►
From YouTube: 4/6/2021 - 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
Schedules
for
caregivers
and
remote
work
options
and
whether
the
corporation
has
an
anti-harassment
policy
in
place.
The
survey
received
from
each
corporation
must
be
signed
by
an
officer
of
the
corporation
stating
under
penalty
of
perjury,
that
the
information
provided
in
the
survey
is
true,
correct
and
complete.
A
Madam
chair
and
committee
members,
in
short,
what
267
does
is
it
offers
us
an
opportunity
to
walk
our
talk,
not
just
as
a
legislature
but
as
a
state
if
we
truly
truly
truly
want
to
get
a
handle
on
the
pandemics
of
racism.
Sexism,
homophobia,
xenophobia.
If
we
want
to
get
a
handle
on
all
of
those
isms.
A
A
A
There
were
instances
where
I
was
discriminated
against,
because
I
was
either
a
woman
or
black,
and
sometimes
both
the
secretary
of
defense,
austin
a
few
weeks
ago,
has
said
all
of
that
is
going
to
change,
because
the
military
will
reflect
the
country,
the
diversity
of
this
country
and
and
he
will
not
tolerate
any
sexual
harassment.
He
will
not
tolerate
any
acts
of
white
supremacy
or
things
of
that
nature,
and
he
is
moving
forward
in
a
very
aggressive
way
to
make
sure
that
the
the
military
reflects
the
community
that
they
protect.
A
A
A
B
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
vice
chair
cannazaro
members
of
the
committee
and
the
committee
manager
for
the
record.
I
am
becky
harris
and
I
am
here
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
267
and
walk
you
through
a
conceptual
amendment
that
I
worked
through
with
senator
spearman
as
well
as
ms
jones,
who
will
be
testifying
in
just
a
minute.
B
The
ravages
of
covid19
and
the
pandemic
that
has
occurred
across
the
world
have
decimated
the
nevada
workforce.
Indeed,
a
recent
study
finds
that
the
workforce
in
the
state
of
nevada
has
been
the
hardest
hit
of
any
in
the
united
states
from
the
work
done
by
women
of
diversity
in
nevada.
We
know
that
in
nevada,
women
are
increasingly
the
primary
breadwinners
in
their
households,
as
the
world
continues
to
navigate
its
way
through
covet
19.
It
is
becoming
increasingly
clear
that
women
are
becoming
disproportionately
impacted.
B
Mckenzie's
women
in
the
workplace,
2020
report
concluded
that
women
in
particular,
have
been
negatively
impacted.
Women,
especially
women
of
color,
are
more
likely
to
have
been
laid
off
or
furloughed
during
the
covid19
crisis
stalling
their
careers
and
jeopardizing
their
financial
security.
That
this
session
is
real.
Is
documented
in
various
news
outlets,
the
new
york
times
has
a
particularly
poignant
article
entitled
why
some
women
call
this
recession
a
she
session
about
the
difficulties
women
face
as
they
attempt
to
balance
employment
working
from
home,
caregiving
and
other
responsibilities.
B
B
Additionally,
the
loss
of
human
capital
wealth
due
to
gender
inequality
alone
is
estimated
at
160.2
trillion.
U.S
dollars.
Implementing
the
tools
to
assist
those
with
diverse
backgrounds
to
gain
entry
to
the
workforce.
Retain
employment
and
succeed
will
help
reduce
the
need
for
social
services
and
unemployment
benefits
from
both
state
and
federal
governments.
It
will
help
provide
housing
and
food
security
for
families
and
provide
the
diversity
needed
to
rebuild
a
stronger
economy.
B
All
of
the
recent
gains
women
have
made
will
have
been
completely
erased.
It's
interesting
and
I
appreciate
the
context
that
senator
spearman
offered
about
the
genesis
of
this
bill,
as
you
may
or
may
not
recall.
In
2017,
there
was
a
similar
bill
with
regard
to
the
necessity
to
index
for
gender
equity.
B
That
bill
was
a
pilot
program
that
passed
unanimously
out
of
this
senate.
The
assembly
vote
was
probably
more
along
partisan
lines,
but
at
least
out
of
the
senate
it
was
recognized
that
there
was
value
in
capturing
data
about
how
women
and
others
fear
fair
through
the
employment
situation
in
the
state
of
nevada.
B
To
that
end,
senate
bill
267
is
seeking
to
apply
to
public
institutions
and
businesses
with
an
amendment
to
a
thousand
employees
who
employ
a
thousand
employees
or
more,
who
are
most
likely
already
capturing
this
data.
On
underrepresented
populations
and
diversity
in
the
workplace,
this
is
not
meant
to
be
a
piece
of
gotcha
legislation
to
punish
nevada
employers.
B
C
B
B
Three:
we
now
want
to
require
governmental
agencies
to
provide
their
completed
reports
to
the
division
of
human
resource
management
of
the
department
of
administration
instead
of
taxation.
That's
the
government
agency,
that's
most
naturally
in
communication
with
the
state
agencies
and
governments,
and
that
would
be
a
more
natural
fit
that
division
would
be
required
to
make
available
on
its
internet
website.
The
annual
reports
submitted
by
state
government
agencies
with
personally
identifiable
information,
redacted
and
aggregate
data
relating
to
annual
reports
with
personally
identifiable
information
redacted
that
division
would
also
be
required
to
compile
annually.
B
The
information
contained
in
the
report
submitted
to
the
division
and
then
collate
that
into
one
report.
That
would
then
be
submitted
to
the
governor
and
to
the
director
of
legislative
council
bureau
item
four.
We
would
delete
the
provisions
of
the
bill
that
imposed
criminal
penalties,
including
the
penalty
for
perjury,
and
instead
provide
that
a
person
who
violates
the
provision
of
the
bill
would
be
subject
to
administrative
fines.
B
C
All
right,
thank
you,
senator
spearman,
do
you
have
other
guests
here
present
with
you.
A
D
Thank
you
senator
first
I'd
like
to
compliment
the
senator
on
putting
forth
this
legislation
and
reminding
that
two
years
ago,
working
with
senator
then
becky
harris.
We
passed
a
similar
piece
of
legislation,
although
this
current
survey
gives
us
much
more
rich
data
in
trying
to
assess
where
we
are
in
representation
in
the
nevada
workforce.
D
For
the
last
30
years,
I've
made
my
central
mission
envision:
building
diverse
and
inclusive
workforce,
both
in
state
government
and
in
corporate
america,
particularly
nevada,
and-
and
I
will
tell
you,
although
we've
made
some
progress,
we've
made
markedly
little
progress,
given
the
composition
of
a
state,
the
representation
representation
of
our
state,
the
talent
of
our
diverse
populations
in
the
state,
and
it's
taught
me
two
things:
first,
what's
not
measured
won't
matter
and
second,
if
you
keep
doing
the
same
thing
over
and
over
again
expecting
a
different
result,
then
you've
defined
insanity.
D
D
D
Madame
shebal
vice
chairman
canada,
zero
members
of
the
committee.
I
appreciate
your
opportunity
to
allow
us
to
speak
today.
I
think
this
is
such
an
important
state
step
for
the
state,
and
I've
always
believed
that
nevada
can
be
the
leader.
Quite
frankly,
it's
very
hard
to
fix
california,
no
no
offense,
governor
newsom,
but
nevada
has
always
been
the
entrepreneurs.
D
We've
always
been
the
visionaries
that
saw
what
could
be
done
and
found
a
way
to
do
it.
I
don't
see
finding
this
information
and
using
it
both
for
companies
who
are
looking
to
come
to
nevada,
to
talk
about
what
a
forward
thinking
state
we
are
and
why
they
would
want
to
bring
their
headquarters
here.
I
think
this
could
be
a
benefit
not
only
for
the
state
but
for
the
people
who
live,
work
and
support
the
governments
in
this
state.
A
Thank
you
josh.
I
will.
I
just
want
just
a
couple
of
comments
before
you
open
it
up
for
questions
my
sister
and
I
and
14
other
teenagers
high
school
teenagers
were
among
the
first
to
integrate
a
high
school
in
alabama,
and
I
don't
need
to
tell
you
that
that
was
tough.
A
It
was
very
tough,
but
we
did
it
because
the
law
required
it.
We
went
through
so
many
abuses,
both
verbally
and
physically,
but
somebody
had
to
be
the
first.
Somebody
had
to
be
the
first
to
pave
the
way.
A
A
I
look
at
this
bill
as
a
point
on
the
continuum
for
equity
and
equality
equity.
In
every
way
we
are
the
first
female
majority
in
the
country,
and
this
is
the
second
session
that
that
has
happened.
First,
we
we
lead
with
respect
to
renewable
energy.
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
all
remember
when
jamie
redford
came
to
nevada
and
chronicled
our
efforts
to
make
sure
that
we
were
making
use
of
a
renewable
energy
and
unfortunately,
jamie
passed
away
last
year,
but
but
he
chronicled
that
and
that
is
forever
in
history.
Nevada
leads.
A
A
C
All
right,
thank
you.
So
much
for
your
presentation
looks
like
we
already
have
a
couple
of
members
queued
up
to
ask
questions.
I'll
start
with
senator
orrinshaw.
E
Thank
you
very
much
cherish
tribal
and
thank
you
senator
spearman,
for
sponsoring
this
legislation,
and
I
think
it's
really
fitting
that
on
on
this
bill,
we
have
co-presenting
with
you
senator
spearman.
