►
From YouTube: 08/25/2020 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the fourth meeting in calendar year 2020. Please see agenda for details.
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
D
C
E
E
E
E
C
A
Secretary,
it
does
look
like
I
can
see
here
that
senator
settlemeyer
is
with
us,
but
it
looks
like
he
is
on
mute,
so
we
will.
We
will
mark
him
present
and
hopefully
we
can
get
him
unmuted
here
once
we
get
to
our
main
business
for
this
agenda.
So
again
we
are
going
to
proceed
with
our
agenda.
The
second
item
on
our
agenda
is
public
comment.
A
Before
we
get
there,
though,
I
have
a
couple
of
housekeeping
matters
that
I
wanted
to
just
take
note
of,
of
course,
anyone
who
testifies
today
be
it
in
public
comment
or
during
our
review
of
the
regulations
or
other
items
on
our
agenda.
Please
make
sure
that
you
state
and
spell
your
name
so
that
we
have
a
proper
record
of
that
and
a
proper
record
of
you
testifying
if
anyone
would
like
to
receive
a
copy
of
any
of
the
commission's
agendas
minutes
reports.
A
A
A
With
that
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
to
item
two
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment,
we
will
be
taking
two
periods
of
public
comment,
this
one
we'll
take
at
the
beginning,
and
then
there
also
will
be
a
portion
of
the
meeting
that
will
be
dedicated
to
public
comment.
At
the
end.
This
would
be
the
appropriate
time
if
you
have
general
public
comments,
you
would
like
to
share
with
the
commission
for
any
of
our
business
or
that
are
related
to
any
of
the
regulations
or
other
items
that
are
on
our
agenda.
For
today.
A
It
will
be
the
appropriate
time
to
share
those
thoughts
with
members
of
the
commission
if
you
have
called
in
according
to
the
instructions
on
our
agenda-
and
you
would
like
to
speak
during
this
part
of
the
meeting,
you
will
be
notified
by
our
broadcast
production
services
when
you
have
been
connected,
and
it
is
your
turn
to
speak.
Please
remember
that
we
will
keep
comments
limited
to
not
more
than
two
minutes
per
person,
and
you
are,
of
course
welcome
to
submit
any
additional
comments
in
writing
and
they
will
be
added
to
the
record
for
this
meeting.
A
If
you
prefer
to
wait
and
speak
until
we
get
to
that
second
portion
of
public
comment,
you
can
of
course,
wait
for
that
period
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
and
at
this
point
in
time
I
am
going
to
turn
it
over
to
our
bps
folks
to
cue
up
those
who
are
calling
in
to
speak,
and
they
will
inform
you
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak,
so
we'll
turn
it
over
to
them
to
lead
us
through
our
public
comment.
B
A
Seeing
that
we
have
no
callers
at
this
point,
we'll
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
again
for
anyone
who
is
joining
us
online,
should
you
wish
to
give
public
comment
we'll
again
take
that
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
as
well?
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
for
the
meeting
held
on
june
5th
of
2020..
A
A
And
I'm
not
seeing
any,
but
I
do
have
a
motion
from
assemblyman
wheeler
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
june
5th
2020
meeting
and
do
I
have
a
second
for
member
of
the
commission.
Senator
ratty
has
second
in
that
motion
any
discussion
on
the
motion
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
A
We
will
then
move
on
to
item
number
four
on
our
agenda,
which
is
a
legislative
commission
policy.
A
This
request
relates
to
regulation
r182-18,
and
it
again
applies
because
it
was
not
adopted
within
two
years,
as
required
by
statute.
Members
will
of
course
recall
that
subsection
four
of
nrs
233b.040
provides
that
each
proposed
regulation
must
be
adopted
within
two
years
after
submission
to
the
legislative
council,
and
if
the
regulation
is
not
adopted
by
the
agency
within
that
time,
the
executive
head
of
the
agency
must
seek
an
extension
from
the
legislative
commission
to
continue
or
begin
the
process
for
adopting
the
regulation
anew.
A
I
do
believe
that
we
should
be
joined
by
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health
lisa
sherick,
who
is
with
us
on
this
zoom
this
afternoon.
Who
will
make
the
request
and,
of
course,
commission
members.
