►
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
Good
afternoon,
I
want
to
welcome
everyone
to
this
afternoon's
meeting
of
the
senate
committee
on
legislative
operations
and
elections.
We
are
pleased
to
have
presenters
here
in
person
in
carson
city
as
well
over
zoom.
We
are
here
hearing
four
bills.
Today,
assembly
bill,
385
assembly,
bill
390
assembly,
bill
421
and
assembly
joint
resolution,
one
madam
secretary.
We
do
have
a
quorum
present,
please
mark
majority
leader
canazarro
present
when
she
arrives
a
few
housekeeping
announcements.
A
As
everyone
knows,
the
legislative
building
is
now
open
to
the
public,
with
limited
capacity
and
appointments
that
can
be
made
for
meetings
with
legislators
and
to
attend
committee
hearings
in
person
for
everyone
in
person
and
online.
We
do
ask
that
you
keep
your
devices
muted
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
either
silence
or
turn
off
your
electronic
devices.
A
Here
in
the
committee
room
for
all
individuals
present
here
in
the
room,
we
do
ask
you
to
keep
your
face
covering
on
and
to
maintain
social
distancing,
even
with
the
legislative
building
open,
most
are
still
viewing
committee
meetings
online
to
the
legislature
streaming
service
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel.
These
meetings
are
also
recorded
for
viewing
at
a
later
time.
As
you
know,
committee
information
is
available
on
the
legislature's
website
and
nellis
and
can
be
accessed
that
way.
A
Those
wishing
to
provide
testimony
or
public
comment
should
register
to
participate
through
nellis
and
select
their
preferred
method.
If
you
register
to
make
your
comments
by
phone,
you
will
receive
an
email
confirmation
with
the
call-in
information.
You
may
also
submit
written
comments
as
outlined
on
the
agenda.
Detailed
instructions
for
participating
are
available
on
the
help
page
linked
in
a
banner
at
the
top
of
every
page
on
nellis.
When
testifying,
we
do
ask
that
you
state
your
name,
and
please
spell
your
name,
and
if
you
represent
an
organization,
please
let
us
know
who
you
represent.
A
We'll
take
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
the
time
constraints.
You
may
also
submit
your
full
comments
in
writing
and
briefly
summarize
them
in
spoken
testimony
if
you'd
prefer.
Finally,
we
do
ask
everyone
to
be
courteous
to
others
and
respectful
in
our
interactions,
even
if
we
don't
agree
on
some
of
these
contentious
issues.
I
know
that
was
a
lot
of
housekeeping
information,
but
please
don't
hesitate
to
contact
my
office
or
committee
staff
if
you
have
any
questions
or
need
help.
A
Before
we
begin
the
hearing,
I
wanted
to
just
announce
that
we
are
going
to
change
the
order
of
our
agenda.
We
have
we
had
a
request
to
have
assembly
bill
390
heard
last
on
the
agenda.
A
A
Today
we
received
from
the
legal
division
bdr-1148,
it's
a
measure
proposing
the
creation
of
a
joint
special
committee
can
to
conduct
a
study
concerning
innovation
zones.
I
want
to
remind
all
members
that
a
vote
to
introduce
this
build
raft
request
is
in
no
way
an
indication
or
commitment
of
support.
A
A
A
All
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Thank
you.
The
motion
carries
secretary.
Please
note
that
that
passed
unanimously
and
majority
leader
canazarro
was
excused
and
copies
were
handed
out.
I
should
have
mentioned
that
before
of
the
bill
draft
request
to
all
members.
Now
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
385.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
benitez
thompson,
for
your
patience,
welcome
to
the
committee-
and
we
appreciate
your
being
here
and
your.
C
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
so
much
senator
orrinshaw
and
members
of
the
senate
legislative
operations
committee
for
hearing
assembly
bill
385
today,
it's
my
pleasure
to
bring
forth
this
bill.
Hopefully
I
can
make
my
best
case
for
why
this
is
good
public
policy
and
convince
you
all
that
we're
doing
good
things
with
it.
C
They
are
demanding
jobs
where
leadership
often
has
to
serve
as
the
outward
face
of
the
organization
and
interact
frequently
with
public
boards
and
and
electeds,
and
let
and
let's
not
kid
ourselves,
dealing
with
electeds
on
a
daily
basis
can
be
arduous.
These
are
arduous,
demanding
jobs.
The
high
salaries
of
these
jobs
reflect
the
sophisticated
skill
set
of
these
individuals
on
the
whole
public
bodies
and
local
governments,
contract
routine
salaries
and
benefits
on
the
whole
99.9
percent
of
our
public
boards
and
public
bodies
are
engaging
in
good,
transparent
processes.
C
However,
over
the
past
five
years,
I've
observed
a
trend
among
certain
public
bodies
to
create
outrageously,
generous
benefits
and
bonuses
into
these
contracts.
I've
written
ab385
to
end
such
practices
and
prevent
future
public
bodies.
From
perpetuating
these
trends,
I
believe
385
protects
public
tax
dollars
from
being
encumbered
as
golden
parachutes.
C
So
the
first
part
of
section
one
one
point
one
is
the
shell
knots
and
so
accept-
is
otherwise
provided
in
this
section,
a
public
body
and
as
we
define
public
body,
we're
making
the
reference
to
nrs
241.015.
So
this
is
meetings
of
state
and
local
agencies.
So
essentially
you
know
you're
in
this
bill.
You
know
you
are
subject
to
this
bill.
C
If
you
have
to
follow
the
open
meeting
law
shall
not
enter
into
employment
contracts
that
entitles
an
employee
or
public
officer
to
receive
fringe
benefit
unless
the
party
has,
but
the
body
has
adopted
a
policy
authorizing
all
persons
in
that
similar
position
to
receive
the
fringe
benefit.
So
the
goal
of
this
is
to
prevent
the
outliers.
C
The
goal
of
this
is
to
prevent
a
public
body
from
approving
requests
that
they
wouldn't
ordinarily
do,
and
we
have
seen
a
couple
specific
examples
where
you
can
see
people
asking
for
things
that
that,
in
those
leadership,
positions
that
other
folks
don't
have
within
the
body
of
that
organization
b
would
be
bonuses
unless
the
bonus
is
based
on
merit
and
awarded
at
a
public
meeting.
So,
ideally,
bonuses
are
always
tied
to
merit.
C
But
we
have
seen
even
as
recently
as
this
past
january
boards
award
bonuses
right
into
contracts,
bonuses,
guaranteed
amounts,
guaranteed
percentages
of
people's
salary
without
any
other
strings
attached,
and
in
this
last
example,
that
would
be
guaranteed
bonus
of
a
hundred
and
one
thousand
dollars
annually
with
no
strings
attached.
C
The
other
would
be-
and
this
is
very
important-
that
this-
the
third
shell,
not
the
c-
is
that
upon
the
termination
of
the
employment
of
the
officer
employee
for
cause
or
the
resignation
of
the
officer
when
an
investigation
relating
to
their
employment
is
pending,
they
can't
be
paid
out
anything
like
additional
segmentism
bonuses
that
they
might
have,
and
the
goal
here
is
to
say
that
if
there's
questions
about
a
person's
conduct
and
if
there's
an
investigation
going
on,
if
there's
fact-finding
going
on,
then
the
public
body
deserves
to
know
the
outcome
and
the
results
of
that
process
before
they
are
obligated
to
have
to
give
out
additional
bonuses
or
additional
pay
beyond
the
last
day.
C
That's
worked
so
good
example
would
be.
Let's
say
that
you
are
the
head
of
a
quasi-governmental
agency
right
and
that
there's
questions
about
the
culture
of
the
agency
and
they
do
a
a
survey
of
employees
to
see
how
things
are
at
the
ground
level.
And
let's
say
that
survey
survey
comes
back
with
a
lot
of
concerns
and
from
those
concerns
a
formal
sexual
sexual
harassment.
Allegation
process
has
started
well.
C
If
someone
resigns
during
the
course
of
that
investigation,
then
that
public
body
would
have
to
still
give
them
that
bonus
right,
that
hundred
thousand
dollar
plus
bonus
still
any
other
severance
that
they
negotiated
in
the
contract
at
the
beginning
of
their
employment.
So
if
they
negotiated
a
six-month
severance,
then
that
they
would
have
to
pay
all
of
that
without
knowing
the
outcome
of
that
fact-finding
or
investigation
process
for
public
bodies.