You
know
mayor
jones,
our
first
female
mayor
of
the
city
of
las
vegas
and
former
senator
harris
our
first
female
chair
of
the
nevada
gaming
control
board,
so
some
really
tremendous
firsts
and
really
laud
your
accomplishments.
E
My
question
has
to
do
with
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment,
and
it
is.
It
is
the
the
last
paragraph
that
talks
about
the
requirement,
the
department
of
taxation
consult
with
the
nevada
commission
for
women
and
the
nevada
commission
for
minority
affairs.
When
developing
the
survey,
do
you
feel
there's
that
kind
of
cooperation
now
or
do
you
think
that
this,
if
this
passes
that
they'll
be
able
to
work
together
in
a
way
that
will
help
help
get
the
get
that
information
that
we
need.
B
I
believe
that
what
we've
done
we,
we
have
some
experience
working
with
these
commissions
in
the
past
and
we're
grateful
for
their
representation
and
their
willingness
to
provide
us
with
their
perspective.
But
what
this
amendment
would
do
would
actually
put
it
in
the
hands
of
the
department
of
taxation
and
the
legislative
commission,
so
that
you
all,
as
more
representative
of
the
represent
of
the
people
and
population
in
the
state
of
nevada,
have
an
opportunity
to
come
together
and
make
sure
that
you're
crafting
a
survey
that
captures
the
information.
E
F
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
You
know
it's
interesting
that
we
have
talked
about
this
as
much
as
we
have
this
session
and
it
you
know
this
bill
reminded
me
a
lot
of
some
research.
I
did
prior
to
the
last
bill
and
you
know
it
we're.
I
just
the
thing
that
came
to
mind
was
the
universe
or
the
ohio
state
university.
F
I
believe
it's
the
kirwan
institute,
if
I
recall
correctly,
they
have
put
out
a
whole
series
of
publications
institute.
They're
the
the
premise
of
their
work
was
the
biological
aspects
of
implicit
bias,
and
I
thought
it
was
interesting.
I've
referred
to
it
several
times
over
the
years.
F
The
one
thing
that
they
talk
about,
of
course,
is
that
and
to
your
point,
senator
spearman.
We
need
to
make
sure
we're
walking
the
walk
right
or
at
least
walking
the
talk,
and
so
you
know
I've
looked
at
this.
I
look
at
my
own
experience.
You
know
in
my
own
law,
firm
we've
got
nine
people
there,
six
of
whom
are
women
and
about
sixty
percent
are
minority,
whether
it's
spaniard
asian
hispanic
mixed.
F
So
I
I
think
I
you
know.
I
can
say
that
in
my
own
personal
experience,
we've
tried
to
look
at
qualifications
instead
of
race,
and
so
you
know,
as
we
look
through
these
lenses
and
we
try
to
establish
what
the
appropriate
protocols
are.
I
completely
agree
that
data
should
be
driving
everything.
The
question
I
have,
though,
is
that
we've
spent
decades
trying
to
remove
from
the
hiring
equation
the
issue
of
race,
and
so
many,
if
not
most,
employers,
don't
inquire
as
to
the
race
of
the
party
that
they're
that
they're
hiring
or
interviewing.
F
So
I'm
wondering,
if
you
know
have
we
talked
to
the
particularly
the
resorts
and
the
major
manufacturing
employers
that
you
know
those
that
will
fall
in
this,
most
of
whom,
I
think,
will
probably
be
the
resorts
to
see
if
they
even
keep
this
data.
If
they
you
know,
is
this
going
to
put
a
burden
on
them
to
have
to
go?
F
Ask
their
employees
how
they
identify,
because
you
know
we
talked
about
this
in
that
policing
bill
too,
where
officers
that
make
a
stop,
they
often
haven't
even
seen
the
driver
yet
so
and
when
they
get
to
the
window
and
they're
talking,
they
can't
ask
the
question:
are
we
going
to?
Are
we
requiring
the
businesses
to
do
the
same
thing?
I'm
concerned
that
we
might
be
opening
them
up
to
legal
liability
if
they
even
ask
how
how
do
we
gather
this
data.
D
D
I
get
used
to
butting
in
in
conversation
and
forgetting
my
government
protocol
and
raised
chairwoman
hannah
zero
and
members
of
the
committee.
Most
large
companies
keep
this
information
and
I
think,
if
you
look
at
the
questions
in
particular
on
this
survey,
they
don't
go
way
deep
down
into
representation.
D
D
D
They
were
brilliant
in
their
approach
of
gathering
information
that
rewarded
companies
who
had
forward-looking
policies
and
by
rewarding
them
they
made.
Companies
want
to
be
a
part.
That's
why,
in
this
survey
we
tried
to
have
the
data
not
be
something
that
became
remnants
of
affirmative
action.
It
is
more
measuring
highline
vision
on
the
part
of
nevada
governments
and
nevada
businesses.
At
least
half
the
questions
pertain
to
policies,
whether
it's
policies
over
health
care
policies
over
family
leave
policies.
D
As
your
regards
to
child
care
and
again,
the
intent
is
not
in
any
way
to
punish
it's
to
reward
and
give
us
a
baseline
of
what
is
best
practice,
so
we
can
move
there.
I
would
also
commend
you
on
your
representation
at
the
law
firm
and
I
would
think,
as
I
found
in
nevada,
we
can
be
like
ohio
state,
a
very
powerful
combatants,
in
a
good
way.
D
So
I
I
know
most
companies,
almost
all
of
them,
fill
out
the
human
rights
committee
information
because
they're
looking
for
their
100
score.
So
I
I
don't
think
the
information
required
in
this
survey
goes
much
beyond
that.
F
All
right,
I
appreciate
that,
and
and
from
your
perspective
I
certainly
trust
what
you're
saying,
because
you
you're
in
the
boardroom
you're
you've
risen
to
the
top
of
the
food
chain
and
you're
in
a
position
to
know
the
answer
to
that,
I'm
just
so
that
actually,
I
think,
answered
my
next
question,
which
was
under
section
seven.
Have
we
given
us
enough
time
if
they
are
already
gathering
that
information,
then
the
answer
is
yes,
they
should
be
able
to
do
this
survey
right
away.
F
I
don't
see
a
report
back
to
the
businesses
per
se
that
are
participating,
but
it
does
it
is
this
when
it
says
make
the
report
available
on
I'm
sorry,
I'm
in
section
nine
make
the
report
available
on
the
internet
website
of
the
department.
I'm
wondering.
Is
there
going
to
be
some
kind
of
dissemination
campaign
where
we
get
this
information
out
to
the
public,
or
is
this
merely
residing
on
a
shelf?
If
someone
wanted
to
look
it
up.
A
I'll
start
in
our
public
dan
or
becky
finish.
So
really
it's
not
something
that
we
want
to
put
on
the
shelf.
What
we
want
to
do
is
use
the
data
so
that
we
can.
We
can
develop
best
practices
for
increasing
diversity
in
businesses.
I
mean
it's,
it's
simple,
it's
not
it's
not
a
quota,
it's
not
a
requirement.
We
just
want
to
know
where
we
start.
This
is
a
baseline,
we're
starting
right
here
and
in
five
years.
We
hope
to
be
here
in
ten
years.
A
We
hope
to
be
here,
and
so
that's
what
it
is
and
I'll
talk
now
to
miss
jones.
D
Madam
chair
dan,
the
senator's
statement
just
made
me
wonder
if,
as
we're
compiling
the
data,
if
we
chose
to
make
public
on
the
website
the
10
highest
performing
companies
or
organizations
that
that
was
the
posted
information
and
that
other
information
could
be
upon
or
test,
but
it
was
more
for
the
use
of
government
in
measuring
our
movement
forward.
D
It's
just
a
thought.
As
I
said,
we've
been
looking
for
ways
to
make
this
an
incentive
and
something
that
rewards
and
doesn't
punish.
You
made
the
point
and
it's
something
I
stress
all
the
time
when
you
look
at
inclusive,
whether
it's
organizations
or
corporations
or
governments,
nobody
wants
to
change
the
meritocracy.
D
B
And
cherish
scheibel,
if
I
may
I'd
like
to
bring
something
to
the
committee's
attention,
if
you
look
at
section
7,
subsection
2,
the
way
the
bill
is
currently
drafted,
if
a
corporation
that's
participating
has
an
internet
website,
the
legislation
makes
them
make.
The
report
that's
been
submitted
to
the
department
available
on
its
website.
B
B
F
Right
and-
and
thank
you
for
that-
I
guess
I
you
know-
and
mr
jones
blackhurst.
I
really
do
appreciate
your
point
as
to
meritocracy,
and
you
know,
as
I've
talked
to
others
about
these,
particularly
those
in
the
larger
operations
that
I
was
engaged
with,
that
most
of
their
hiring
practices
or
promotion
practices
had
to
do
with
the
experience
in
the
organization,
and
so
there
was
this
natural
internal
bias.
F
If
you
will
towards
in-house
experience,
as
opposed
to
the
you
know,
a
race
conscious
or
a
gender
conscious
criteria,
and
so
you
know
a
lot
of
this
is
pushing
against
inertia
where,
in
my
case
where
I
was
pretty
much
forming
the
the
the
firm
from
scratch,
I
chose
people
based
on
strictly
on
their
demeanor.
Their
skill
sets-
and
you
know
their
focus
in
litigation
and
so
or
on
the
staff
side
in
their
their
team
effort,
and
so
for
me
it
was
fairly
easy
because
I
didn't
look
at
race.
F
I
didn't
look
at
gender.
In
fact,
until
we
got
into
this
conversation,
I
didn't
really
realize
how
diverse
my
staff
was.