We
are
joined
by
brian
firmly,
our
legislative
council
as
well,
who
can
answer
any
legal
questions
that
may
arise,
and
so
we
have
I'll
turn
it
over
to
administrator
sheriff.
H
All
right
good
afternoon,
lisa
sharik
administrator
for
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
I'm
here
today
to
recut
request
to
continue
regulation
r182-18
that
was
not
adopted
within
the
two-year
requirement.
Rather,
it
was
completed
two
months
late.
During
the
two-year
period,
dbph
worked
with
the
child
care
industry
to
find
the
balance
between
the
best
protection
for
children,
while
accommodating
small
businesses.
H
H
A
Requested
members
of
the
commission
who
have
questions
for
either
the
sheriff
or
mr
furman.
F
A
I
believe
you
should
have
a
copy,
and
I
erdos
to
correct
me
if
I
am
wrong,
but
I
think
the
copy
of
that
regulation
should
be
in
your
meeting
packet
as
well.
I
Yes,
this
is
brenda,
it
is
in
the
packet
if,
because
we
are
prepared
for,
if
you
approve
this
at
this
item,
then
it
will
be
approved
up
for
approval
today.
So
it's
in
your
packet
under
that
number.
I
F
I
I
F
F
If
I
could
ask
another
question,
then
I'm
looking
under
the
182
18a,
so
is
it
18a,
18s
or
18b.
A
A
I'm
not
hearing
anybody,
a
post
motion
will
carry
and
regulation
r182-18
will
be
continued
pursuant
to
the
division's
request.
That
brings
us
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda.
A
Next
item
on
our
agenda
is
a
review
of
regulations
submitted
to
us.
I
do
have
several
requests
from
members,
or
at
least
one
member
of
the
commission.
These
are
regulations,
of
course,
which
have
been
adopted
since
our
last
meeting.
The
members
should
have
a
binder
or
an
electronic
copy
of
all
the
regulations,
including
the
required
informational
materials.
A
This
material
is
also
available
for
those
of
you
who
are
joining
us
online
as
a
link
from
the
agenda
and
on
the
legislative
commission
page
of
the
legislature's
website.
We
do
have
representatives
from
all
of
the
agencies
that
have
regulations
on
this
list.
They
are
joining
us
on
this
zoom
this
afternoon.
In
case
anyone
has
questions
about
any
of
those
regulations.
We
are,
of
course,
also
joined
by
our
legislative
council,
brian
firmly,
who
is
available
to
answer
any
legal
questions
on
the
regulations,
as
is
our
normal
procedure
and
method
for
addressing
the
regulations.
A
A
F
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
have
a
motion
to
prove
this.
Senator
ratty
has
made
the
motion
to
approve
the
regulations
that
I
just
read
off
and
is
there
a
second
on
the
motion
from
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson?
Any
discussion
on
the
motion
seeing
none
what
I
would
like
to
do
just
so
that
we
have
a
clear
record
of
oh.
This
is
due
a
roll
call
vote
for
everyone,
because
I
think
that
will
make
it
a
little
easier
on
all
on
recording
all
of
the
votes
for
that.
A
E
E
E
E
E
F
A
Unanimous
the
motion
passes.
Thank
you
very
much,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
we
will
take
the
regulations
that
have
been
requested
for
some
additional
conversations
and
questions
in
the
order
that
they
are
on
our
agenda.
So
we
will
begin
with
regulation
r135,
which
was
requested
for
discussion
by
assemblyman
daily
and
senator
hardy
from
the
state
board
of
health,
and
so
we
will
invite
I'll
we'll
start
with
the
seminar
daily.
If
you
want
to
go
ahead
with
your
question
and
then
we
can
go
from
there.
D
D
Most
of
the
things
that
are
in
there.
You
can
measure
you
can
see
if
there's
serious
harm
or
the
potential
for
serious
harm
injuries.
Those
types
of
things
I
was
curious
on:
what's
the
standard
for
syria's
mental
harm
and
then
so,
is
there
a
rule
book
or
a
guide
or
something
that
tells
you
what
serious
mental
harm
is
because
that's
a
person
by
person
type
thing?
If
you
ask
me,
but
and
then
are
the
inspectors
trained
to
identify
mental
harm,
if
you
can
shed
a
little
light
on
that,
that's
my
first
question.
E
Good
morning
for
the
record,
this
is
marlboro
chapel,
deputy
administrator
for
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
I'm
going
to
defer
to
staff.