C
What
that
means
is
that
oftentimes
once
that
information
it
once
that
investigation
is
done
and
those
findings
become
public,
you
can
end
up
in
a
spot
where
you
are
less
than
proud,
perhaps
of
your
previous
decision,
because
you
didn't
have
that
information
in
your
head.
You
were
contractually
obligated
to
give
those
additional
pay
and
bonuses,
and
you
didn't
have
any
type
of
way
to
prevent
the
organization
from
having
to
pay
out
those
taxpayer
dollars.
C
Two
would
be
that
is
to
clearly
say
what
the
public
bodies
will.
So
now
we're
going
to
talk
about
what
they
ought
to
do
so
that
they
cannot
so
that
they're
not
confused
with
the
shall
not.
We
just
wanted
to
draw
a
bright
line
here
upon
the
termination
of
the
employment
of
an
officer
or
employee.
The
public
body
must
pay
to
the
person
be
paid
for
any
portion
of
accumulated
annual
leave
or
comp
time
or
sick
time.
C
So
I
want
to
make
it
really
clear
that
we're
not
talking
about
anything
that
the
employee
has
earned
for
anything
that
they've
earned
through
the
course
of
work,
anything
that
they've
banked
during
the
course
of
work.
That
is
not
counted
as
a
severance
pay
b
that
the
re
the
employee
remains
entitled
to
any
pension
or
retired
benefit
through
their
public
entire
public,
employee
retirement
system,
and
so
we're
not
touching
your
pension.
That's
not
on
the
line
here.
C
Public
body
can't
decide
that
for
these
leadership
positions
that
go
wrong,
that
they're
going
to
withhold
their
purse
unless
it's
otherwise
covered
somewhere
else
in
another
chapter
or
receiving
compensation
for
past
services
upon
their
termination.
Also
that
the
employee
can
still
bring
a
cause
of
action
for
wrongful
or
unlawful
acts
relating
to
their
termination.
C
I
want
to
make
sure
as
well
that
we
talk
about
who
this
does
not
apply
to,
so
that
we
can
clearly
define
that
we're
talking
about
these
contracts
that
tend
to
be
in
the
higher
up
leader
leadership
positions
that
they
do
not
mean
contracts
negotiated
pursuant
to
a
collective
bot
bargaining
agreement.
C
This
is
the
time
to
pass
the
bill
like
this
and
the
reason.
Why
is
because
it's
just
an
emerging
trend?
It
means
we
have
the
opportunity
to
nip
it
in
the
bud.
It
means
that
in
a
decade
from
now,
legislators
don't
have
to
bring
back
a
bill
where
a
lot
of
these
types
of
requests
in
contracts
have
become
common
practice,
and
we
don't
have
to
argue
about
whether
or
not
we're
having
a
taking
from
someone,
because
it
it's
just
become
so
prevalent
and
there's
a
precedent
for
it.
C
Some
examples
very
generally
some
examples
of
practices
that
we
are
trying
that
I
am
trying
to
get
at
and
want
to
put
these
on
the
record
for
the
clear
point
of
understanding
the
fact
that
most
of
our
public
bodies
are
doing
an
amazing
job
and
it's
really
just
a
trend
in
certain
areas
that
we
see
emerging
and
just
to
giving
these
examples
to
highlight
for
the
record
and
the
the
legislative
record
the
example
of
what
I
would
consider
as
a
sponsor
of
the
bill,
some
of
these
outliers,
that
we
are
trying
to
nip
in
the
bud.
C
So
regarding
resignations.
So
in
this,
in
this
scenario,
the
ceo
who
resigned,
received
three
months-
medical
pay
from
the
board,
as
well
as
three
months,
severance
pay.
The
ceo
resigned
well
under
internal
investigation
and
was
later
to
have
found
at
least
violated
at
least
13
policies
and
procedures,
including
those
dealing
with
harassment,
violence,
retaliation
and
discrimination
that
same
ceo
was
also
awarded
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollar
bonus
shortly
after
the
investigation
was
concluded.
C
So
if
the
board,
if
the
public
body
had
known
that
information
of
that
public
body
had
been
able
to
say,
wait
a
minute,
we
we
know
more
about,
what's
happening,
then
contractually
they
might
not.
With
this
bill
have
to
be
obligated
to
kind
of
give
someone
a
golden
parachute,
as
they
were
resigning
and
walking
out
the
door
on
bonuses.
C
This
past
january,
ceo
received
in
his
contract
a
bonus
of
35
percent
of
his
pay
or
a
hundred
and
one
thousand
dollars
annually,
with
no
goals
with
quote
no
goals
or
guidelines
in
place
on
what
would
that
this
person
would
have
to
do
to
earn
that
bonus
and
just
really
think
that,
hopefully
that's
when
we
can
all
agree
that
bonuses
should
be
based
on
something
and
should
not
be
contractually
written
in
as
an
automatic
annual
payment
on
fringe
benefit,
and
I've
had
lots
of
conversations
with
local
governments,
because
they're
worried
about
fringe
and-
and
I
tell
them-
I
think-
that
you're
okay,
most
of
these
are
ripped
from
the
headlines.
C
Most
of
these
get
picked
up
in
a
way
that
are
sensationalized,
so
most
of
them
are
doing
very
good,
but
to
put
some
good
examples
on
we'll
talk
about
car
allowances,
so
it
can
be
very
typical
for
for
all
employees,
for
a
public
body
to
have
a
policy
regarding
mileage,
reimbursement
or
the
use
of
a
motor
pool
car.
Those
are
kind
of
the
two
practices
we
see
that
are
out
there
and
in
some
of
these
leadership
positions,
what
they're
negotiating
is
an
additional
800
or
900
dollar
a
month.
C
Car
allowance
payment,
in
addition
to
the
access
to
the
motor
pool
and
a
mileage
reimbursement,
and
so
with
section
one
one
where
we
talk
about
the
organization
having
a
policy.
If
the
policy
for
everyone
is
mileage,
reimbursement
or
motor
pool,
then
the
public
body
would
could
not
walk
down
the
path
of
talking
about
additional
types
of
car
allowances.
They
would
just
have
to
stick
with
what
the
policy
of
the
organization
is
excessive
fringe.
C
C
But
if
there's
one
person
who's
asking
in
through
their
contracted
employment,
to
have
an
additional
five
thousand
dollar
benefit,
then
that
one
person
with
that
one
benefit
that
they
ask
for
on
the
front
end.
So
it's
just
to
put
some
guard
rails
on
what
public
boards
can
say?
Yes,
and
no
to
especially
everyone
has
the
best
of
hopes
of
and
intentions
when
someone
is
newly
hired.
C
When
you
know
the
the
boards
have
a
strong
belief
in
their
new
leadership,
and
we
want
to
support
that
belief.
But
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
continually
enforcing
good
stewardship
of
taxpayer
dollars,
transparency
in
the
process
and,
more
than
anything
public
faith
in
what
we
are
doing.
When
we
make
these
kinds
of
decisions
and
I'll
stand
open
to
questions.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair
orange
hall,
so
number
one
one.
I
guess
it
would
be
a
the
similar
position.
You'd
said
the
top
two
tiers.
It
seems
like
usually
when
I
see
these
contracts
and
they
are
pretty
common.
I
I
see
the
head
of
an
organization.
It
could
be
the
head
of
the
city
manager,
accounting
manager,
the
rcpa,
the
rtc's,
all
those
types
of
places,
and
so,
when
you
say
similar
position,
you
had
mentioned
two
tiers
and
I'm
I'm
not
sure.
D
C
That's
a
kind
of
you,
chair
or
shaw
to
senator
gans,
senator
ganzar,
theresa
benitez
thompson
for
the
record,
so
the
school
districts.
Let
me
know
that,
sometimes
in
certain
districts,
their
assistant
superintendents,
are
also
those
specialty
contracted
positions
where
they
do
not
fall.
They
fall
outside
of
collective
bargaining
and
they
don't
necessarily
have
a
peer
group
just
because
the
size
is
so
small.
C
So
in
those
instances
you
would
have
you
know
your
your
superintendent
and
then
your
assistant
superintendent,
in
some
counties
where
both
of
those
positions
are
are
contracted
in
bigger
organizations
like
bigger
counties.
That
second
level
of
management
does
tend
to
be
kind
of
more
of
a
of
a
group
that
has
similar
contracts
or
negotiated
contracts.
C
Even
though
they're
outside
of
collective
bargaining,
though
those
tend
to
kind
of,
would
say
they,
don't
they
don't
tend
to
be
one-offs,
as
as
you
would
think
of
them
in
the
the
one
leadership
position
where
they
are
clearly,
the
only
person
is
negotiating
that
contract.