These
were
just
my
friends
that
we
had
developed.
We
put
together
a
fantastic
team,
I
think
we're
the
best
family
law
firm
in
the
state
and
not
that
I'm
biased
by
that
either
right,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
it
was
about
the
merits
of
the
hiring,
and
it
just
happened
to
be
what
it
is,
and
so
you
know
I
I
recognize
there's
a
balance.
F
I
recognize
there's
a
need
for
data,
but
it's
you
know.
I
also
think
it's
a
balance
with
burdens
on
the
businesses,
so
I
appreciate
your
comments.
I
certainly
support
the
idea
of
data
collection
I'll,
be
interested
to
see
what
the
businesses
have
to
say.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
your
indulgence.
A
Thank
you,
scheible.
Let
me
just
stop
for
just
a
minute.
I
don't
want
people
to
think
that
this
is
a
quota.
A
Diversity
simply
means
that,
yes,
you
are
hiring
the
best
and
their
race,
ethnicity,
gender,
gender
identity
doesn't
stand
in
the
way
it
doesn't
stand
in
the
way
and,
as
I
said
to
you,
there
were
there
were
times
in
my
military
career
where
being
black
was
a
problem
and
being
a
woman
was
a
problem,
and
I
was
better
than
I
mean
almost
anybody.
A
Anybody
in
the
battalion
when
a
military
police
company
came
open.
I'm
sorry
in
the
brigade
when
a
military
police
battalion
came
open.
I
had
more
seniority,
I
had
more
experience.
A
I
mean
I
was
the
best
one
and
everybody
said
that
I
was
the
best
one,
but
I
was
told
that
I
wouldn't
get
it
because
the
commander
didn't
think
that
they
would
listen
to
a
woman
and
being
black
would
complicate.
Matters
further
said
that
those
those
exact
words
said
that
so
everybody
on
the
committee.
Please
don't
see
this
as
a
quota.
A
A
It
simply
says:
if
someone
in
your
in
your
in
your
business,
we
don't
even
talk
about
hiring
in
this
bill-
is
someone
in
it
that
you
hire
or
you
promote,
but
if
they're
the
best
one
and
they
happen
to
be
be
a
woman,
then
give
it
to
him,
but
don't
go
over
the
woman
for
the
incompetent
man,
because
you
don't
want
to
see
women
rise
to
the
top,
but
we're
not
even
in
that
we're
not
even
in
the
hiring
process.
What
we're
doing
is
we're
asking
people
to
do.
A
A
survey
talk
to
us
tell
us
what
your
diversity,
the
diversity
in
your
company
looks
like,
and
there
have
been
several
studies
in
recent
years
that
have
shown
that
corporations
that
have
a
significant
number
of
women
that
have
a
significant
amount
of
diversity.
Their
bottom
line
is
usually
always
better
than
those
who
don't.
A
F
C
No
thank
you.
We
appreciate
your
your
input.
Senator
spearman
and
it
looks
like
senator
hansen.
Also
has
a
question:
go
ahead.
G
Thanks
actually,
I
got
I
got
a
ton
of
them,
but
we
don't
have
time
to
go
through
the
whole
thing,
because
I
number
one.
I
think
what
I
think
what
senator
spearman
just
said.
If
something's
being
overlooked,
look
businesses
aren't
out
there
to
hire
people
they're
in
the
business
of
making
money
and
if
the
bottom
line
actually
goes
up,
if
you
have
an
expansion
of
women,
for
example,
in
your
workforce,
all
the
other
businesses
will
copy
that
simply
because
they're
all
competing
for
the
same
dollars.
G
So
the
idea
that
we
have
to
have
quotas
or
certain
diversities-
you
mentioned
bypassing
a
more
qualified
woman
to
hire
a
less
qualified
man,
businesses
that
do
that
go
out
of
business.
So
I
would
just
say
that
this
idea
that
we're
talking
about
a
workforce
development
and
all
these
sorts
of
issues
they
take
care
of
themselves.
It's
called
the
marketplace,
so
gotta
get
that
out
there.
The
idea,
too,
that
this
is
not
a
bill
to
penalize.
Actually
it
will
be
in
the
long
run.
Let's
face
it.
G
While
we
keep
saying
over
and
over
it's
not
affirmative
action.
This
is
not
quotas.
That's
exactly
what
this
will
be
in
the
long
run,
because
if
a
business
answers
this
survey
and
they
don't
have
a
certain
percentage
of
something
or
one
group
or
the
other
in
the
subdivision
and
subdivision
of
the
subdivisions,
then
they're
going
to
face
possible
discriminatory
lawsuits
and
ultimately
that
will
be
the
purpose.
And
then
the
idea
too,
that
we're
going
to
possibly
throw
people
into
prison
because
they
supposedly
commit
perjury.
G
G
There
is,
there
is,
if
we
already
have
by
admission
business
is
doing
this
and,
according
to
senator
spearman's
testimony,
the
businesses
are
doing.
This
are
already
financially
in
the
best
positions
compared
to
those
that
are
not
what's
the
point
in
this.
Why
are
we
forcing
something
that
should
be
taking
care
of
itself,
naturally,
through
the
the
best
practices
that
all
businesses
seek
to
look
to
do.
D
Madam
chairwoman,
if
I
could
respond
to
the
question
jan
jones
blockers
for
the
record,
it's
interesting
senator
hanson,
one
of
the
things
that
has
changed
in
fortune
500
companies
today,
in
fact,
most
recently
adopted
by
the
ceo
roundtable,
which
is
probably
the
most
prestigious
board
of
ceos
in
america,
whereas
the
old
view
used
to
be
it
just
mattered.
How
much
money
you
made
in
return
to
your
shareholders
today?
They
recognize
that
that
is
a
faulty
proposition
that
it's
not
just
the
responsibility
of
a
corporation
to
make
money
for
their
shareholders.
B
Madam
chair,
if
I
may,
this
is
becky
harris
for
the
record.
I
want
to
make
two
points
and
then
clear
up
in
inaccuracy,
I'm
going
to
pick
on
senator
pickard.
He
unwittingly
proved
the
value
of
this
bill
during
the
middle
of
this
hearing,
as
he
was
forced
to
go
through
his
staff
and
look
at
how
it's
constituted
and
recognize
that
in
his
particular
situation,
he
is
already
meeting
the
diversity
objectives
of
this
bill
and
that's
exactly
the
point
of
this
bill.
B
It's
not
about
it's
not
about
ratios
and
quotas
and
all
those
other
things
it's
about
having
businesses
pause
for
a
moment
and
look
at
how
their
hiring
practices
are.
Effectuating
leadership,
opportunities
for
diverse
populations,
which
is
exactly
what
senator
picker
did
in
the
middle
of
this
hearing.
In
that
sense,
we've
already
had
a
measure
of
success.
B
I
want
to
clear
up
the
inconsistency
with
regard
to
the
perjury
as
part
of
the
conceptual
amendment
that's
being
proposed.
That
should
have
been
provided
to
the
committee
to
the
extent
that
it
has
and
I'll
see
that
the
chair
gets
it
all
of
the
criminal
penalties,
including
the
penalties
for
perjury,
are
being
amended
out
of
the
bill
and
going
to
be
replaced
with
some
administrative
fines
to
the
department
of
taxation
for
willful
non-compliance
or
misrepresentation.
G
Yeah
and
a
comment
you
know,
I
grew
up
in
the
era
when
we
were
supposed
to
judge
people
by
the
content
of
their
character
and
not
by
the
color
of
their
skin,
we're
actually
going
backwards.
Here
we
are
eliminating
meritocracy.
The
point
senator
bickard
made
was
without
anybody
pointing
those
things
out
to
them.
G
The
meritocracy
of
his
employees
or
what
made
them
rise
to
his
employment,
had
nothing
to
do
with
their
race,
gender
or
whatever,
and
that's
where
I
think
we're
going
absolutely
backwards,
and
I
think
it's
almost
frightening
that
we're
going
to
start
asking
people
once
again
on
job
applications,
what
color
they
are,
what
sexual
practices
they
may
have.
Those
are
types
of
things
that
are
frankly,
something
we
work
very
hard
to
get
rid
of,
so
that
people
would
not
use
those
as
criteria
in
hiring
and
firing
people.
So
I
don't
know
I
just
see.
G
I
see
martin
luther
king's
dream
that
we're
all
going
to
be
together,
someday
and
we'll
judge
each
other,
not
by
our
skin
color,
but
by
our
character
being
gradually
but
surely
washed
away
in
this
endless
quest
for
quotas
and
diversity
and
forcing
this
on
everyone,
just
total
violation
of
business
liberty
and
just
the
concept
of
freedom
in
our
country
and
a
violation
of
that
great
speech.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Madam
share,
may
I
just
respond
because
I
don't
please,
your
house
survey
get
interpreted
as
quota.
I
I
don't
know
I've
been
trying
to
trying
to
find
out.
If
that's
is
there
something
in
the
dictionary
that
I
missed.
Is
there
something
in
the
thesaurus
that
I
missed?
Let
me
say
this
again:
let
me
be
clear:
this
bill
doesn't
mean
someone
is
going
into
a
corporation
and
saying
you
must
do
this.
You
must
do
this,
you
must.
It
does
not
say
that
survey
survey
say
it
in
your.
A
In
your
mind,
survey
survey
survey
survey
and
the
the
psoriasis
doesn't
say
that
is
the
same
thing
as
quota.
So
let's
be
clear
on
that.