That's
in
the
southern
office
in
las
vegas,
namely
paul
schubert
is
right
there
to
answer
that
question.
Thank
you.
J
Hello
for
the
record,
my
name
is
paul,
schubert,
paul
s-h-u-b-e-r-t,
and
you
know
the
the
question
is,
is
interesting
in
terms
of
you
know,
it's
a
subjective
term
when
we
look
at
serious
mental
harm,
because
it's
not
something
that
we
can
objectively
look
at
and
measure
so
really
and
again
we're
dealing
with
children
here,
which
makes
it
even
a
little
tougher,
because
maybe
they
can't
tell
you
exactly,
you
know
how
they're
feeling
about
a
situation,
but
how
we
would
describe
the
situation
within
a
citation
that
we
would
make
for
a
facility.
J
Would
let
us
know
whether
or
not
we
should
look
at
it
at
that
level
of
of
concern
or
that
level
of
a
deficiency
that
the
facility
has
allowed
to
occur.
So
I
I
know
I
don't
have
a
direct
answer
that
I
can
tell
you.
Well
here's
the
measurement
and
here's
the
tool
we
use.
Rather,
it's
going
to
be
a
case-by-case
basis
and
looking
at
the
circumstances
of
an
individual
case
that
has
occurred.
That
has
created
a
situation
where
we
may
be
considering
serious
mental
harm.
D
You
know
if
I
can,
madam
chair
and
and
I
suspected
as
I
stated,
that
it
would
probably
be
something
along
those
lines,
so
we're
going
to
be,
I
mean
there
are
some
histories
or
studies
where
people
would
normally
be
subject
to
some
type
of
mental
arm
for
certain
things
whatever
or
you
would
suspect
it.
So
it's
a
reasonable
person
standard
almost
if
you
will,
if
that's
fair,
to
say
and
and
I'm
I'm
good
with
that,
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
little
clarification.
D
So
my
second
question,
if
I
can
madam
chair,
is
regarding
the
the
monetary
penalties
and
the
interest.
So
I
know
there
is
in
the
regulation.
You
have
an
initial
monetary
penalty
which,
which
is
subject
to
a
hearing,
and
then
you
have
an
additional
daily
monetary
penalty.
D
My
understanding
is
also
subject
to
interest,
if
that's
sort
of
just
trying
to
get
some
information
on
how
the
interest
works.
So
if
you
have
a
citation
and
there's
the
monetary
penalty,
of
course
they
can
have
a
hearing,
but
the
way
I
read
read
the
regulation
is
that
the
interest
on
that
pending
a
hearing
starts
to
accumulate
as
soon
as
you.
I
believe
provide
a
notice,
or
does
it
start
immediately,
so
it's
almost
like
they
gotta
pay
up
front
and
then
have
a
hearing.
D
Afterward
prove
their
innocence
or
guilt
or
you
know
whatever,
but
they
don't.
They
have
to
pay
up
front
kind
of
like
you
get
a
traffic
citation,
you
gotta
pay
the
bail
and
you
can
go
to
court,
but
you're
still
going
to
pay
the
bail
before
you
before
you
start.
So
can
you
shed
a
little
light
on
how
that
interest
works
because
they
and
then
there's
there
is
an
appeal
to
the
daily
monetary
penalty?
D
D
And
I
understand
that,
but
the
interest
in
how
it
accrues
is,
is
unclear
or
I'm
not
sure
it's
fair.
J
I
understood,
and
if
I
may,
it's
paul
schubert
again
for
the
record
and
yes,
it's.
If
we
charge
a
interest
on
a
penalty,
then
it
starts
actually
as
of
the
day
that
the
penalty
was
due.
So
if
a
facility
appeals
a
monetary
fine,
then
that
fine
has
stayed
until
such
time
as
we
actually
have
the
hearing
on
appeal
and
once
a
decision
is
made
by
a
hearing
officer
that,
yes,
the
fine
was
valid,
then
interest
would
would
begin
accruing
only
again
if
we're
charging
any
interest
at
that
point.
J
If
the
facility
pays
the
fine,
then
there's
no
interest
accrued
and
I
believe
it's
10
per
annum.