D
C
I
appreciate
that
to
senator
grant
sir
teresa
venez-thompson,
for
the
record
did
discuss
the
the
the
theory
that
this
could
drive
public
bodies
to
expand
the
pool
so
kind
of
expand
the
bad
practices
to
insulate
the
one.
I
don't
think
that
will
happen.
I
think
it's
much
more
likely
that
what
you
will
see
happen
is
your.
C
I
don't
think
that
they
would
spread
it
out
just
because
I
believe
that
would
become
kind
of
obvious
and
glaring
right.
If
you
go
from.
If
the
public
is
angered
by
one
person
getting
a
car
allowance,
they
sure,
as
heck
would
probably
be
angered
by
five
or
six
people
getting
it.
I
think
it
will
go
the
other
way
because
most
agencies
do
have
such
policies,
so
it
makes
sense
that
they
would
just
fall
into
their
the
ordinary
course
of
their
practice
and
remove
the
outlier
versus
moving
everyone
to
the
outliers.
A
D
Couple
more
questions,
so,
if
you're,
if
upon
the
termination
of
employment
of
an
officer
for
cause
or
for
resignation,
then
you're
not
supposed
to
pay
wages
or
administrative
leave
and
the
thing
is,
investigations
can
take
a
long
time.
So
I
understand-
and
so
I'm
under
one
c
in
section
one
one,
it's
kind
of
confusing.
So
I
guess
it's
one,
one
c
one
if
it
was
a
six-month
investigation-
and
maybe
someone
didn't
do
anything
wrong
if
they're
not
paid
for
six
months.
C
Underway,
the
goal
here
once
again
is
is
really
about
making
sure
that
the
the
public
body
has
information
before
they
make
a
decision,
because
once
that
money's
out
the
door,
you're
you're
not
going
to
get
it
back
right.
So
the
idea
was:
how
do
we
create
a
pause?
And
so
if
a
an
investigation
comes
back
and
it's
unwarranted
and
it's
a
really
clean
report,
then
the
public
body
is
free
to
say.
Okay
here
is
you
know
everything
that
you're
owed?
C
We've
got
it
for
you,
but
if
it
came
back
where
the
public
body
needed
to
make
different
decisions,
then
then
they
could
so
so
I
for
this
one
in
particular,
these
were
the
considerations
that
we
had
for
where
you
would
see.
C
A
public
body
want
to
take
a
pause
on
what
could
be
negotiated
in
at
the
front
end,
so
it
would
be
while
their
con,
while
they
are
contracting
negotiating
the
contract
at
the
front
and
someone
couldn't
necessarily
say
I
am
going
to
be
paid
no
matter
what,
under
these
circumstances,
I'm
going
to
get
a
bonus,
no
matter
what
I'm
going
to
other
forms
of
payment,
because
I'm
gonna
decide
to
call
it
anything
else.
But
but
it's
that
compensation
and
then
wages
in
lieu
of
notice
or
administrative
leave
went
in
there
as
well.
D
I'm
just
I'm
just
not
quite
sure
how
that's
going
to
work,
because
it's
upon
termination
so
someone's
been
fired,
but
then
you're
withholding
wages
until
there's
an
investigation
and
I'm
not
you
know,
maybe
it
depends
on
how
many
how
much
is
has
been
accrued,
and
I
understand
I
think
what
you're
trying
to
get
to
is.
Sometimes
a
deal
is
cut
with
a
bad
actor
and
they're
out
the
door
because
they
just
want
to
move
on,
but
they
don't
initially
have
all
the
facts
and
they
haven't
concluded
the
investigation.
D
But
on
the
other,
the
flip
side
of
that,
if
somebody
was
found
not
to
have
been
a
bad
actor,
they
have
will
have
been
strung
out
potentially
for
months
without
being
paid.
So
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
to
solve
that,
and
the
last
one
is
just
other
form
of
payment
is
really
broad,
so
bonus
or
other
form
of
payment.
I'm
not
sure
what
that
would
be,
but
I
do
you
know.
I
appreciate
the
intent,
which
is
really.
D
I
think
this
is
in
the
contracting
phase,
so
the
contracts
that
already
out
there
there's
really
nothing
you
can
do
because
they've
got
those
contracts
exist.
So
this
is
I'm
trying
to
set
framework
for
new
contracts,
and
so
I
I
appreciate
the
intent,
I'm
just
not
quite
sure
how
all
of
it
would
actually
work
and
and
then
would
you
maybe
you
would
have
employees
or
folks
who
would
not
consider
going
to
a
municipality
or
to
a
a
body
because
of
some
of
the
terms,
because
we're
really
restricting
sort
of
the
terms
of
the
agreement.
C
Thank
you
so
much
to
senator
ganzer
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
so
I
do
not
believe
that
this
will
restrict
us
hiring
good
people,
because
I
you
know,
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
see
is
the
pay
for
these
positions
is
is
very
high.
These
are
very,
very
good
paying
jobs,
they
are
250,
000,
plus
jobs
right
and
they
can
still
negotiate
bonuses
as
long
as
they're
tied
to
metrics.
But
I'm
telling
you,
I
don't
think
public
bodies
honestly
want
the
type
of
person
who
would
insist
on
negotiating
these.
C
I
think
what
we
have
to
do
is
make
sure
that
public
bodies
have
the
doors
closed,
which
just
will
will
prevent
them
from
having
to
walk
down
and
have
a
conversation
about
some
of
these
things
that
that
are
like.
I
said
it's
an
emerging
trend,
so
you
don't
see
it
happening
very
often
right
now,
but
in
at
least
one
article
where
they
did
a
900
a
month.
C
C
C
The
other
thing
that
I
could
pull
and
submit
for
the
exhibit
would
be
board
minutes
from
one
of
these
boards,
where
they
hired
a
search
company,
and
you
saw
the
board
members
playing
out
having
a
conversation
when
the
search
company
was
brought
in,
they
recommended
going
out
to
do
a
search,
offering
the
bonuses
annual
bonuses
and
offering
an
automatic
six
months
severance,
and
you
saw
the
board
members
question
that
a
couple
of
them
say
is
a
good
idea
to
kind
of
offer.
All
of
that
up
front
as
we're
going
out
to
do
the
search.
C
Aren't
those
conversations
we
want
to
have
later,
and
so
the
board
had
an
interesting
dialogue
and
the
search
company
ultimately
said
well
you're
still
going
to
get
candidates,
you
won't
get
as
many
candidates,
but
you're
still
going
to
get
candidates
right.
So
you're
the
public
bodies
are
still
going
to
get
candidates,
but
I'd
rather
them
have
four
great
people
who
are
coming
to
do
the
public's
work
and
have
a
reasonable
contract
rather
than
having
20
who
are
coming
here,
because
the
lure
of
the
ad
says
automatic
annual
bonuses
and
guaranteeing
six
months
severance.
D
Sure
I
I
can
understand
that,
and
I
do
think
there's
something
in
transparency
when
you
are
paid
a
certain
amount
and
not
all
these
silos
of
funds
too.
So.
C
D
C
But
I
I
will
say
I'm
happy
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
and
to
make
sure
that
the
combination
of
I
think
what
you're
looking
at
is
in
one
c,
I
think
you're,
looking
at
the
combination
of
upon
the
termination
of
the
employee
not
for
cause,
because
typically
the
contracts
for
cause
will
disregard
that,
but
in
some
of
the
contracts,
where
you
get
the
resignation,
that's
where
you
get
those
golden
parachutes
where
someone
realizes.
Oh
I'm
in
trouble.
C
So
I'm
gonna
bail
now
and
take
all
these
the
goodies
with
me
right,
and
so,
if
I
think
I
think,
you're
saying
upon
the
termination
of
the
employee,
while
they're
under
investigation,
the
wages
in
lieu
of
notice
or
administrative
leave
and
the
wages
in
lieu
of
notice
are
is
typically
and
the
practice
has
been
a
90-day.
C
D
D
That
sometimes
accusations
are
made
and
someone
really
didn't
do
anything
it
and
it
seems
like
it's
probably
the
other
way
more
often
if
allegations
are
made,
but
sometimes
there
are
allegations
that
are
made
and
then
that
person
and
their
family
are
sort
of
hung
out
and
they're.
There's
like
no
income
because
they're
under
investigation,
maybe
they
resign
because
it's
these
are
all
very
public
positions.