If
you
think
this
is
a
bill
about
quota,
then
I
would
just
invite
you
to
look
over
it
again
and
hear
what
I'm
saying
what
former
senator
harris
is
saying.
What
miss
jan
jones
is
saying,
and
I
mean
you
know,
because
of
where
she
was
before
she
be
before
she
was
here.
A
G
Know
senator
spearman
you're
a
little
bit
being
condescending
and
I
kind
of
resent
it.
I
I've
been.
I.
A
G
G
Want
to
oh,
let
me
make
this
point
very
clear.
While
the
bill
may
not
be
about
quotas
that
when
this,
when
this
information,
this
data
is
gathered
and
certain
corporations
do
not
meet
certain
numbers,
then
it
will
be
about
quotas,
and
that,
ultimately,
is
what
this
is
about,
is
determining
and
forcing
all
corporations
in
the
state
of
data
to
meet
certain
criteria
and
the
ones
that
do
not
will
ultimately
be
penalized
in
one
form
or
another
over
time.
G
C
I
think
you've
made
your
position
very
clear,
senator
hansen.
I
also
think
that
our
presenters
have
done
an
excellent
job
of
explaining
what
this
bill
is
and
what
this
bill
is
not
what
this
bill
does
and
what
it
does
not
do,
and
what
this
bill
is
not
and
what
it
does
not
do
is
require
companies
to
reach
any
kind
of
quota
they
require.
C
It
asks
them
to
participate
in
a
survey
to
help
us
understand
the
breadth,
the
depth
of
the
diversity
in
our
private
sector,
which
is
something
that
they
need
help
with
from
us
by
passing
this
bill,
and
I
appreciate
that
senator
spearman
has
subjected
herself
once
again
to
this
barrage
of
questions
that
I
think
has
been
largely
not
relevant
to
the
bill,
and
I'm
going
to
ask
that
anybody
else
who
has
questions
makes
them
very
specifically
related
to
the
bill
so
that
we
can
move
on
to
discuss
it
and,
if
you're
not
going
to
support
it,
then
you're
not
going
to
support
it.
H
Hey
sure,
I
appreciate
that
my
question
is:
I'd
actually
like
to
see
more
information,
and
I
was
wondering,
if
it's
possible,
to
have
that
discussion
in
my
neck
of
the
woods
in
the
north.
It's
more
of
an
issue
of
trying
to
find
employees
that'll
actually
show
up
on
time.
Then
the
second
part
of
it
is
some
places
actually
have
certain
tests,
they're
required
to
pass
and
a
lot
of
people.
Don't.
H
Is
there
any
discussion,
maybe
you're,
trying
to
get
more
information
out
of
this
to
make
it
more
useful?
You
know,
would
you
guys
be
okay
with
the
concept
of
amendment
I'd
love
to
know
from
these
larger
corporations
or
corporations
period?
What
their
turnover
rate
is?
How
many
vacancies
do
they
generally
have
on
an
ongoing
basis?
H
You
know,
I
think
that
helps
with
the
information
as
a
legislator,
at
least
to
be
able
to
try
to
make
decisions
about
potentially
policies
across
the
board,
no
matter
what
they
are
and
trying
to
help
figure
out
how
to
get
people
a
back
to
work
or
maybe
even
the
ability
to
create
programs
within
this
legislative
body.
That
says,
you
know
we
have
a
tremendous
number
of
vacancies
here.
H
Is
it
because
they're
not
paying
enough
or
is
it
because
the
educational
field
isn't
necessarily
directing
individuals
to
that,
and
so
that
is
a
question
I
have,
and
the
second
question
I
would
have
is
curious:
how
many
businesses
will
this
new
number
how
many
businesses
are
above
that
level,
because
again
we
don't
have
a
gigantic
number
of
employers
once
you
get
outside
of
the
government
realm,
so
in
the
private
sector,
what
will
this
new
threshold,
potentially
how
many
employers
are?
Will
this
affect
just
out
of
curiosity.
C
So
I
am
going
to
turn
it
over
to
the
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
and
the
bill
presenters
to
answer
your
questions.
I'm
still
not
sure
that
the
first
one
is
germaine,
but
I'll
leave
it
up
to
them.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
but
with
all
the
experience
that
I
have,
I've
not
had
the
experience
of
being
vice
president
in
a
major
corporation,
and
so
I'm
going
to
toss
it
to
ms
chan
jones,
who
has
probably
had
more
experience
at
that
level
than
most
of
the
people
in
the
legislature
so
miss
jones.
Can
you
respond
to
that?
Please.
D
It
would
probably
doing
some
of
the
turnout
that
they
probably
would
have
that
kind
of
information
available.
If
the
committee
thought
that
could
be
a
value,
I'm
not
sure
how
it
becomes
a
picture
of
what
nevada
companies
look
like.
I
certainly
would
not
be
opposed
to
that.
I'm
sure
they
compile
that
information
on
a
regular
basis.
D
D
Both
horizontally
and
vertically,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
first
had
to
understand
where
we
were
and
where
we
were
was
a
wake-up
call
for
our
entire
senior
management
because,
as
I
said,
almost
50
of
our
workforce
were
women,
but
when
you
started
looking
at
representation
as
vice
president
as
senior
vice
president
in
c-suite,
those
numbers
went
from
50
percent
to
25
percent
to
16
percent
to
3,
and
it
wasn't
because
there
wasn't
a
wealth
of
talent.
In
many
ways
it
was
an
ignorance
of
of
knowledge.
D
H
I
appreciate
that
ms
jones,
so
in
other
words,
this
bill
will
allow
companies
to
kind
of
look
internally
at
their
own
policies
and
be
able
to
evaluate
how
they
might
be
able
to
improve.
But
just
out
of
curiosity,
do
you
you
have
much
more
way
more
knowledge
than
I
ever
will
in
the
corporate
larger
corporate
realm.
H
How
many
corporations
do
you
think
this
will
apply
to
in
the
state
of
nevada?
I
mean
if
you
left
it
as
a
bill
that
only
applied
to
you
know
individual
corporations
that
have
only
50
000
people.
I
think
that's
only
one
in
the
state
of
nevada,
so
I
was
just
curious
if
you
had
any
idea
how
many
employers
this
might
be
dealing
with.
D
If
you
push
it
to
a
thousand
or
more,
it
becomes
a
small
group.
You
know,
because
there
aren't
that
many
large
employers
in
the
state
of
nevada.
If
it's
500,
you
have
a
much
broader
group.
If,
as
I
said,
if
there's
a
discomfort
in
the
business
community
and
we
feel
that
a
broader
selection
would
be
more
representational,
we
might
look
at
how
we
pattern
after
the
human
rights
committee
and
make
it
an
incentive
for
companies
to
respond
which
would
broaden
the
base
and
maybe
give
us
richer
data.
D
I
think,
having
governments
and
inchi
as
a
requirement,
as
I
said,
I
think
it's
appropriate
because
paid
by
taxpayer
money-
and
I
I
think
their
representation
looks
like
the
people
paying
their
taxes.
But
if
you
made
it
more
of
an
incentive
based
for
corporations,
you
might
get
a
broader
representation
and
participation.
H
Okay
for
that
answer-
and
thank
you
chair
for
that-
I
do
think
that
the
concept
of
having
more
and
more
information
is
valuable.
I
appreciate
the
concept
of
the
survey.
I
do
think
that
knowing
turnover
and
vacant
positions
could
help
individuals
try
to
figure
out
what's
best
for
their
employment
careers
and
also
have
a
business
internally,
look
at
itself
and
go
gee.
Why
are
we
you
know?
Our
average
stay
here
has
only
got
people
that
are
only
staying
around
here
five
six
years.
I
Thank
you,
chair
tribal
and
thank
you,
senator
spearman,
senator
harris
and
and
ms
jones
black
service
for
being
here
today
to
to
present
to
us.
It's
always
good
to
see
you
all
here
in
so
I
have
just
a
couple
questions
in
anticipation
of
what
I
think
we
may
hear
in
some
in
some
testimony
and
obviously
trying
to
be
cognizant
of
what
we
are
asking
of
some
of
our
our
business
folks.
I
I
I
would
like
to
start
with
saying
that
I
think
this
bill
isn't
is
a
is
a
good
idea
that
has
a
lot
of
of
merit
to
it,
even
from
an
informational
standpoint,
because
it
does
allow
us
to
answer
questions
about
whether
different
aspects
of
ensuring
that
we
don't
have
discrimination
in
the
workplace
are
happening,
and
I
mean
even
to
answer
questions
about.
You
know
why.
Why
is
equal
pay
for
equal
work,
something
that
we
have
to
that?
We
have
to
address
from
a
policy.
I
Standpoint
necessarily
begs
the
question
of
well:
are
women
making
less?
Are
they
in
different
positions?
Is
it
merely
because
of
their
own
job
or
career
choices?
And
I
think
this
is
the
kind
of
information
that
we
are
seeking
in
order
to
make
those
decisions
and
and
obviously
want
to
hold
one
another
and
the
entities
that
are
in
our
communities
accountable
in
our
government
agencies
as
well.
I
So
I
definitely
appreciate
that
I
would
anticipate
that
there
may
be
some
pushback
as
to
the
additional
burdens
that
this
would
place
on
businesses
for
having
to
not
only
fill
out
the
survey
but
have
to
track
a
lot
of
this
information
with
their
employees.
I
And
so
I
was
wondering
if
anyone
has
sort
of
some
thoughts
on
that
or
what
might
what
might
be
within
this
bill.
That
would
assuage
some
of
those
fears.