So
again
it
doesn't
start
from
the
day
the
penalty
is
assigned
or
the
notice
is
delivered
to
the
facility
that
we're
starting
or
we're
assigning
a
monetary
penalty,
but
rather
after
the
appeal
process
has
has
occurred.
If
the
facility
is
appealing,
then
once
the
the
fine
is
validated,
then
the
interest
would
begin
accruing
again
if
the
facility
doesn't
actually
pay
the
fine.
At
that
point,.
E
E
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
when
I
read
it,
I
wasn't
sure
that
that's
how
it
would
be
done.
So
if
they
I'm
satisfied
with
that
answer,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
people
have
their
their
day
and
due
process
and
various
things
before
they
were
given
a
penalty
and
then
had
to
pay
interest
if
they
didn't
pay.
Because
when
I
got
to
section
29,
I
think
subsection
three.
It
says
that
if
they
don't
pay
within
10
days,
then
you
must
automatically
suspend.
D
But
that's
after
they've
had
their
hearing
and
it's
been
determined
that
that
they
owe
the
money
and
then
that's
when
the
interest
would
start
so
as
long
as
they
get
their
time
before
they
gotta
before
they
got
to
pay
and
the
interest
doesn't
accrue
pending
their
appeal
and
I'm
okay.
E
D
E
E
A
F
Okay,
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
a
problem
with
with
section
or
was
section
39,
subsection
6,
where
a
caregiver
shall
not
a
consumer,
be
under
the
influence
of
alcohol
or
psychoactive
drugs
while
carrying
four
children
in
the
facility.
F
So
I
looked
up
the
definition
of
psychoactive
drug,
which
includes
a
chemical
substance
that
changes
brain
function,
results
in
alteration
in
perception,
mood,
consciousness,
cognition
or
behavior.
These
substances
may
be
used
medically
recreationally
to
purposely
improve
performance
or
alter
one's
consciousness,
in
other
words,
everything
that
we
that
the
psychiatrist
uses,
for
instance,
for
adult,
add
for
depression.
F
So
what
do
we
do
with
the
person
who
takes
ritalin
with
a
medical
prescription
with
prozac
for
their
depression
or
for
their
medical
marijuana
for
their
anxiety
or
whatever
they
use
it?
For
so,
a
psychoactive
drug
could
be
used
very
appropriately
by
somebody,
and
we
are
thus
outlining
people
who
need
their
medicine
in
order
to
function
as
they
have
been
functioning
very
well.
F
So
I
think
overall,
I
look
at
this
a
particular
good
intention.
I'll
call
it
for
this
regulation,
but
I
think
it
has
serious
consequences,
leads
to
subjective
interpretation
by
the
reviewers
by
the
parents
by
the
lawyers,
and
so
I
I
think
it's
is
well
intentioned,
but
I
think
it's
got
major
flaws.
A
Any
additional
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
Seeing
none
the
pleasure
of
the
commission
motion
to
approve
by
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
Is
there
a
second
second
second
from
assemblywoman
carlton?
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Seeing
none,
oh
I'm,
sorry,
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
I
apologize.
H
Thank
you
so
much
so
I'll.
Just
say
that
we
tend
to
have
lots
of
these
finer
conversations
about
child
care
regulation
in
legislative
commission
and
when
I
look
at
the
regulations,
what
I
always
look
for
is
the
ability
for
folks
to
come
forward
to
be
able
to
talk
about
the
grievances
that
are
presented
to
them,
and
I
see
a
structure
here
allows
for
facilities
to
have
just
course
back
and
forth.
It's
not
too
much
of
a
heavy
hammer
too
quick.
H
It
allows
for
corrective
action
plans
and,
ultimately,
that's
what
I
think
that
that
we
want
and
then
it
allows.
You
know
to
senator
hardy's
comment.
If,
if
someone
appears
to
be
under
the
influence
of
something,
then
there's
the
opportunity
for
someone
to
say
you
know
with
to
have
a
contextual
conversation
about
whether
or
not
that
is
warranted
or
accurate
or
whether
it's
not
and
which
parents
might
be
very
much
concerned
about.
So
I'm
very
supportive
of
this
right.
F
I
I
appreciate
the
good
intentions
of
the
bill
and
I
appreciate
the
good
intentions
of
people
who
are
caring,
for
I
have
major
misgivings
about.