D
So
just
I
have
an
instance
in
mind
that
gives
me
pause
and
but
I
understand
that
we've
had
many
where
we
have
bad
actors,
and
you
know
sometimes
what
I
don't
understand
either
is
up
front
the
vetting
of
individuals
that
many
times
there's
been
a
record
of
certain
actions,
but
they
were
not
investigated
in
advance
right.
So
then
we
don't
get
ourselves
into
those
positions.
D
C
Absolutely,
and
I
think
part
of
what
you're
saying
is
so
right,
senator
ganzar,
because
at
the
front
everyone
has
the
best
of
intentions.
Everyone
is
showing
the
their
best
selves
and
they
are
hoping
for
the
best,
and
so
they
they
contract
and
negotiate
in
that
spirit
and
then,
if
things
end
badly,
I
think
where,
where
we
see
things
happen,
is
that
the
the
public
body
is
realized
they've
committed
themselves
to
these
payouts
without
regard
for
how
things
might
end.
A
E
C
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
to
senator
buck
in
the
drafting
of
this
bill.
Initially,
we
did
contemplate
having
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education
in
there.
What
I
realized
through
the
course
of
the
research
of
the
bill,
is
it
it's
just
a
little
bit
of
a
harder
institution
to
write
this
kind
of
of
law.
For
so
I'm
not
saying
that
it's
not
deserving
of
the
consideration,
but
for
the
time
that
I
had
to
get
at
specific
things,
I
was
looking
to
get
at
it.
It
just
didn't.
C
It
didn't
fall
into
this
piece
of
legislation,
but
I'd
be
happy
to
see
you
or
someone
else
beg
the
question
but
had
good
conversations
with
them
about
some
other
policies,
especially
around
contracts.
That
kind
of
that
concept
around
the
last
day.
Work
is
the
last
day
paid,
which
is
how
the
rest
of
us
live.
Our
lives
right
and,
and-
and
so
I
I'm
not
saying-
there's
not
work
to
be
done
there.
I'm
just
saying
that
within
this
bill
this
it's
not
it's
not
addressing
that.
A
E
Okay,
I've
done
a
lot
of
work,
looking
at
superintendent's
contracts
across
the
united
states
and
seeing-
and
so
what
I
see
is
that
really
this
bill
does
nothing
that
can't
be
circumvented.
So,
instead
of
a
three
thousand
dollar
peloton
say
they
can
easily
write
in
five
thousand
dollars.
So
how?
How
is
that
gonna
impact?
I
mean,
I
know
that's
one
of
the
articles.
C
Well,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
to
senator
back
from
from
assemblywoman
teresa
benitez-thompson.
I
will
say
this
that
I've
had
enough
concern
expressed
to
me
from
local
government
that
I
think
I
think
we've
got
the
language
just
about
as
good
as
you
can
get
right,
because
we're
clearly
drawing
a
bright
line
on.
C
What's
in
and
what's
out
and
right
now,
there's
no
line,
there's
no
line,
and
so
when
you
draw
a
bright
line
between
what
you
can
and
can't
do,
then
people
have
to
you
bifurcate
your
actions
you're,
either
in
or
you're
out
you're,
either
in
compliance
with
the
lord,
not
compliance
with
the
law.
So,
although
their
processes,
where
someone
could
say,
we
think
that
this
public
body
has
negotiated
something
that's
contrary
to
this
bill,
then
they
have
an
avenue
for
that
conversation
to
happen.
But
there's
not
that
avenue
right
now.
C
Thank
you
so
much.
I
chief
senator
buck
from
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
I
believe
so.
I
believe
that
it's,
if
someone
tells
you
that
you
can't
land
a
good
person
at
350,
000,
a
job
with
our
pers
and
our
peb
benefit
system.
C
I
think
I
would
be
cautious
for
anyone
who
would
let
that
seed
grow
into
a
bigger
issue
of
concern
for
them.
You
will
get
good
people.
I
I
point
all
the
time
to
our
state
employees,
because
you
know
in
the
state
of
nevada
we've
got
kind
of
a
a
cap
on
our
salaries,
because
we
say
that
our
employee
state
employees
really
can't
make
more
than
the
governor
right
unless
you're
contracting
out
some
physician
positions
and
stuff
like
that
and
of
course,
and
she's
outside
of
that
as
well.
C
But
we
have
the
most
amazing
dedicated
employees
who
are
working
for
90
to
120
000
a
year
who
are
in
with
us
for
20
or
30
years.
Doing
amazing
work
with
huge
big
budgets.
You
can
find
great
people
to
do
good
things
without
feeling,
like
you
have
to
negotiate
away
unreasonable
bonuses,
unreasonable
severances,
it's
I
think
more
of
a
corporate
mentality.
That's
contrary
to
how
we
think
about
the
use
of
public
dollars
right,
so
I
I
would
say
that
I've.
E
C
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
assemblywoman
teresa
benis-thompson
to
senator
buck.
There
are
not
other
state
examples,
so
this
was
the
research
done
in
this
state
about
really
some
practices
that
we're
seeing
regionally
that
I
don't
think
should
take
hold
in
this
state.
I
highly
encourage
other
state
legislators
to
be
introspective
and
to
look
at
what
the
practice
is
and
if
they
see
something
that
is
upsetting,
then
you
know
bring
a
law
to
put
an
end
to
it,
but
I
think
it's
worth
the
merit
of
a
conversation.
C
A
A
We
will
now
go
to
support
if
there's
anyone
here
in
the
committee
room
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
385-
and
I
don't
see
anyone
here
in
the
committee
room,
so
broadcasting
even
go
to
the
phone
lines.
Anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly
bill
385,
we're
lauding
two
minutes
per
caller.
F
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
paige
barnes
p-a-I-g-e-b-a-r-n-e-s,
I'm
with
crowley
and
frata
public
affairs
here
today,
representing
the
nevada
association
of
school
boards.
The
nevada
association
of
school
boards
represents
all
school
board
trustees
in
the
state.
We
are
here
in
support
of
av-385.
E
We
believe
that
this
is
a
fair
and
reasonable
approach
to
contracting
and
provides
protections
to
school
boards
when
negotiating
contracts.
We
especially
support
the
provisions
that
prevent
contracts
from
being
paid
out.
In
the
event,
a
person
leaves
their
position.
While
there
is
an
ongoing
investigation,
this
protects
the
public,
the
board
and
tax
dollars.
As
majority
leader
benitez
thompson
stated,
the
bill
has
a
number
of
transparency
provisions,
including
preventing
the
payout.
E
F
A
All
right,
thank
you.
I
now
go
to
opposition.
If
there's
anyone
here
in
the
committee
room
who
wishes
to
speak
in
opposition,
please
come
forward
and
please
please
come
forward
and
we're
allotting
two
minutes
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines.
Thank
you
for
being
here.
A
G
G
Member
municipalities
are
in
a
national
competition
for
the
country's
very
best
talent.
This
proposed
legislation
puts
our
municipalities
at
an
avoidable
competitive
disadvantage.
The
legislation
is
targeting
the
rare
circumstance.
There
has
been.
No
evidence
presented
that
there
is
an
emerging
trend,
moreover,
and
more
troubling.
G
G
G
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
harper,
and
thank
you
for
all
your
presentations
you've
made
throughout
the
session.
It's
good
to
see
you
in
person.
I
appreciate
all
you've
done
on
zoom
to
educate
us
about
all
the
work
of
league
of
cities,
all
right.
Anyone
else
in
opposition
here
in
the
committee
room,
right
broadcasting.
We
can
go
to
the
phone
lines,
we're
allotting
two
minutes
per
caller.
F
F
H
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
randy
robinson
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
las
vegas,
that's
r-a-n-d-y-r-o-b-I-s-o-n
appearing
for
you
today
in
opposition
to
a
very
specific
portion
of
the
bill.
That
would
be
section
one
subsection,
a
regarding
the
fringe
benefit
portion.
H
We've
had
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
the
sponsor
a
couple
of
different
times,
a
couple
of
different
ways
about
this
issue
and,
and
our
council
feels
strongly
that
this
will
ultimately
limit
their
flexibility
as
they
are
trying
to
compete
for
the
talent
to
to
lead
our
organization
and
discussions
with
the
speaker.
Excuse
me
the
sponsor
of
the
legislation.
H
We
do
appreciate
the
change
from
the
original
proposal
to
the
languages
before
you
today.
We
think
it's
better
and
headed
in
the
right
direction.
H
Should
the
bill
proceed,
we
we
think
it
could
be
narrowed
even
further
to
zero
in
on
the
very
top
spot
in
our
organization,
as
opposed
to
other
other
tiers.
There's,
no,
there's
no
attempt
to
hide
the
one
by
spreading
it
out
to
the
others.