D
Jan
jones,
black
cruise
for
the
record-
and
I
don't
know
my
you
having
can
you
hear
me
better
great
yeah,
I
is,
I
said-
I
think
that
having
data
becomes
very
important
in
having
companies
being
aware
of
the
work
they
need
to
do.
It
was
interesting
when
this
bill
passed
last
session.
Both
clark
county
commission,
unlv
and
washoe
voted
independently
to
fill
out
the
data.
So
there
there
was
a
huge
positive
response.
D
I
think-
and
I
I
think
that
senator
settlemeider
makes
a
point
if
we
can
look
for
a
way,
and
I
might
propose
that
amendment
to
make
it
voluntary
for
businesses
but
look
for
ways.
We
can
incentivize
their
participation
that
it
may
get
us
broader
information,
more
data,
because
we
wouldn't
want
to
lose
the
data
of
a
smaller
law,
firm,
that's
doing
a
wonderful
job
and
just
limited
to
maybe
20
companies
under
the
large
employers.
D
So
you
know,
as
I
said,
hrc
did
find
a
way
to
do
this
with
a
high
degree
of
success,
and
that
may
be
something
we
want
to
look
at
whether
and
I
have
to
think
about
what
those
incentives
could
be.
I
think
the
more
participation
that
we
could
achieve
would
be
more
useful
at
our
really
evaluating
where
we
are
as
a
statement
and
as
employers.
D
I
will
say
on
equal
work,
though,
and
jan
jones
blockers
for
the
record
adam
vice
chairwoman,
I've
been
given
the
same
speech
for
30
years
e
women
white
women
earn
82
cents
on
the
dollar
to
their
white
male
colleagues,
african
american
women
earned
78
cents,
latino
women
earned
58
cents
in
over
30
years.
It
has
never
changed
now
that
can't
all
be
a
question
of
how
they
choose
their
employment
opportunities.
D
It's
interesting
when
we
started
the
50
50
by
2025
at
caesars.
One
of
the
first
thing
we
did
was
a
pay
equity
analysis
and
I'm
really
proud
to
say
that
it
came
out
that
in
corporate
employees
there
was
99,
no
discernible
pay
and
equity
and
in
employees
more
broadly
it
was
98,
no
discernible,
but
we
never
would
have
known
that
if
we
hadn't
looked,
but
we
knew
we
couldn't
make
a
statement
about
achieving
50
50
in
representation
at
senior
levels.
D
If
we
didn't
first
understand
what
we
look
like
as
employers
in
pay,
so
I
I
think
this
information
is
not
just
useful
to
legislative
bodies
and
governments.
I
think
it's
very
useful
for
companies
in
assessing
themselves
if
their
true
desire
is
to
be
forward
thinking
and
create
those
diverse
and
inclusive
governments,
and
I
I
would
bring
to
the
committee's
attention
one
other
thing.
D
For
decades,
the
representation
of
the
major
philharmonic
orchestras
were
90
men
and
10
women
until
they
went
to
blind
auditions
and
what
they
did.
Is
you
auditioned
behind
a
screen
and
the
women
couldn't
even
wear
heels,
so
there
was
no
way
to
determine
who
is
auditioning
and
the
representation
representation.
Today
is
50
50
and
very
often
60
40
women
demand
so
unconscious
bias.
You
can
call
it
whatever
you
want.
D
I
You,
oh
and
thank
you,
I
I
definitely
appreciate
it
and
it
is
encouraging
to
hear
not
only
smaller
entities
here
in
the
state,
but
also
larger
entities,
working
towards
more
diversity
and
inclusion
and
seeing
good
outcomes
as
a
result
of
that.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Trisha.
C
All
right,
thank
you,
and
with
that
we
will
turn
to
testimony
and
support
of
sb.
C
J
J
J
J
K
Good
afternoon,
esteemed
chair
and
committee,
my
name
is
dr
tiffany
tyler,
garner
t-I-f-f-a-n-y
t-y-l-e-r,
hyphen
g-a-r-n-e-r,
and
I'm
calling
on
behalf
of
the
children's
advocacy
alliance
and
from
a
few
vantage
points,
one
on
behalf
of
the
children's
advocacy
alliance,
a
statewide,
non-partisan
child
policy,
advocacy
organization,
where
our
whole
focus
is
empowering
leaders
like
you
to
make
informed
decisions
about
the
issues
impacting
children
and
families
just
want
to
affirm
the
value
of
a
survey
of
this
nature,
particularly
as
we
attempt
to
understand
and
contextualize
economic
well-being
of
children
having
a
sense
of
the
wage
earners
in
their
households,
including
some
of
the
data,
particularly
the
data
around
leave
and
the
ability
to
leverage
other
resources
as
a
part
of
improving
conditions
for
children
would
be
incredibly
helpful.
K
I
can
also
speak
to
you
from
a
few
previous
past
acts,
including
heading
dieter,
where
research
and
analysis
bureau
was
housed
and
can
tell
you
from
that
vantage
point,
as
well
as
a
published
researcher.
K
K
Where
there's
some
national
survey
that
has
occurred
and
you're
hoping
they
included
a
portion
of
nevadans
in
the
sample,
and
so
your
ability
to
extrapolate
like
what
is
happening
with
children
and
families
can
be
encumbered
by
that
this
particular
survey,
as
well
as
other
policies
that
are
requesting
that
we
capture
more
data
are
helpful
in
that
it
helps
us
further
refine
our
understanding
of
the
plight
that
families
face,
even
as
we
consider
the
recent
impacts
of
the
pandemic.
Where
reports
indicate.
J
K
J
J
J
J
L
Good
afternoon,
chair
scheible
and
committee
members,
misty
grimmer
g-r-I-m-m-e-r
with
the
ferraro
group
representing
the
nevada,
resort
association,
chair
scheibel
and
senator
spearman.
We
have
not
had
a
chance
yet
to
work
through
the
amendment,
so
we
will
still
need
to
review
that
and
get
back
to
you
senator
spearman.
L
We
are
very
supportive
of
the
goal
to
assess
how
companies
are
doing
with
respect
to
establishing
diversity
and
equity
in
all
ranks
of
their
workforce.
Ms
jones
blackhurst
has
shared
how
the
gaming
industry
has
been
at
the
forefront
on
this
issue.
We
are
concerned,
though,
that
the
requirements
of
this
bill
put
an
unnecessary
duplication
on
our
members
due
to
the
extent
and
detail
of
the
reporting
requirements.
L
In
answer
to
some
of
the
questions,
much
of
the
demographic
information
sb267
is
asking
for
is
already
collected
in
the
eeo1
reports
that
each
large
company
follow
files
with
the
eeoc
and
the
data
for
those
reports
is
done
via
in-house
surveys,
similar
to
what
is
being
asked
for
in
this
bill.
Perhaps
the
system
to
share
that
data
with
the
state
could
be
designed
eliminating
the
duplication.
J
M
Greetings
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
natalie
buckle.
That's
b-u-c-k-e-l.
I
serve
as
the
vice
chair
of
the
legislative
committee
for
the
henderson
chamber,
which
represents
more
than
eighteen
hundred
businesses
throughout
southern
nevada.
I
appreciate
the
sponsor
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Our
chamber
strongly
supports
workplace
diversity
and
inclusion
efforts
that
encourage
equality
in
the
workforce.
M
We
have
a
technical
concern
on
the
bill
in
terms
of
the
potential
to
divide
to
violate
the
privacy
of
some
employees
who
may
choose
not
to
participate,
especially
those
in
which
perhaps
their
race
or
gender
identity
is
not
readily
apparent.
If
not
given.
I
believe
simply
for
that
reason
it
places
us
in
opposition.
J
J
J
M
Good
afternoon
this
is
brandi
hairston
and
I'm
calling
in
opposition
of
sb
267,
because
I
would
like
to
see
some
amendments
to
the
bill.
The
bill
leaves
out
united
states
defendants
of
child
slavery.
There
are
many
different
women
of
color
in
nevada
and
for
that
reason
it's
best
to
separate
those
women
or
men
into
different
categories
to
accurately
identify
which
category
of
people
are
getting
hired.
The
collection
of
data
needs
to
be
more
specific
specificity.
Specificity
is
key.
M
Separating
the
different
groups
of
women
of
color
between
somalian,
nigerian
united
states,
descendant
of
chattel
slavery,
jamaican
latino
asian
et
cetera,
represent
a
clear
picture
of
desired
employment
data.
We
also
need
u.s,
defendant
of
child
slavery,
added
to
underrepresented
communities.
Furthermore,
black
men
are
not
mentioned
in
sb
267.
M
Black
men
are
part
of
the
black
community
with
the
highest
unemployment
rate
in
nevada.
According
to
prosperitynow.org,
we
need
black
men
included
in
this
bill
to
collect
their
employment
data
as
well.
There
are
amendments
that
will
make
the
bill
more
viable.
The
requested
amendments
are
specify
united
states
descendants
of
child
slavery,
as
a
category
include
black
men
in
the
survey
and
data
collection.
Add
united
states
descendants
of
child
slavery
as
one
of
the
underrepresented
communities.
M
The
language,
unfortunately,
is
extremely
vague.
The
bill
in
its
current
form
is
not
useful
in
determining
discrimination
for
black
descendants
of
slaves.
I
can't
explain
enough
how
vital
it
is
to
disaggregate
the
collection
of
data
and
specify
the
identity
of
people
who
describe
themselves
as
u.s
descendants
of
chat
of
slavery.
