
discussed
during
that
initial
hearing
and
also
were
voiced
in
a
letter
that
is
attached
from
the
representatives
of
the
nevada
registered
agent
association,
and
this
regards
the
proportion
of
interest
certain
members
of
an
entity
retain
and,
as
stated
by,
the
executive
committee
in
the
memorandum
they
submitted.
E
The
additional
amendment,
which
is
also
attached,
seeks
to
replace
the
proposed
changes
to
section
22
through
the
nevada
rights
statutes
86.291
with
language
that
both
retains
the
concept
of
management
being
vested
in
members
and
preserves
the
proportionality
of
members
rather
than
establishing
a
default
rule
of
majority,
as
is
currently
drafted
in
section
22
of
the
bill,
and
I
believe
that
we
have
mackenzie
warren
with
us
today.
Who
was
present
when
the
bill
was
initially
presented?
If
there
are
questions,
that's
all
I
have
in
mind.
A
Thank
you,
mr
geinan.
I
actually
have
some
questions
of
my
own.
This
is
a
48-page
work
session
document
and
I
wanted
to
clarify.
I
think
this
question
is
actually
for
senator
orrin
shaw.
It
looks
like
there
are
three
different
proposed
amendments,
one
from
the
sponsor
one
from
the
business
law
section
of
the
bar
and
one
from
the
registered
agents
association.
F
Yes
chair
there,
I
believe
there
are
three
amendments
in
the
work
session
document
and
I
appreciate
you
giving
me
the
time
to
try
to
work
with
all
the
stakeholders.
Mckinley
robert
kim
albert
kovacs-
and
I
want
to
thank
mr
anthony
and
everyone
else-
the
legal
division
for
trying
to
help
us
address
all
the
issues.
Senator
picker
brought
up
some
points.
We've
tried
to
that
he
was
concerned
about.
I
know
I've
tried
to
work
with
him
on
his
concerns.
I've
tried
to
address
the
city
of
henderson's
concerns.
F
I
believe
that
this
has
satisfied
many
of
the
the
speakers
at
the
hearing
and
asked
to
the
registered
agents.
I
know
we've
been
working
with
them
and
I'm
committed
to
keep
with
them.
We
did
get
their
proposed
language
this
morning
and
I
haven't
had
time
to
get
feedback
from
the
business
law
section
in
terms
of
that,
but
I
am
committed
to
keep
trying
to
work
with
them
and
I'd.
Ask
that
my
president
committee
consider
the
amendments
that
I
proposed
in
the
business
law
section
proposed.
A
If
the
registered
agents
are
with
us
today
at
this
meeting
watching
or
via
phone,
it
seems
there
was
a
miscommunication
about
the
status
of
their
amendment,
and
so
I'm
going
to
instruct
the
committee
that
we
will
not
be
considering
their
amendment
today,
as
senator
orrinshall
indicated,
it
doesn't
mean
that
he's
unwilling
to
work
with
their
registered
agents
and
that
there
might
not
be
an
amendment
coming
to
the
floor,
but
for
today's
purposes
after
we
answer
the
other
questions,
the
only
amendments
I
will
be
considering
are
the
ones
proposed
by
senator
orenshall
and
by
the
business
law
section
of
the
bar
association.
A
But
now
you
know
where
the
registered
agents
stand
in
what
they
would
like
to
see
as
well
and
senator
settlemeyer.
Do
you
still
have
a
question.
G
G
I
I
know
for
a
fact
that
mr
orange
hall
is
a
very
good
legislator
will
continue
to
work
with
registered
agents
to
try
to
figure
out
a
way
to
alleviate
their
concerns
along
this
process
and
whenever
you're
willing
I'd
entertain,
the
the
men
do
pass
with
the
two
requisite
amendments
by
mr
orange
hall
and
state
bar,
but
obviously
you
have
other
questions.
First.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you.
I
don't
see
any
other
questions,
so
I
will
accept
senator
settlemyre's
motion
to
amend
sb
95
with
the
amendments
submitted
by
senator
orrinshaw
in
the
business
law.
A
section
of
the
bar
association
senator
picker,
has
seconded
this
motion
to
make
two
amendments
to
senate
bill
95
and
do
pass,
and
with
that
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
C
C
G
C
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
we
have
unanimously
moved
to
amend
and
do
pass
sb
95,
with
the
two
amendments
previously
mentioned,
senator
orrinshaw,
will
you
take
the
floor
statement?
Yes.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
And
that
concludes
our
work
session.
For
today.
That
leads
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment
broadcast.
Do
we
have
anybody
with
us
for
public
comment
today.
C
C
A
All
right
in
that
case
that
concludes
our
meeting
for
today
and
we
will
be
meeting
again
on
monday
at
1
pm
or
the
call
of
the
chair,
and
with
that
we
are
adjourned.
Thank.