You
know
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
hired
are
going
to
have
a
chilling
effect
on
in
as
much
as
we
have
up
to
eight
to
ten
percent
of
people
at
a
given
time
are
on,
have
depression
and
I'm
going
to
take
those
out
of
the
employment
pool.
I
I
think
it
goes
too
far
and
I
think
it's
not
muted.
E
We
would
like
points
this
one,
the
the.
A
Any
additional
discussion
by
members
of
the
commission
okay
see
seeing
none.
Then
we
will
go
ahead
and,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
we'll
do
a
roll
call
vote
just
so,
we
can
be
clear
where
everyone
is.
K
E
E
E
G
F
A
Thank
you
motion
passes
regulation
is
adopted.
We
will
thank
you
very
much
for
those
of
you
from
the
to
the
state
board
of
health
for
joining
us.
We
appreciate
it.
We
will
move
then
to
the
next
item
that
has
been
requested
for
some
additional
discussion.
It
is
regulation
r045-19
from
the
board
of
applied
behavior
analysis
and
we
have
senator
hardy,
who
had
some
questions
so
we'll
turn
it
over
to
you
senator
hardy,
to
go
ahead
and
ask
those
questions
and
go
from
there.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
on
the
behavioral
or
the
applied
behavioral
analysis
type
folks,
page
5,
section
3,
subsection,
4
sub-subsection
a
it
talks
about
bringing
somebody
in
to
be
able
to
evaluate
their
moral
character.
F
I
understand
that
we
all
have
an
understanding
of
what
moral
character
is
or
isn't,
and
the
good
thing
about
that
is.
We
probably
disagree
about
what
goal
posts
or
what
fences
are
around
that.
So
I
I
think
it's
problematic
when
we
start
looking
at
quote
moral
character.
Does
that
mean
that
the
person
isn't
married
but
living
with
somebody?
Does
that
mean
that
somebody
did
a
speeding
ticket?
F
Does
that
mean
somebody
voted
for
the
wrong
person,
because
we
hear
that
in
the
legislature
all
the
time
that
we
have
a
moral
right
for
this
or
moral
right
for
that?
So
how
is
a
board
supposed
to
what
are
the
parameters
for
quote,
bringing
somebody
in
and
interviewing
them
for
quote
moral
character?
How?
How
do
we
determine
that?
I'm
sure
brenda
or
someone
can
help
us
with
that
quote
definition
and
how
we
can
do.
H
It
hi
this
is
jennifer
fishman,
I'm
with
aging
disability
services.
I
serve
as
the
quality
assurance
manager
for
the
division.
However,
I'm
the
unofficial
executive
director
of
the
board
of
applied
behavioral
analysis
with
me
today.
I
have
president
dr
bridget
fernapple
with
us
as
well,
and
she
might
be
able
to
answer
some
of
those
questions.
H
K
B
Hi,
dr
fernando
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
your
question,
mr
hardy.
In
terms
of
moral
character,
what
we
really
look
at
is
whether
or
not
they
are
practicing
in
alignment
with
our
national
regulations,
and
so
it's
kind
of
a
it's.
B
Not
necessarily
you
know,
marriage
or
things
like
that,
it's
kind
of
bound
more
to
our
ethical
practice
and
what
is
defined
for
us
by
way
of
our
national
practice,
and
so
you
will
see
other
language
in
the
bill
as
well,
deferring
to
the
board
it's
the
bacb,
the
behavior
analyst
certification
board,
and
so,
as
ethical
practitioners.
That's
really
what
we
rely
on
in
terms
of
whether
or
not
someone
is
fit
to
practice
or
someone
is
fit
to
carry
a
license
so
have
they
practiced
or
have
they
passed
the
exam?
B
And
then
you
know,
part
of
this
process
is
cleaning
a
little
bit
of
that
up.
So
I-
and
this
is
to
be
honest
with
you-
a
conversation
that
the
board
has
had
in
terms
of
operational
definitions
of
moral
character,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
appreciate
that
you've
pointed
this.
F
F
I
guess
I'm
supposed
to
respond
and
say
then:
how
come
you
didn't
say
in
alignment
with
our
accepted
ways
of
practicing
that
are
understood
that
you
have
to
maintain
the
ethical
practice
and
the
the
competency
practice
of
the
training
that
you
were
given,
as
opposed
to
quote
moral
character,
because
you
deliberately
put
in
moral
character,
separate
and
distinct
from
how
you're
judged
by
how
you
practice
it's
a
separate
line.