Without
these
amendments,
this
bill
will
not
help
it's
not
it's
most.
The
bill
will
not
help
is
most
unemployed
and
vulnerable
population.
M
Here
in
nevada,
we
urge
nevada
to
no
longer
lump
descendants
of
u.s
slavery
together
with
all
other
minority
groups.
This
bill
has
the
potential
to
be
so
much
more
transparent
and
beneficial
if
these
amendments
are
made
on
behalf
of
the
black
community,
for
example,
the
united
states
defense
displays
are
no
longer
the
majority
at
historically
black
colleges
hbcus.
M
Sure
what
we're
finding
is,
other
minority
groups
are
being
led
into
institutions
and
being
hired
and
the
people
that
are
that
these
institutions
were
actually
built
for
they're,
the
ones
that
are
being
locked
out.
So
thank
you
for
this
bill
and
we
ask
that
these
amendments
be
in
there,
so
we
can
be
in
favor
of
this
field.
Thank
you.
C
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
at
this
point
in
time
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
267
and
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
sb
365.
senator
orrinshaw,
whenever
you're
ready.
E
Thank
you
very
much
cherish
hybal
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
james
orenshaw.
I
represent
state
senate
district
21.,
that's
parts
of
henderson,
an
unincorporated
clark
county.
During
the
last
interim
I
had
the
distinct
honor
to
chair
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice.
We
were
able
to
have
a
total
of
six
meetings.
E
E
Mr
geinan,
are
you
your
committee
policy,
analyst
chair,
julianne,
king
eileen,
o'grady
from
the
legal
division
and
carlio
krent?
I
had
just
tremendous
tremendous
help
and
we
were
able
to
come
up
with
a
lot
of
recommendations.
E
Almost
all
of
our
recommendations,
I
believe,
had
unanimous
bipartisan
support
and
the
three
bills
that
you
have
agendized
today
are
part
of
those
recommendations
chair.
I
I
want
to
be
brief,
but
I
do
want
to
just
give
a
brief
introduction
to
senate
bill.
365
and
I'd
like
to
actually
I
do
have
holly
welbourne
from
the
aclu
of
nevada
here
with
me
as
well,
to
help
me
present
the
bill
and,
with
your
permission,
chair
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
welborn
and
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
N
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
and
thank
you
to
senator
senator
orrinshaw
for
inviting
us
to
present
on
this
bill.
This
is
an
issue
that
we
at
the
aclu
of
nevada,
have
been
working
on
for
several
years
and
for
the
record,
my
name
is
holly
welborn
policy
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
N
N
So,
for
the
sake
of
time,
most
of
our
committee
members
here
are
no
stranger
to
this
idea
of
how
brain
science
dictates
our
approach
to
juvenile
justice
and
the
the
revelation
and
understanding
that
juveniles
are
both
scientifically
and
constitutionally
different
than
adults
and
the
laws
and
our
approach
to
those
juveniles
should
be
should
be
quite
different,
and
this
issue
of
housing
we're
looking
at
an
era
where
both
the
supreme
court,
both
this
body
have
said
that
young
people
are
entitled
to
parole.
N
We
have
abolished
life
without
parole
sentences
in
this
country
and
in
this
state,
and
so
in
this
era,
without
life
parole
sentences,
those
individuals
will
be
given
an
opportunity
for
parole,
hearing
and
the
case
law
states
that
the
age
at
the
time
of
the
offense
weighs
heavily
in
favor
of
parole
for
most
youth.
So
that
means
most
youth
will
grow
into
adulthood
in
the
prison
sentence
if
they
have
quite
during
their
prison
sentence.
N
If
they
have
a
lengthy
sentence,
then
they
will
eventually
be
released,
and
so,
if
we
fail
to
meet
an
adult
lessons
age,
specific
developmental
needs,
we
fail
to
prepare
them
for
life
outside
of
prison
in
nevada.
When
a
child
is
transferred
to
the
adult
justice
system,
the
a
pre-trial
they're
sent
to
an
adult
jail,
so
in
clark
county,
for
example,
they
do
have
a
youth
pod.
N
That
is
just
for
young
people
that
is
separate
from
the
general
popular
adult
population
for
purposes
of
the
prison,
rape,
elimination
act,
which
requires
sight
and
sound
separation
between
young
people
and
adults,
and
then
here
in
washoe
county.
N
It's
a
lot
more
complex
and
a
lot
more
troubling,
because
those
young
people
would
have
to
be
sent
to
the
washoe
county
jail
off
of
par
boulevard
and
they
would
be
put
in
a
medical
isolation
unit
without
the
programming
any
programming,
while
they're
waiting
a
long
time
to
go
to
trial
and
eventually
enter
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
on
nellis.
There
is
a
report
published
by
the
aclu
of
nevada.
We
were
welcomed
into
nearly
every
juvenile
facility
in
the
state
and
also
the
lovelock
correctional
center.
N
So
what
this
bill
does?
Is
it's
the
next
step
in
a
series
of
different?
You
know
policy
changes
that
we
have
embarked
upon
to
start
looking
at
the
best
way
to
move
youth
out
of
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
and
into
a
facility
for
young
people.
So
again
on
nellis,
you
can
find
that
report.
You
can
also
find
some
examples
from
washington
and
oregon
where
youth
have
been
fully
integrated.
N
I
think
there's
about
16
states
now
that,
never,
even
even
if
they
have
a
direct
file
statute,
that
transfers
automatically
to
adult
court
or
certification
statutes,
those
youth
never
leave
the
youth
system
and
those
kids
are
completely
integrated,
but
nevada
is
not
ready
for
that
step.
So
that's
why
this
bill
establishing
a
pilot
program
is
that
next
necessary
step.
N
I
do
want
to
pause
for
a
moment
to
also
thank
patrick
geinin
for
his
help
and
assistance
in
helping
not
only
the
legislators
on
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
to
understand
the
best
package
and
the
way
to
the
best
way,
to
sort
of
separate
these
different
concepts
in
a
package
of
bills
that
will
keep
moving
the
ball
forward
on
this
issue
without
shocking
the
the
system
and
actually
having
a
negative
impact
on
youth,
and
so
we're
incredibly
grateful
to
him
and
and
appreciate
everything
he
did
to
move
this
forward.
N
N
N
The
bill
further
requires
that
they
establish
a
program
both
develop
and
implement
this
pilot
program
for
young
people
under
the
age
of
18.,
so
those
those
kids
who
have
been
transferred
from
the
juvenile
court
they've
committed
some
criminal
act,
they've
either
been
certified
or
direct
filed
and
who
are
now
actually
serving
a
sentence
either
really
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center.
Most
of
those
convicted
young
people.
They
live
in
a
youth
pod
at
lovelock
correctional
center.
N
So
this
pilot
program
would
be
you
know
in
the
conversations
that
we've
had
behind
the
scenes.
This
pilot
program
would
be
limited
to
about
eight
to
ten
kids
that
could
move
into
a
facility
that,
during
this
interim
period,
that
will
work
together
to
decide
what
the
appropriate
facility
would
be
and
what
the
best
sort
of
transition
is
in
the
best
kids
who
are
suitable
for
that
program.
N
And
then
the
pilot
program
has
to
commence
not
later
than
january.
1St
of
2022.
N
section
2,
says
that
not
later
than
january,
1st
2023,
the
department
of
corrections
and
the
division
need
to
submit
a
report
on
the
status
of
that
pilot
program,
which
will
help
to
inform
future
legislation
and
help
help
us
to
continue
moving
this
program
forward.
And
finally,
section
three:
is
you
know,
magical
technical
language
that
I
think
senator
orrin
shaw
or
perhaps
mr
anthony
can
explain
better
than
I
do,
but
it
provides
for
from
here
for
hearings
and
exemptions.
N
So
with
that
that
is
the
the
very
simple
presentation
on
the
bill
and
I'm
here
for
any
questions
you
might
have.
C
E
F
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
You
know
I
always
get
nervous
when
I
come
up
on
the
same
side
as
aclu
on
things.
No,
I'm
kidding
we,
we
actually
agree
on
enough
awful
lot.
I
have
been
aware
of
this.
I
have
been
tangentially
part
of
these
discussions
with
some
in
the
juvenile
justice
community.
For
some
time.
I
I
just
I
I'm
looking
at
the
fiscal
note,
though
department
of
corrections
says
xero
and
health
and
human
services
says
they're
contracting
a
vendor
for
forty
thousand
dollars.
F
I
can't
imagine
this
whole
pilot
program
is
only
going
to
cost
40
000.
So
I
wonder
if
you
can
explain
a
little
bit
what
that
vendor's
role
in
this
is
what
kind
of
changes
are
going
to
be
required
in
in
the
short
term
to
do
the
pilot
program?
Can
you
kind
of
describe
the
pilot
program
itself
at
least
how
it's
been
framed
and
and
what's
been
put
out
to
or
what
will
be
put
out
for
an
rfp
so
that
we
can
better
understand
what
it
is
that
we're
actually
trying
to
accomplish.
E
And
chair
for
the
record
james
orangehall
senators,
district
21
to
you
and
through
you
to
senator
pickard,
certainly
I
think
that
you
know
a
lot
of
those
specific
answers
may
have
to
come
from
the
agency
as
to
the
implementation.
F
In
sure,
and-
and
I
appreciate
that,
I
and
I
want
them
to
respond,
but
let's
not
forget
we're
talking
about
a
population
that
has
committed
some
really
serious
crimes,
so
these
aren't
just
kids
that
have
stolen
something
at
the
convenience
store.