In
these
kinds
of
kinds
of
issues.
H
The
sponsor
herself
said
that
99.9
percent
of
of
public
bodies
do
the
right
thing
and
so
we're
trying
to
just
target
that
one-tenth
of
one
percent,
but
I
would
also
associate
mike
with
the
comments
of
mr
harper
from
the
league
in
terms
of
letting
us
reside
with
those
who've
been
duly
elected
at
the
local
level
to
to
compete
for
those
who
that
they
want
to
to
run
to
run
their
organization.
H
And
so
again,
mr
chairman,
appreciate
the
time
we're
opposed
to
that
specific
provision
of
the
bill,
the
rest
of
the
bill.
We
don't
have
an
issue
with
we're
not
opposed
to,
but
would
like
to
see
some
either
can
continue
to
work
on
section
1a
or
perhaps
to
have
that
stricken
from
the
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
F
A
F
F
C
Chair
orange,
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
thank
you
for
your
time
and
the
consideration
of
this
piece
of
legislation.
I
think
it's
the
step
in
the
right
direction.
I
think
we
got
to
do
it
now,
pull
off
the
band-aid
and
get
it
done
before
we
get
into
habits
and
practices
that
just
make
it
all
the
harder
to
do
in
the
long
run,
and
I
respect
the
cities
enormously.
I
will
say
this
that
we've
been
very
frank,
they're
great
actors.
They
tend
to
be
they.
C
They
have
no
examples
that
I
could
find
in
which
they
would
run
afoul
of
this
bill.
I
know
we
have
a
philosophical
disagreement
on
fringe
that
you
know
they
think
it
really
ought
to
be
open
to
anything
and
because
they
know
they,
they
believe
their
public
bodies
won't
make
poor
decisions,
but
you
know
I
can
say,
because
I'm
part
of
a
public
body
I
see
us,
make
all
kinds
of
interesting
decisions,
and
so
I
I
am
interested
in
saying
that
there
are
some
some
guard
rails
on
fringe.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Consideration.
A
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
your
passion
on
this
issue.
Well,
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
385
and
we're
going
to
open
here
on
assembly
bill
390.,
we're
very
lucky
to
have
assemblyman
fires
bigger
than
a
bad
assembly
here
today,
and
thank
you
for
presenting
assembly
bill
390..
I
know
today
is
a
very
sad
day
for
all
my
friends
in
the
assembly.
We
did
recognize
our
friend
assemblyman
thompson
today
on
the
senate
floor
and
adjourned
in
his
memory.
Many
of
us
miss
him
very
much.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
and
thank
you
for
those
those
those
wishes.
We
certainly
carry
out
the
spirit
of
our
colleague
and
trying
to
do
good
work
moving
forward.
I
think
that's
the
best
we
can
do
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jason
fryerson
assemblyman
for
district
8,
speaker
of
the
nevada
state
assembly,
and
today
I
present
assembly
bill
390..
I
I
believe
that
assemblyville
390
is
a
rather
straightforward
bill
that
requires
that
the
defendants
in
the
election
contest
be
notified,
that
such
a
contest
has
been
filed.
Currently,
if
someone
were
to
contest
your
election,
the
contester
has
no
obligation
to
notify
you
that
such
a
contest
has
been
filed
with
the
appropriate
authority.
I
Typically
in
civil
cases,
for
example,
the
defendant
is
given
every
reasonable
opportunity
to
be
notified
that
such
a
case
has
been
brought
against
them.
This
is
not
uncommon
practice
and
election
contests
per
data
from
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
at
least
14.
Other
states
expressly
require
that
defenders
in
an
election
contest
are
notified.
I
But
if
you
ask
the
secretary
of
state's
office,
they
assume
that
the
person
contesting
the
election
notifies
the
the
subject
and
the
the
the
contestor
is
assuming
that
the
secretary
of
state
is
notifying
the
person
and
often
is
the
case.
Some
no
one
simply
notifies
the
contestor.
So
this
is
the
or
or
the
person
being
contested.
So
this
is
an
effort
to
just
shore
that
up
to
make
sure
that,
if
you're
going
to
contest
an
election,
tell
the
person
who
who's
the
election
is
being
challenged
with.
I
Mr
chair,
with
your
permission,
I
walk
through
the
provisions
of
the
bill
section.
One
addresses
the
process
for
a
candidate
at
any
election
or
any
registered
voter
to
contest
the
election
of
a
candidate,
except
for
the
office
of
u.s.
Senator
representative
in
congress
office
of
the
governor
lieutenant
governor
assembly
member
state,
senator
justice
of
the
supreme
court
or
judge
of
court
of
appeals
under
existing
law
to
contest
an
election.
A
written
statement
of
contests
must
be
filed
with
the
district
court.
I
Ab390
simply
adds
to
section
1
subsection
5
that
a
contestant
must
notify
the
defendant
that
a
statement
of
contest
has
been
filed.
Section
2
addresses
the
process
for
a
candidate
or
registered
voter
to
contest
the
election
for
the
office
of
state
assembly
and
state
senate.
A
statement
of
the
contest
must
be
filed
with
the
secretary
of
state
under
existing
law.
Ab
390
adds
language
to
section
2,
subsection
1,
to
add
that
the
contestant
and
the
secretary
of
state
shall
notify
the
defendant
that
a
statement
of
contest
has
been
filed.
I
Section
3
addresses
the
process
for
candidate
or
registered
voter
to
contest
the
election
of
the
office
of
governor
lieutenant
governor
justice
of
the
supreme
court
or
judge
of
the
court
of
appeals.
Similarly,
under
existing
law,
a
statement
of
contest
must
be
filed
with
the
secretary
of
state
and
ab390
adds
language
that
a
contestant
and
the
secretary
of
state
shall
notify
the
defendant
that
a
statement
of
contest
has
been
filed.
In
conclusion,
ab390
is
simply
an
effort
to
give
anyone
whose
election
has
contested
the
benefit
of
being
notified.
A
D
Thank
you
chair
arnold,
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
give
notice
to
the
person
to
the
defendant.
But
how
do
you
envision,
seeing
that?
Do
you
think
there's
going
to
be
regulations
or
the
different
entities
will
determine
how
that
what
that
looks
like
it's
broad
language,.
I
Thank
you
for
the
record
jason
fryerson
again,
it
is.
It
is
broad
language
and
it
is
not
intended
to
to
create
unreasonable
or
new
burdens
other
than
notifying
the
party,
and
so
whether
it's
it
I
I
think
it
would
be
subjectively
up
to
the
court
and
the
secretary
of
state
as
to
whether
or
not
a
person
was
notified.
D
So
I
guess
so
again:
the
language
is,
is
broad
and
so
there's
no
timeline
on
it
either
like
a
certain
period
within
a
certain
period,
because
you
could
basically
contest
it
and
not
tell
them.
For
three
months
I
mean
I
I
I
mean
it
would
probably
get
resolved
by
then,
but
also
just
how
you
notify,
when
you
notify
and
then
the
consent,
contestant
notifying
versus,
say
a
court
or
a
middle
person.
So
in
the
in
section,
two
you've
got
the
secretary
of
state.
D
I
I
I
think
that
we
we
cover
the
lack
of
specificity
with
respect
to
how
you
notify
by
requiring
that
both
the
secretary
of
state
and
the
person
contesting
it
provide
that
notice
and
it's
to
the
to
the
extent
that
it
impacts
timeline,
for
example
with
the
state
legislature.
I
We
govern
ourselves
and
we
govern
that
process
and
we
can
come
up
with
those
timelines,
but
we
can
also
give
additional
time
for
someone
who
says
well.
This
occurred
two
months
ago,
but
I
just
got
notified
of
it,
and
then
I
think
that
either
the
court
or
the
secretary
of
state
or
in
the
case
of
the
the
legislature,
would
be
able
to
take
that
into
consideration
in
setting
up
a
timeline
for
responses.
A
Thank
you
and
I
do
see
we
have
chief
deputy
secretary
of
state
mark
velasco
on
the
zoom.
I
appreciate
you
being
there
chief
deputy
secretary
of
state,
I'm
maybe
following
up
on
senator
seber's
cancer
question.
If
this
bill
passes
into
law,
could
the
secretary's
office
promulgate
regulations
as
to
what
kind
of
notice
would
be
time
frames
for
notice,
whether
it
be
regular
mail
registered
mail,
certified
mail.