H
This
is
jennifer
freshman
for
the
record
and
I
think
to
dr
fanopoul's
point.
This
is
a
relatively
new
board.
This
was
a
board
that
was
created
during
the
2017
legislative
session.
H
I'm
aware
that
in
previous
discussions
I
know,
assemblywoman
titus
has
brought
this
up
regarding
moral
character,
fitness
for
duty,
fitness
for
practice,
and
I
think
that's
something
that
we
can
certainly
take
into
consideration
to
put
in
that
verbiage
that
you
indicated
right
now.
As
dr
pinoffel
said,
that
is
something
that
we
look
at
when
we
look
at
applications
and
processing
is
that
have
they
had
complaints
against
their
license?
H
Have
they
had
other
things
in
their
background
that
might
suggest
that
they
are
not
quote
fit
practice
and
are
not
following
the
ethics
of
the
national
board.
So
I
think
that's
absolutely
something
that
we
can
take
into
consideration
and
appreciate
the
feedback.
B
A
Am
I
you
know
I
this
actually
harken
back
to
applying
for
a
bar
license,
because
we
have
we
have
very
similar,
and
I
don't
know
that
it
would
be
phrased
necessarily
the
same
way.
A
I
think
it's
character
and
fitness
and
you
have
to
have
a
reputation
for
good
character
in
order
to
be
confirmed
for
a
bar
license,
and
that
could
be
everything
from
whether
you
have
academic
complaints,
for
you
know,
students
who
may
have
plagiarized
something
to
if
you
have
past
criminal
history
to
if
you
have
passed
financial
issues,
those
kinds
of
things
are
typically
looked
at
when
granting
a
bar
license.
So
for
me
I
guess
I
didn't.
A
I
don't
know
that
I
had
the
same
concern
or
reaction
to
that,
because
I
think
this
is
fairly
standard.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
other
there
are
other
areas.
I
know
you
mentioned
that
that
this
came
from
another
board,
I
think
of
psycho.
I
can't
remember
who
said
psychiatry
or
psychology.
I
don't
know
if
they
use
the
same
language
in
terms
of
moral
character.
We
have
other
boards
that
use
the
phrase
moral
character.
A
I
know
we
have
something
very
similar
in
regards
to
law
licenses,
and
so
I
I
didn't
actually
have
a
lot
of
heartburn
or
concern
over
that
phraseology.
L
L
L
The
term
good
moral
character
has
been
interpreted
by
case
law
for
the
last
century
plus,
and
so
it
has
a
significant
legal
term
of
art
interpretation
to
it
by
the
courts.
So
good
moral
character
is
a
term
that
is
used
in
the
board
of
medical
examiners
chapter
in
nrs
and
in
nac
and
in
the
board
of
dentistry
and
in
other
professional
regulatory
licensing
boards.
So
again,
what
good
moral
character
means
fitness
to
practice?
L
F
Thank
you
for
recognizing
me
again.
I
would
point
out
that
we're
going
to
hear
a
veterinarian
regulation
that
uses
kevin's
words
good
moral
character
in
ro99-19
and
it
says
good
moral
character,
so
the
state
of
the
art
is
not
moral
character.
The
state
of
the
art
is
good
moral
character.
So
why
are
we
putting
in
moral
character
as
opposed
to
good
moral
character?
F
I
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
copy
something,
then
you
copy
the
state
of
the
art
verbiage,
and
you
know
the
ex
I'm
not
going
to
use
the
word
excuse,
but
the
rationale
for
this
is
we
copied
somebody
else
who
also,
but
did
they
say,
good
moral
character
or
did
they
say
moral
character?
F
I
know
I'm
I'm
beating
this
up,
but
it
seems
to
me
if
we're
going
to
make
something
that
has
the
force
of
law,
then
we
probably
ought
to
do
it
the
way
it's
supposed
to
be
done
and,
as
kevin
has
told
us,
it's
good
moral
character
as
opposed
to
moral
character.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
had
been
participating.