These
are
people
that
were
certified
as
adults
because
of
some
really
bad
stuff.
So,
let's
not
sugarcoat
who
we're
dealing
with
here,
but
on
the
flip
side,
they're
still,
kids.
F
We
need
to
treat
them
as
we
do
all
children
in
the
juvenile
system
towards
rehabilitation,
if
at
all
possible-
and
that's,
I
think,
an
important
distinction
to
make.
But
I
would
like
to
hear
what
the
vendor
is
going
to
be
doing.
Is
the
40
000
going
to
cover
all
the
costs
of
the
pilot
program,
or
is
that
just
the
kickoff
start
and
we're
going
to
have
to
come
back
somewhere,
whether
it's
ifc
or
in
another
session,
to
fund
the
pilot
program.
C
F
We're
on
sb
356.,
it
says
executive
agency
fiscal
note
contracted
from
hhs
unless.
F
Oh
my
error.
I'm
sorry,
I
thought
we
were
on
the
issues
relating
to
the
housing
of
youthful
offenders.
C
F
F
E
Problem,
oh
thank
you
very
much
chair
and
just
just
to
briefly
respond.
I
think
perhaps
that
if
the
agencies
want
to
respond,
they
can,
but
certainly
while
these
children
who
are
housed
at
the
the
boys
at
the
level,
correctional
center
certainly
have
committed
serious
offenses.
I
think
it's
important
to
remember
that
many
many
of
these
children
have
themselves
been
the
victims
of
abuse
and
neglect.
C
J
J
O
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piero
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
and
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office,
testifying
in
support
of
this
bill
and
like
to
thank
senator
orrin
shaw
and
ms
welborn
from
the
aclu
for
bringing
it
forward.
Thank
you.
D
J
J
J
O
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
deshawn
jackson
d-a-s-h-u-n-j-a-c-k-s-o-n,
I
serve
as
the
director
of
children's
safety
and
wilfred
policy
with
the
children's
advocacy
alliance.
When
we
stand
in
support
of
senate
bill
365,
we
believe
that
this
deal
is
essential
when
it
comes
to
housing,
youth,
where
they
are
appropriately,
where
they
should
be
appropriately
housed.
We
believe
that
youth
are
youth
and
therefore
should
be
treated
as
such.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
scheibel
and
community
members.
J
O
Good
afternoon
cher,
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary,
this
is
bridget
duffy,
b-r-I-g-I-d,
d-u-s-f-y,
chief
of
the
juvenile
division
for
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
I
am
calling
in
to
put
my
support
on
the
record
for
sc
365
from
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office.
We
appreciate
the
the
communication
that
I've
had
with
the
aclu
and
discussing
how
this
we
can
make
this
pilot
work
and
I'm
excited
to
see
our
future
in
the
state
of
nevada.
So
we
can
move
forward
some
more
innovative
ideas
of
having
and
housing
our
youthful
offenders.
J
J
M
L-I-S-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-F-E-N,
I'm
calling
on
behalf
of
nacj
nacj,
supports
this
bill,
we'd
like
to
thank
aclu
for
all
of
their
efforts
in
bringing
this
bill
forward.
As
we
know
from
a
lot
of
prior
legislation
and
efforts
that
we've
had
in
various
sessions,
youth
are
different
and
this
bill.
This
pilot
program
treats
them
as
the
different
human
beings
and
souls
that
they
are
so
nacj
supports
it
and
encourages
all
of
you
to
do
the
same.
Thank
you.
J
C
All
right,
thank
you.
We
will
move
then
to
testimony
in
opposition
to
sb
365.
J
J
C
We
have
two
more
bills
to
hear
today,
but
we're
moving
along
in
a
nice
clip,
so
I'm
hopeful
that
we
will
get
through
them
in
time
for
people
to
make
it
nearly
on
time
to
their
next
committees
and
obligations.
Although,
as
always,
I
understand
if
committee
members
do
have
to
come
and
go
from
senate
judiciary
to
meet
their
other
obligations,
and
I
trust
that
you
will
all
catch
up
on
anything
that
you've
missed
before
any
work
sessions.
Should
we
have
them
all.
E
Thank
you
very
much
chair
scheible
for
the
record
james
orenshall.
I
represent
state
senate
district
21.
senate
bill.
357
is
one
of
the
three
bills
agendas
today
that
came
out
of
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice.
Thank
you
for
hearing
senate
bill
357,
as
we've
already
discussed
this
afternoon.
E
Male
juveniles
boys,
who
are
tried
and
convicted
as
adults
in
nevada,
are
currently
sent
to
the
lovelock
correctional
center,
where
they
are
housed
separately
from
the
general
population
of
adults
with
sight
and
sound
separation
pursuant
to
the
federal
prison
rape,
elimination
act
at
nevada
from
what
we
learned
in
the
interim
committee
has
quite
a
challenge
in
terms
of
housing,
female
juveniles
who
have
been
tried
and
convicted
as
adults.
So
for
the
time
being,
this
bill
applies
specifically
to
those
those
boys
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center.
E
However,
as
we
learned
early
on
in
our
discussions
with
the
staff
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center-
and
I
definitely
want
to
thank
all
the
staff
at
lovelock
and
at
ndoc
for
their
incredible
generosity
and
willingness
to
work
on
the
questions
we
had
while
dealing
with
the
unprecedented
situation
of
the
pandemic
and
nevada's
budget
crisis
does
not
separate
its
general
budget
at
lovelock
as
to
what
is
spent
on
those
juveniles
who
were
housed
there
as
opposed
to
the
other
inmates.
That
was
a
difficulty
we
had
during
the
interim.
E
In
terms
of
trying
to
find
that
information,
I
would
argue
that
the
legislature,
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
needs
to
know
how
much
is
being
spent
as
a
state
on
housing,
this
population
of
children
at
the
adult
facility
and
in
terms
of
making
future
decisions.
This
information
is
very,
very
important.
E
The
bill
before
you
sets
forth
a
list
of
expenses
that
we
are
asking
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
to
track
related
to
the
housing
of
youthful
offenders.
E
Those
expenses
are
as
follows:
education,
communication
and
interaction
with
family
members
and
others;
health
care,
mental
health
services,
recreational
programming
and
any
other
cost
that
the
director
of
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
determines
are
related
to
the
special
needs
of
housing,
youthful
offenders
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center
chair
scheible.
With
your
permission,
I
believe
that
ms
welborn
would
like
to
briefly
speak
to
this
bill
and
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
N
Thank
you,
chair
shy,
bull,
holly,
well-born
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada,
and
thank
you
to
senator
orenshaw
and
actually,
I
think,
senator
orrinshaw
laid
that
out
perfectly
I'm
here
to
answer
any
technical
questions
and
just
want
to
state
that,
in
the
prior
hearing
on
senate
bill
365,
we
had
discussed
a
potential
pilot
program
to
house
a
certain
number
of
youth
who
are
currently
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center
in
a
juvenile
institution
and
this
bill
and
from
our
perspective,
complements
that
and
will
help
with
any
help
shape
any
cost
sharing
agreements
that
might
need
to
occur
in
the
future.
C
H
Thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
curious.
Does
this
only
apply
to
that
facility?
I
mean
you'll
have
to
forgive
me
for
not
knowing
the
difference.
How
does
this
then
not
necessarily
apply
to
china
springs,
rite
of
passage
or
other
youth
detentional
facilities?
If
you
could
just
provide
the
distinction,
I'd
appreciate
it.
E
E
Currently,
boys
are
housed
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center,
again
with
sight
and
sight,
and
sound
separation
under
the
federal
prison,
rape,
elimination
act
as
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge.
There
are
currently
no
female
juveniles
that
I'm
aware
of
at
the
florence
mcclure
correctional
center
down
in
clark
county.
However,
in
the
past,
I
believe
that
there
there
has
been
at
least
one,
although
that's
been
in
a
while.
J
J
J
O
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
this
is
john
piero
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
classifying
on
behalf
of
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office
and
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
In
support
of
this
bill.
We
think
that
getting
data
is
going
to
allow
us
to
make
better
decisions,
so
we
wholeheartedly
support
this
bill
and
thank
senator
orange
hall
and
ms
welborn
from
the
aclu
for
bringing
it
forward.
Thank
you.
J
O
J
M
J
J
C
E
Good
afternoon
cherish
tribal,
I'm
still
james
orenshall,
still
very
fortunate
to
represent
state
senate
district
21.
Thank
you
for
hearing
all
three
bills
that
came
out
of
the
interim
committee.
Our
last
bill
is
senate
bill
356
study
of
youthful
offender
housing.
First,
I'd
like
to
explain
to
the
committee
what
we
mean
by
youthful
offenders.
E
The
intent
here
is
that
young
people
between
the
ages
of
18
and
25
who've
been
tried,
as
adults
are
currently
the
young
boys
who
are
serving
their
sentences
at
the
lovelock
correctional
center
that
we've
mentioned
earlier,
which
is
a
medium
security,
correctional
facility
designed
for
adults.
But
there
is
a
youth
pod,
as
was
explained
earlier,
with
sight
and
sound
separation
for
these
children.
E
A
small
number
of
these
youthful
offenders
arrive
at
lovelock
before
their
18th
birthday
and
are
segregated
from
the
adult
population.
The
the
interim
committee
this
this
bill.
The
issue
that
we
are
trying
to
solve
with
this
bill
is
that
many
of
these
children
whose
sentences
will
go
beyond
their
18th
birthday,
are
looking
then
at
a
transfer
to
one
of
the
other
nevada
department
of
correction
facilities.