E
E
We
certainly
would
make
sure
that
any
regulations
that
pertain
to
this
change
bill
has
passed
would
cover
the
timeline
specifically
to
make
sure
that
the
contestant,
as
well
as
the
agency,
are
all
very
clear
in
understanding
what
that
looks
like.
E
As
the
speaker
mentioned,
it
would
back
up
really
from
the
start
of
the
legislative
session,
which
is
a
big
requirement
between
the
certification
and
the
legislative
session.
So
if
somebody
contests
the
election
in
accordance
with
the
statutes,
we
would
simply
make
sure
that
those
regulations
are
specific
enough
to
allow
an
appropriately
timed
notification.
E
I
A
D
Thank
you
chairman,
so
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
forward
because
I
think
that
is
fair
and
I
do
appreciate
the
secretary
of
state's
office
weighing
in
on
this
and,
and
I
also
think
that
you
have
to
have
access
and
that
you
don't
want
to
have
to
engage
in
attorney
because
it
does
preclude
people
from
moving
forward
as
well.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
speaker
for
joining
us
and
I
know
you've
got
a
very
tight
time
frame.
So
if
you
have
to
leave
completely
understand
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly
bill
390
here
in
the
committee
room,
please
come
forward
all
right,
not
seeing
anyone
in
the
committee
room
broadcasting.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
phone
lines
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly,
bill
390.
F
F
A
F
F
A
F
A
Thank
you
very
much
speaker
any
closing
comm.
No.
Thank
you.
We
appreciate
you
presenting
assembly
bill
390
and
I
think
notice
is
essential
for
someone
to
have
their
due
process
rights.
Thank
you
very
much.
We'll
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
390
and
minority
leader
titus
has
been
patiently
waiting.
I
think
you
got
here
before
I
did
so.
I
would
like
to
open
the
hearing
on
ajr1
and
thank
you
for
your
patience
assembling.
J
Well,
thank
you
senator.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
and
members
of
the
senate
committee
alleged
ops
today
to
hear
ajr
one
for
the
record,
I'm
assembling
woman,
dr
robin
titus,
representing
assembly
district
38,
which
encompasses
churchill
county
and
most
of
lyon
county.
I
am
introducing
assembly
joint
resolution,
one
which
proposes
to
amend
the
nevada
constitution.
J
This
resolution
is
straightforward.
It
changes
four
words
in
the
nevada
constitution.
Some
may
wonder:
why
do
we
need
to
change
the
constitution
to
address
four
words?
Well,
let
me
tell
you
what
those
four
words
are
insane
blind,
deaf
and
dumb.
These
words
are
found
in
section
1,
article
13
of
our
constitution.
This
section
requires
the
state
to
care
for
certain
populations
with
disabilities
or
who
suffer
from
mental
illness.
J
I
am
aware
that
when
the
nevada
constitution
was
written,
different
terminologies
were
used
to
describe
persons
with
disabilities
or
mental
illness.
However,
more
than
156
years
after
nevada
was
admitted
to
the
union,
it
is
time
to
give
these
words
a
critical
look.
We
should
change
them
to
contemporary
language
that
is
not
deemed
to
be
discriminatory
or
narrow.
J
The
idea
to
change
this
language
in
our
constitution
came
from
one
of
my
constituents,
mr
andrew
campbell,
who
unfortunately
was
not
able
to
join
join
me
today.
He
works
in
churchill,
county
and
middle
school
as
a
special
education
teacher
most
of
his
teachers,
his
students
have
severe
profound
disabilities.
J
Mr
campbell
also
teaches
american
sign
language
in
an
after-school
program
and
is
very
much
very
much
aware
of
the
needs
of
persons
who
are
deaf
or
hard
of
hearing.
He
describes
them
as
smart
and
dedicated
people
in
our
society
who
work
in
banks,
teachers
or
engineers.
His
own
grandfather
belonged
to
this
population
as
one
of
boeing's
first
hundred
employees
that
designed
an
aircraft.
J
I'm
grateful
to
mr
campbell,
who
brought
this
to
my
attention.
Let
me
explain
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
the
amendments
I
propose.
First,
I
want
the
new
terms
to
start
with
persons.
We
must
stop
categorizing
people
who
suffer
from
an
illness
or
disability
by
putting
an
emphasis
on
their
illness
or
their
disability,
but
by
put
up
such
as
the
blind
or
the
deaf.
Instead,
these
are
all
individuals
that
happen
to
have
an
illness
or
a
disability,
but
first
and
foremost
they
are
persons.
J
Second,
calling
persons
who
have
a
hearing,
loss
dumb
or
in
our
constitution,
is
plainly
offensive.
This
term
must
go
additionally,
many
people
in
our
society
are
not
completely
deaf
but
may
suffer
from
different
degrees
or
hearing
loss.
The
definition
and
constitution
is
too
narrow
and
therefore
I
think
it
should
be
persons
who
are
deaf
or
hard
of
hearing
and
saying
is
another
one
of
those
derogatory
terms
that
I
recommend
replacing.
We
now
we
know
the
words
matter
and
when
you
stigmatize
individuals
with
such
a
term,
it
may
lead
to
a
negative
result.
J
J
Stigmatized
people
are
also
less
likely
to
seek
the
help
that
they
need
to
treat
their
condition,
which
may
make
the
condition
worse
using
the
term
insane
in
our
constitution.
For
people
who
suffer
from
mental
illness
helps
to
perpetuate
the
stigma.
They're
sure,
therefore,
it
should
be
replaced
with
more
dignified
term.
Persons
with
a
significant
mental
illness
blind
is
not
necessarily
discriminate
term,
but
I
think
it's
too
narrow.
If
a
person
is
blind,
he
or
she
may
suffer
a
complete
or
nearly
complete
vision
loss.
J
However,
this
does
not
include
any
of
the
people
who
have
visual
impairment
that
causes
them
difficulty
with
normal
daily
activities,
which
cannot
be
fixed
by
simple
wearing
lenses
or
contact
lenses.
Persons
with
visual
impairments
may
not
be
able
to
walk
or
read
without
adaptive,
training
or
use
the
assistive
technology.
Contemporary
training,
assistive
technology
are
for
all
people
who
have
some
kind
of
visual
impairment.
Therefore,
this
language
should
be
updated
as
well,
and
I
prefer
propose
the
term
persons
who
are
blind
or
visually
impaired.
J
In
closing,
I
believe
we
must
do
a
better
job
in
making
sure
that
we
do
not
discriminate
and
stigmatize
persons
with
disabilities
or
mental
illness.
A
first
step
is
to
ensure
no
discriminatory,
stigmatizing
or
derogative.
Language
is
in
our
nevada
constitution
and
ajr1
will
provide
for
that.
At
this
point,
I
will
just
go
over
the
bill.
It's
you
know.
J
Sometimes
these
simple
bills
are
the
hard
ones
and
they're
short
ones,
but
this
truly
is
a
one
pager
well,
two
pages,
if
you
flip
it
over
it's
on
the
second
side
that
we
get
to
the
meat
of
the
issue
and
in
it
says
it's
what
I
had
quoted
earlier.
So
with
that
I'm
happy
to
close
and
open
to
any
questions.
B
Thank
you,
minority
leader
and
thank
you
for
being
here
today
and
I
think
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
when
you
said
words
matter
and
when
I
read
this
bill,
I
get
less
like,
I
couldn't
believe
it,
and
so
I
really
thank
you
for
we've
heard
so
many
bills
about
discrimination
in
this
session,
and
I
really
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
find
this
and
to
fix
it
because
words
do
matter
and
we
need
to
value
each
person
in
our
community.
J
Thank
you
for
that.
If
I
might
also
reply,
I've
had
folks
reach
out
to
me
and
say
well
we've
taken
out
that
language
and
we
have
in
many
instances
in
nrs,
there's
been
bills
in
the
past
that
fixed
some
of
this
language.
But
we
have
we
haven't
gotten
to
our
constitution,
and
that
requires
a
little
bit
of
different
process.
D
Thank
you,
chair
orange
hall,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
think
when
we
read
this,
everybody
was
appalled
thinking
I
can't
imagine
this
is
in
the
constitution.
I
just
had
a
question
about
persons
with
significant
mental
illness.
It
seems
like
we
tend
to
we're
starting
to
go
towards
behavioral
and
emotional
health
issues
versus
mental
illness.