M
We
wrapped
up
most
of
our
work,
but
with
senator
dennis
and
several
others
in
the
states,
efforts
of
the
interstate
licensing
consortium,
looking
at
professional
licensing
and
some
of
the
concerns-
and
I
will
say
that
within
that
forum,
at
some
of
our
national
meetings
that
there's
concern
about
these
terms:
good
moral
character,
moral
character,
moral
turpitude
and
where
they
live
in
the
licensing,
laws
and
regulations
and
how
they're
being
wielded
by
some
licensing
boards
and,
in
effect,
being
wielded
at
some
populations
more
than
others,
in
some
cases,
serving
as
a
barrier
for
people
with
a
criminal
history
to
get
back
into
some
sort
of
licensed
position
to
just
disparate
use,
for
people
of
color
to
all
different
kinds
of
things.
M
So
I'll
just
say
that
there's
a
national
movement
towards
trying
to
wherever
possible,
define
these
much
more
specifically
and
understanding
what
mr
power
says.
There
is
case
law
that
is
helpful,
taking
discretion
out
wherever
possible.
So
I
think
this
is
a
conversation
that
we'll
continue
to
have.
We
just
had
one
at
the
health
committee
as
well,
where
I
believe
the
health
committee
chose
to
send
a
letter
to
the
legislative
commission
to
say:
hey
we'd,
really
like
to
see
more
definition
on
these
moving
forward,
so
I'm
not
proposing
that
we
solve
this
today.
M
I'm
comfortable
voting,
yes
on
this
regulation,
because
it's
getting
started
and
they
need
to
get
going
and
there
is
the
case
law,
but
I
do
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
see-
and
probably
the
commerce
committee
will
end
up
having
conversations
about-
is
how
we
deal
with
moral
character
and
moral
turpitude
and
more
broadly
across
all
of
the
boards
to
make
sure
that
everywhere
that
it
can
be
defined
more
clearly,
it
is
defined
more
clearly
and
that
it
is
specifically
necessary
for
the
health
and
safety
of
the
public.
M
F
I
don't
chair
I'll,
be
the
red
flag
vote.
No
thanks.
A
Seeing
none
secretary,
if
you
could,
we
will
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call.
E
G
G
M
E
E
A
Motion
passes
the
regulation
is
adopted.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
being
able
to
answer
all
of
our
questions
on
that
one.
We
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
to
our
next
regulation
for
consideration
from
the
state
environmental
commission.
It
is
r084-9
and
a
request
from
assemblyman
daily
to
pull
that
regulation,
so
we
will
turn
it
over
to
you
assemblyman
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
your
your
questions.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
guess
the
first
baseline
question
and
I
know
reading
some
of
these
regulations
and
statutes
and
various
things
you
don't
see
all
of
the
parts
so
when
one
part
gets
deleted,
if
there's,
if
it's
covered
by
someplace
else,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
on
a
couple
of
things
in
the
first
one
is
in
section
five
where
the
language
is
being
deleted,
and
I
recognize
that
the
term
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generator
is
being
replaced
with
the
with
the
new
term.
D
But
the
two
sections
of
nac
that
are
also
being
deleted
that
they
wouldn't
have
to
comply
with
they're
being
deleted,
has
to
do
with
restrictions
for
those
types
of
facilities
when
they're
in
a
flood
plain
or
wetlands.
So
are
they
still
going
to
be
subject
to
those
two
provisions
of
the
existing
nac
somewhere
else
that
I
didn't
catch
or
when
you
delete
that
language,
a
small
or
what
do
they
call
a
very
small
quantity
person
now,
the
new
term
that
they
have?
Are
they?
E
Wetlands,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
darren
winkleman
with
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection.
Thank
you.
So
those
regulations
at
the
loca
at
the
state
level
for
us
are
handled
through
epa.
So
those
are
sections
that
are
being
deleted
for
cleanup,
but
industry.
That's
still
in
wetland
area
would
be
handled
through
in
the
u.s
environmental
protection.
D
Agency,
so
when
they're
being
deleted
here,
the
new
term
that's
given
to
the
conditionally
exempt
or
the
now,
it's
a
very
small,
hazardous
waste
generator.
This
only
applies
to
cleanup
so
help
help
clarify
there,
so
people
that
are
covered
by
it
now
are
not
going
to
be
covered
under
this
regulation.
E
E
Did
it
was
I
muted
during
that
conversation?
I'm
sorry
if
I
was
muted.
I
believe
you
were
no
sorry
about
that,
sir
yeah.