E
N
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
and
thank
you
senator
orrin
shaw.
For
the
sake
of
time,
I
will
direct
the
committee
to
hollywell-born
policy
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
For
the
sake
of
time,
I
will
direct
the
committee
to
take
a
look
at
the
exhibit
that
is
a
report
from
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures.
N
It
provides
a
lot
of
background
about
how
young
people
in
this
age
range
the
18
to
25,
year
olds
or
18
to
24
year
olds,
how
they
need
a
different
sort
of
intervention
different.
You
know,
system
in
place
to
address
their
specific
needs
because
they're
between
those
ages,
where
they're
not
quite
mature
adults
but
they're,
not
quite
adolescents,
and
so
this
would
enable
the
juvenile
justice
and
oversight
commission
to
develop
and
meet
the
needs
of
that
specific
population.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
now
comes
the
question
on
what
this
thing
looks.
Like
you
know,
I
did
look
at
the
2.3
million
dollar
fiscal
note
from
hhs
on
365..
F
That's
what
I
kind
of
expected
to
see
on
the
pilot
program
piece,
but
now
that
we've
heard
all
three
bills
I
kind
of
understand
this
is
really
one
program.
Those
were
just
three
different
pieces
of
it.
So
can
you
explain
to
me
what
this
pilot
program
looks
like
who's
doing
it?
Why
are
we
hiring
outside
vendors?
F
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
that,
but
I
want
to
get
it
on
the
record
and
then
it
looks
like
hhs
or
child
family
services
certainly
has
a
pretty
clear
idea
of
what
they're
going
to
be
expected
to
do.
Given
it
looks
like
they've
calculated
this
to
the
dollar,
what
they
think
this
is
going
to
spend.
So
can
you
describe
what
we're
talking
about
and
why
it's
going
to
cost
two
and
a
half
million
dollars
and
include
a
vendor.
E
And
chair,
with
your
permission,
if
I
could
defer
to
administrator
armstrong
or
anyone
else
from
the
state
who
might
care
to.
C
Yes,
that
that
is
fine,
and
just
for
the
record,
I
want
the
minutes
to
reflect
that
these
bills
do
work
in
unison
with
each
other,
and
so
the
fiscal
note
that
senator
picker
just
referenced
is
actually
on
well
one
of
the
fiscal
notices
on
sb365
there's
also
on
sb356,
so
it
makes
complete
sense
to
discuss
the
bills
together.
C
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
when
we
go
back
and
review
the
record,
we
note
that
that
is
what
happened
and
that
we
didn't
conflate
the
two,
but
that
we're
talking
about
both
of
them
at
the
same
time
now
go
ahead.
If
that's
mr
armstrong,
down
there
with
his
mask
on.
P
P
Thank
you
chair
and
to
answer
the
question
so
for
the
sb
356
the
study
we,
it
is
not
uncommon
for
the
legislature
to
have
bills
that
require
an
executive
branch
agency
to
do
a
study
that
we
do
not
have
the
internal
capacity
or
expertise
to
do
ourselves,
and
so
the
amount
estimated
for
what
would
be
the
contractor
to
do.
That
study
is
based
on
prior
studies
of
similar
complexity.
P
Last
interim,
we
did
a
study
on
the
federal,
extended,
foster
care
program
and
also
a
study
on
commercially
sexually
exploited
children,
and
so
this
cost
is
in
alignment
with
with
those
that
is,
you
know
a
contract
to
perform
to
deliver
the
study
in
the
time
frame
that
is
required
in
order
to
give
the
interim
committee
enough
time
to
draft
legislation.
So
that
is
the
cost
based
on
that
particular
bill.
P
In
terms
of
the
fiscal
note
for
the
actual
pilot
program
with
the
department
of
corrections-
and
I
will
note
that
we-
we
spoke
with
the
department
of
corrections
on
the
study
part
and
said
we
would
be
happy
to
take
the
lead
in
acquiring
the
contractor
and
helping
facilitate
that
particular
study
so
that
there
were
like
two
competing
studies
from
different
departments
on
the
pilot
program.
P
Fiscal
note,
that
is,
the
cost
for
eight
beds
to
be
operated
at
summit
view
youth
center,
which
is
our
only
physically
secure
facility,
our
highest
security,
our
highest
security
facility,
and
so
that
is
what
the
cost
of
eight
beds
looks
like
you
know,
we
need
to
do
eight
or
sixteen
based
on
the
prior
ratios.
Eight
seem
to
be
the
best
pilot
number
to
work
off
of.
P
There
are
a
number
of
other
bills
that
affect
the
certification
process
and
competency,
so
we
basically
had
that
particular
fiscal
note
written
in
terms
of
what
does
eight
beds
look
like
at
the
summit
view
youth
center.
So
that
is
what
the
fiscal
note
on
365
looks
like
is
for
the
eight
beds
that
would
be
used
for
that
pilot
program
and
the
staff
to
provide
the
services
to
those
children.
F
P
This
is
russ
armstrong,
and
that
is
that
is
correct.
In
talking
with
the
department
of
corrections,
we
don't
have
a
physically
secure
facility
that
has
services
for
girls,
and
so
we
would
not
be
able
to
include
necessarily
girls
in
this
pilot
program.
I
mean,
as
we
go
forward
there
may
be.
There
may
be
some
other
factors
if
there's
reduced
girl
demand
because
of
some
of
the
changes
coming
in
the
human
trafficking
world
and
then
there's
space
at
caliente
and
there's
an
appropriate
young
woman
to
be
housed
there.
P
C
Yes,
any
other
questions
on
sb
356
or
catch
all
questions
for
the
three
bills
we've
heard
regarding
youthful
offenders,
not
seeing
any.
We
will
take
testimony
now
in
support
of
sp356.
J
J
O
Good
afternoon
again,
my
name
is
deshawn
jackson,
d-a-f-h-u-n
j-a-c-k-s-o-n
series,
the
director
of
children's
safety
and
welfare
policy,
with
the
children's
advocacy
stand
in
support
of
senate
bill
356.
We
believe
this
study
is
essential
to
understanding
more
about
how
we
can
house
youthful
offenders.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
orrin
shaw
and
senator
deshiva.
J
M
L-I-S-A-R-A-S-M-U-S-S-E-N,
I'm
testifying
again
in
support
of
this
bill
on
behalf
of
nacj
nacj,
believes
that
this
pilot
program
is
appropriate
and
that
it's
necessary
to
address
certain
needs
that
are
unique
to
the
youth
population.
We'd
like
to
thank
senator
orrinshaw
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Thank
you.
J
J
O
Afternoon
sharon
members
of
the
committee-
this
is
john
piero
from
the
clark
county,
public
defender's
office
and
we'd
like
to
thank
miss
welborn
and
senator
oran
shaw
for
bringing
this
package
of
bills
together
to
help
do
better
for
our
juveniles.
We
are
in
full
support,
as
are
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
Thank
you.
J
C
J
J
O
Good
afternoon
sheriff
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
my
name
is
alex
ortiz
a-l-e-x-o-r-t-I-z,
representing
clark
county
clark,
county
has
moved
along,
sb
356
has
written,
even
though
this
is
a
policy
committee.
It
is
our
only
opportunity
to
mention
the
potential
fiscal
impact
of
clark
county
as
the
bill
dodger
states.
During
the
2019
legislative
session,
the
legislature
enacted
legislation
requiring
the
interim
legislative
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
to
conduct
a
study
during
the
2019-2020
interim
concerning
juvenile
detention
in
the
state.
O
The
representative,
from
our
clark
county
department
of
general
justice
services,
testified
during
public
comment
at
one
of
those
meetings
about
perspective
cost
of
clark
county
if
the
nevada
department
of
corrections
housed
their
juvenile
offenders
in
our
juvenile
local
juvenile
detention
center.
The
journal
offenders
currently
held
in
ndoc
facilities
are
transferred
and
held
in
our
juvenile
detention
center.
The
cost
to
redesign
existing
space
building
space
operate
and
maintain
that's
redesigned
in
new
space
and
hire
more
staff
to
house
these
juveniles
and
adults
in
our
facilities
will
be
in
the
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
per
year.
O
Some
of
these
costs
associated
with
those
would
be
as
an
example.
Our
juvenile
detention
centers
are
not
built
to
detain
adults.
We
would
need
to
retrofit
and
build
a
new
facility
to
accommodate
the
increased
number
number
of
juveniles
and
adults.
Many
of
the
youth
arrested
are
first-time
offenders,
though.
O
Any
potential
savings
and
cost
to
ndoc,
as
contemplated
in
this
study,
will
be
an
unfunded
mandate
to
clark
county.
We
look
forward
to
participating
in
working
with
mdoc
and
dcfs
during
the
interim
on
this
study.
So
all
our
needs
and
physical
concerns
are
considered
an
address.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Today.
C
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
356..
That
takes
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda.
Public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
here
to
give
public
comments.
J
J
J
C
All
right,
thank
you
so
much.
That
concludes
our
meeting
for
today,
good
job,
everybody
getting
us
out
of
here,
just
14
minutes
past
our
scheduled
end
time.
I
appreciate
your
help
and
do
encourage
you
to
follow
up
offline.
If
there
are
still
questions
you
have
or
thoughts,
you
want
to
express
and
you're
welcome
to
also
send
those
to
our
committee.
Email
address
and
they'll
be
added
to
the
official
record.
We
will
be
doing
this
again
tomorrow,
at
the
same
time
same
place,
1pm.
Until
then,
we
are.