D
J
J
I
actually
landed
on
the
language
that
was
submitted
to
us
by
the
aging
disability
service
division,
so
that
was
a
language
they
felt
was
probably
the
one
that
would
be
the
most
appropriate
to
get
through
a
couple
sessions,
which
is
what
this
would
have
to
do
without
changing
it,
and
so
that's
the
language
that
the
director
jennifer
richards
had
come
up
with,
and
we
kind
of
all
lang
landed
on
and
again
it's
a
it's
a
moving
target
right
as
we
in
society
have
changed
their
terminology
I
reached
out
for
somebody
that
would
give
me
some
more
stability
on
that.
D
Thank
you,
you
know,
I
agree
it's
somewhat
of
a
moving
target
and
then
you
did
add
the
persons
with
intellectual
or
developmental
disabilities,
which
makes
makes
sense
too.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
minority
leader
titus.
Thank
you,
senator
stevens
cancer
members,
any
additional
questions.
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
this
bill
minority
leader
and
I
really
appreciate
it.
Is
there
anyone
else
in
support
of
ajr1
here
in
the
committee
room?
Please
come
forward
and
state
your
name
and
thank
you
for
your
patience.
E
Remember
to
turn
my
mic
on
this
time
good
afternoon
and
thank
you,
chair
orange
hall
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
Liz
davenport
l-I-z-d-a-v-e-n-p-o-r-t,
the
boyd
law
intern
here
on
behalf
of
the
aclu
of
nevada,
in
very
strong
support
of
ajr1,
removing
outdated,
derogatory
and
offensive
language
from
our
state's
constitution.
Just
makes
sound
policy
legal
terms
must
be
updated
just
as
minority
leader
dr
titus,
explained
much
too
often,
these
terms
are
institutionalized
continuing
to
allow
them
to
be
used
and
persist
in
our
society
and
continuing
negative
incorrect
social
stigmas.
E
The
american
psychology
association's
committee
on
disability
issues
has
emphasized
the
need
to
avoid
offensive
expressions
and
recommends
policy
that
places
people
not
their
disability.
First,
just
as
minority
woman,
dr
titus
explained.
U.S
congress
has
also
recognized
this
10
years
ago
and
in
2010
and
2012
removed
similar
derogatory
terms
such
as
lunatic
from
the
u.s
constitution.
A
F
F
F
E
Thank
you
chairman
crenshaw
orenshaw
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
ace,
patrick
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
nevada,
statewide,
independent
living
council
and
a
person
with
multiple
disabilities
living
in
sparks
nevada.
As
you
may
already
be
aware,
I
have
recently
provided
my
personal
story
to
assist
in
changing
disability
language
that
is
outdated.
E
It
is
important
to
remember
that
person.
First
language
needs
to
replace
some
offensive
terminology
that
has
no
business
in
the
nevada
constitution.
Words
do
matter.
My
life
changed
dramatically
when
people
started.
Seeing
me
as
a
person
first,
who
happens
to
have
disabilities
and
has
made
an
enormous
impact
on
the
quality
of
my
life.
E
F
E
Good
afternoon,
chairman
orrin
shaw
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o,
representing
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
as
lawyers.
We
understand
all
too
well
that
words
have
power,
and
language
is
important,
and
the
language
that
assemblywoman
titus
is
seeking
to
change
in
this
bill
is
both
stigmatizing
and
detrimental
to
people
in
our
state.
We
thank
her
for
bringing
it
forward
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
seeking
to
remove
this
language
from
the
guiding
document
of
our
state,
and
we
strongly
urge
support
of
this
bill.
Thank.
E
F
F
E
A
I
apologize
ms
martinez,
but
I
think
we
had
a
very
bad
connection
there
if
you,
if
you
can
hear
me
and
are
able
to
call
back
in
we'd,
certainly
like
you
to
be
able
to
make
your
comments
in
support
of
the
measure.
But
we
we
had
difficulty
hearing
you
so
broadcasting.
If
you
see
that
number
come
back
or
if
it's
possible
to
call
ms
martinez
back,
I
just
hate
for
her
not
to
be
able
to
make
her
public
or
her
commented
support.
F
She
has
recently
come
back
if
you
could.
Please
begin
your
testimony.
E
Thank
you.
I
apologize.
Thank
you
so
much
so
dora
martinez
for
the
record.
I
want
to
ditto
the
prior
callers.
We
are
people
with
disabilities
and
it's
true
what
miss
a
patrick
said,
but
when
you
will
view
you
as
a
person
first
and
then
they
are
aware
of
your
abilities,
it
really
does
make
a
difference.
Thank
you
very
much
have
a
great
afternoon.
May
the
force
be
with.
E
A
And
broadcasting,
I
believe
mr
beardsley
is
on
zoom
and
wishes
to
to
make
comment
in
favor
of
the
measure.
K
Yes,
that's
correct
hello,
chair
and
committee:
my
name
is
jeff
beardsley,
j
e,
f,
f,
b
e,
a
r
d
s,
l
e
y.
For
the
record.
I
want
to
support
what
the
others
have
said
prior
to
me.
K
A
A
E
A
J
J
That
needs
to
be
cleaned
up
if
you
just
throw
in
the
definition
insane
or
the
word
insane
in
our
constitution
or
nrs
you'll
have
67
hits
and
that
so
hopefully
we
can
clear
up
some
of
that,
but
but
I
think
we
have
to
start
at
the
core
and
the
foundation
of
of
everything
else.
We
do
in
the
state
and
that's
our
constitution.
So
hopefully
we'll
get
this
back
next
session
and
we'll
get
this
pass
forward
here
and
move
forward,
and
thank
you
all
for
your
your
time
and
good
observations.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
measure
and
thank
you
to
your
your
educator
in
your
district
who
brought
this
up
to
you
because,
honestly,
I
did
not
it's
been
a
while,
since
I
I'd
looked
at
that
section
and
I
was
not
not
wasn't.
J
A
J
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
minority
leader,
we'll
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
joint
resolution,
one
and
assemblywoman
brown
may
thank
you
for
your
patience,
we'll
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
A
L
L
So
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me,
I
am
personally
thrilled
to
be
here
and
to
bring
this
measure
forward
to
you.
Having
spent
the
last
20
years
of
my
career
before
becoming
a
legislator
as
a
disability,
support
advocate
this
measure
in
particular,
should
again
be
very
simple
and
I'm
thrilled
to
have
the
opportunity
to
follow
the
minority
leader,
as
the
issue
is
pretty
much
exactly
the
same
as
we
begin.
L
with
me
is
mr
beardsley,
who
you
will
see,
is
a
member
of
the
nevada,
deaf
commission,
and
he
will
present
a
little
bit
later
as
soon
as
I
finish,
a
bill
comments.
A
letter
of
support
is
also
uploaded
to
nellis
that
you
will
find
from
the
nevada
governor's
council
on
developmental
disabilities
with
regard
to
this
language,
as
well
as
the
national
alliance
on
mental
illness
or
nevada
nami.
L
L
L
L
L
L
These
terms
focus
on
what
people
cannot
do
by
establishing
a
social
norm
and
addresses
impairment.
I
would
also
counter
that
people
do
not
suffer
with
a
disability.
Many
people
are
born
to
be
differently
abled,
but
do
not
suffer
with
that.
Is
that
diagnosis
I'd
like
to
run
through
the
sections
of
the
bill?
L
We
did
not
address
the
term
insane
intentionally
because
it
can
be
used
in
civil
or
in
criminal
litigation
as
a
diagnostic
until
and
unless
we
can
get
our
arms
around.
What
is
that
entire
scope
in
the
nevada,
revised
statutes?
We
simply
went
with
this
subsection
4
requires
that
respectful
language
and
sentence
structure
be
used
for
all
of
our
nrs
references
relating
to
people
who
are
deaf
or
hard
of
hearing,
and
additionally,
it
specifies
the
terms
that
are
not
preferred
should
be
avoided.
L
We
have
done
this
at
other
previous
times
in
our
history,
by
removing
the
r
word
from
many
of
our
statutes
in
similar
manner.
Section
2
of
assembly
bill
421
specifies
that
our
state
regulations
codified
in
the
nevada
administrative
code
must
also
use
respectful
language
and
sentence
structure
when
referring
to
people
with
mental
illness
or
people
who
are
deaf
or
hard
of
hearing.
L
A
K
We
have
lived
with
years
of
stigma
throughout
history.
I've
experienced
depression
by
society
based
on
how
they
view
deaf
people
as
being
mentally
limited
and
limited
in
our
ability
to
function,
but
the
way
that
they
use
language
really
reflects
on
their
understanding
of
what
disability
means.
We
in
the
disability
community
know
that
they
have
some
disabilities.
K
K
Hearing
impaired
is
an
offensive
term
for
our
community.
That's
been
used
for
for
years
and
when
I
challenge
people
with
that
by
saying
you
must
be
deaf
impaired
and
I
make
the
point
even
though
they
try
to
say
what
I
cannot
do.
I
challenge
them
by
saying
that
they
cannot
sign,
so
we
have
to
educate
each
other
so
that
we
can
move
forward
and
have
smooth
communication
and
work
through
this.
K
Now
these
days,
we
have
the
technology
available
to
improve
communication
access
so
that
the
deaf
community
and
the
hearing
community
can
have
equal
access,
and
I
have
seen
some
improvement
in
that
arena.
However,
the
terminology
must
be
changed
so
that
the
language
will
always
be
respectful
to
the
community
of
people
with
disabilities.
K
A
D
B
I
think
that
I
also
want
to
say
the
same
thing
I
said
to
the
minority
leader.
Words
do
matter,
and
this
is
important
and
thank
you
for
bringing
it.
A
Forward
you,
yes,
I
agree
with
everything
that
was
said.
Thank
you
for
bringing
forth
this
legislation
and
I
guess
my
question.
I
think
just
one
question
I
noticed
here
on
page
two:
it
says
words
and
terms
under
3a
words
and
terms
that
are
preferred
for
use
in
nevada
by
statutes
include
without
limitation
persons
with
mental
illness,
and
I
noticed
on
the
prior
the
proposed
amendment
of
the
constitution.
They
had
the
language
persons
with
significant
mental
illness,
and
I
don't
know
if
that.
L
Thank
you,
chair,
tracy
brown
may
for
the
record
these
this
bill
provision
was
really
about
the
two
sections
that
govern
folks
with
disabilities,
currently
in
our
nrs,
so
nrs435
and
then
there's
another
chapter
that
that
governs
residential
support
providers.
We
really
looked
closely
at
the
language
that
was
existing
in
those
areas
but
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
encompassing
through
all
of
our
nrs,
so
that,
as
we
made
those
revisions,
we
would
go
back.
L
So
that's
why
those
two
paragraphs
are
amended
to
be
that
language
as
a
preferred
whether
or
not
there
would
be
a
severity
attached
to
the
mental
illness.
I
am
with.
You
would
look
forward
to
walking
that,
through
with
regard
to
that
constitutional
amendment,
because
I
think
that's
very
different.
The
other
piece,
that's
in
the
constitutional
amendment
that
you
won't
find
here,
is
the
word
institution
which
I
think
was
originally
what
was
written
into
the
constitutional
amendment.
L
I
can
tell
you
that
the
community
of
people
who
have
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities
would
prefer
never
to
be
associated
with
an
institution
of
any
kind,
and
so
I
think
that's
just
one
of
the
pieces.
I
I
also
look
forward
to
seeing
where
that
ajr1
goes.
Those
are
very
good
and
positive
changes,
but
not
substantive
to
the
these
chapters.
A
Thank
you
very
much
assemblywoman,
and
I
do
want
to
know
that
there
are
letters
of
support
that
should
have
been
uploaded
on
nellis
from
the
national
alliance
on
mental
illness,
robin
reedy
and
from
carrie
horn,
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
governor's
council
on
developmental
disabilities
and
so
members
you
can
find
those
letters
on
nellis
and
also
from
I
believe,
the
you
know.
Those
are
the
two
for
for
that
measure.
Any
additional
questions,
no
senator
sievers
cancer.
D
Thank
you,
chair,
ornshaw,
so
kind
of
following
up
on
what
you
just
said.
When,
when
you
do
look
at
the
constitutional
language,
it
does
say
institutions
and
it's
talking
about
for
the
benefit
of
persons
with
the
severe
or,
I
think
it
says,
significant
mental
illness,
and
I
think
that
it's
probably
differentiated
because
it's
related
to
institutions
and
that
word
the
state-
is
doing
something
on
their
behalf.
D
But
that
said,
I'm
wondering
since
we
have
you
here
and
you've
been
a
disability
advocate
instead
of
institutions
are,
do
we
have
entities
or
or
what
what
type
of
language
are
the
bill?
Sponsor's
gone,
but
I'm
just
kind
of
I
wanted
to
dive
a
little
deeper
on
a
substitute
for
the
word
institutions
that
may
be
acceptable
to
persons
with
different
disabilities.
L
Thank
you,
senator
tracy
brown
may
for
the
record.
So
following
up
on
that
piece,
and
I
appreciate
that
line
of
questioning
the
word
institution
was
not
in
the
original
ajr
that
we
looked
at
in
the
assembly.
It
came
by
amendment
later
and
then
went
to
vote,
so
it
is,
however,
in
the
original
constitutional
language
right,
so
the
pieces
that
they're
working
to
change
are
just
the
way
that
we're
referring
to
people
who
have
a
diagnosis
and
not
to
eliminate
the
word
institution.
L
Now
that
said,
people
with
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities,
I
do
not
believe,
were
included
in
the
original
language
that
the
minority
leader
presented.
They
were
added
in
later.
That
was
where
that
word
institution
sort
of
popped
up
as
ma.
While
maybe
we
wanted
to
pay
attention
to
that
currently,
I
would
say
that
the
state
is
working
and
has
worked
for
a
number
of
years
to
eliminate
institutions
in
that
way.
L
D
Thank
you
for
that
response.
In
my
mind,
I
was
thinking
about
the
word
entity
because
I
agree
with
you:
it's
not
necessarily
tangible
bricks
and
mortar.
It's
it's
organizations,
it's
people,
it's
infrastructure,
so
thank
you,
and
maybe
we
can
talk
to
the
minority
leader.
It.
D
A
B
B
No,
I
was
just
going
to
add
on
to
that,
so
I
had
just
mentioned
to
chair
orange
all
a
few
minutes
ago
that
words
matter
on
when
you
go
to
a
constitutional
amendment,
and
you
know
how
it
is
people
pick
apart
every
little
piece.
So
we
have
to
be
really
careful
that
we
are
looking
out
to
the
organizations
and
to
the
communities
and
making
sure
that
we
have
the
right
words
when
it
goes
for
a
constitutional
amendment
so
that
it
can
has
the
best
chance
of
passing.
D
Yeah,
thank
you,
charles.
You
know
just
again,
I
think,
because
the
world
has
changed
so
much
that
we
need
to
find
a
word
if
we
are,
if
we
do
offer
an
amendment
to
this,
that
encompasses
organizations
not
just
bricks
and
mortars,
and
I'm
kind
of
thinking
facilities
still
lead
you
to
institutions,
so
we
can
think
about
it.
Some
more.
We
have
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
I
appreciate.
A
There's
a
lot
of
I
know
that
now
there
are
a
lot
of
oh
gosh.
Not
not,
then
I'm
forgetting
the
term
of
art
outpatient,
but
where
someone
gets
goes
kind
of
eight
to
five
to
the.
What
would
be
an
inpatient
facility
has
all
the
treatment,
but
goes
home
and
sleeps
at
night
with.
A
Intensive
outpatient
therapy
or
something
I
believe,
mr
beardsley,
if
we
broadcasting
mr
beardsley,
can
we
go
to
mr
beardsley.
F
K
K
K
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
beardsley.
Thank
you
for
your
comments.
Okay,
any
additional
questions,
not
seeing
any
thank
you
for
presenting
the
bill.
Assemblywoman
we'll
now
go
to
support
for
assembly
bill
421.
Anyone
don't
see
anyone
here
in
the
committee
room,
so
we'll
go
to
broadcasting
and
go
to
zoom
and
the
phone
lines.
If
there's
anyone
who
wishes
to
speak
in
support
of
assembly
bill
421,
we're
allotting
two
minutes
per
speaker.
F
F
A
F
A
F
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
closing
comments,
assemblyman
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much
for
presenting
the
bill
and
comments
and
receivers
cancer.
D
Thank
you,
sharon,
shell.
I
I
was
able
to
reach
out
to
the
minority
leader
and
she
is
open
to
that
change.
He
thinks
that's
a
good
idea
and
wants
to
make
sure
we
get
the
language
right
and
I
kind
of
suggested
entities.
So
just
as
we
move
forward.
Thank
you.
A
Great
thank
you
appreciate
that
thank
you
for
everybody.
Everybody's
input
on
that.
Well,
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
assemblyville
421.
Thank
you
assemblywoman
for
presenting,
and
our
last
item
is
public
comment.
I
don't
see
anyone
in
the
committee
room,
so
broadcasting
you
can
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
see
if
there's
anyone
who
wishes
to
make
public
comment,
we're
loading
two
minutes
per
car.