They
are
still
covered
under
this
regulation.
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
section
they
were.
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
get
that
section
for
you,
but
they
are
covered
under
the
u.s
epa
side.
D
Maybe
I'm
paranoid,
but
who
knows
so
when
I
look
at
the
feds
changing
some
of
their
standards
and
regulations
and
various
things
and
then
we're
basically
adopting
was
not
not
100
but
basically
reflecting
what
the
federal
requirements
are.
So
do
we
is
this
changes
in
here?
Are
they
going
to
lower
remain
the
same
increase
the
safety
standards
on
hazardous
materials
in
the
states
in
the
state?
D
Because
I
don't
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
any
lowering
of
the
standards
by
us
adopting
the
federal
standard
near
all
the
time
about
the
elimination
of
regulations.
You
know,
regulations
are
put
in
place
for
purpose
they're
vetted.
They
go
through
a
lot
of
scrutiny,
but
if
we're
lowering
the
standards
in
the
state
of
nevada,
I
would
have
concerned
with
that.
D
So
I
know
there's
reference
to
that
in
section
4,
section,
9,
10,
11
15,
where
we're
adopting
the
federal
standards
is
that
going
to
change
or
even
even
marginally,
the
the
levels
of
standards
that
we
currently
have
in
the
state.
E
Madam
chair
for
the
record
darren
winkleman,
I'm
going
to
refer
to
skyler
jones
on
this
one.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
darren.
This
is
skylar
jones
for
the
record.
The
the
regulations
are
not
less
stringent
than
they
were
before.
E
We
actually
have
opted
to
not
adopt
a
few
of
the
provisions
that
we
thought
were
making
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
less
stringent
than
we
would
like
to
keep
them,
and
so
there
are
a
few
provisions
that
are
listed,
that
we
have
chosen
not
to
adopt
to
make
sure
that
we
ensure
that
our
in
our
regulations
stay
up
to
par
and
are
protective
of
the
environment
and
public
health.
D
And
I
appreciate
that
I
just
wanted
to
to
make
sure
have
that
on
the
record.
I
did
reach
out
to
a
couple
of
people
and
they
didn't
see
any
red
flags
and
I
do
see
several
places
in
the
regulations
when
you,
when
you
read
it,
you
you
say
we're
adopting
codefigure
federal
regulations,
whatever
it
is,
except
for
this
section.
So
I'm
assuming
that's
the
provisions
where
you
say
hey,
you
know
that's
lowering
what
we
already
have
we're
not
going
to
make
that
change.
D
D
D
Some
of
you
may
recall,
I'm
sure,
with
secret
shipments
to
the
state
of
nevada.
So
why
would
we
want
to
delete
that
requirement
to
report
materials
or
hazardous
materials
that
have
been
delivered
by
any
method?
Although
this
only
calls
for
notification
by
rail.
K
Hello
sunderland
daily-
this
is
greg,
lovato,
ndep
administrator.
So
just
to
start
to
answer
your
question,
so
the
materials
that
you
maybe
have
been
referring
to
there
may
have
been
shipments
of
plutonium
by
the
department
of
energy,
so
those
are
actually
outside
the
scope
of
our
hazardous
waste
regulations.
K
K
Would
not
have
receive
notification
of
those,
but
then,
with
respect
to
your,
you
know,
specific
question
about
whether
we've
been
notified
and
whether
that's
changing
I'll
shift
over
back
to
skyler
jones.
E
Thank
you.
This
is
skyler
jones
for
the
record,
so
we
have
actually
moved
to
an
electronic
manifesting
system.
So
every
manifest
every
waste
shipment
of
hazardous
waste
is
actually
being
recorded
and
we
can
go
onto
the
database
at
any
point
in
time
and
search
those
manifests
and
make
sure
that
we
know
what
is
going
in
and
out
of
our
state.
D
Very
good,
so
that's
just
a
clean
up
measure
because
you've
already
got
it
covered
in
another
fashion,
somewhere
else
in
your
in
the
rest
of
your
stuff.
That's
likely,
we
don't
see
every
single
piece
of
it,
so
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
how
the
puzzles
went
to
get
pieces
of
the
puzzle
fit
together.
When
I
see
a
deletion
like
that,
my
last
question:
if
I
can
it's
there's
a
and
probably
a
similar
answer,
there's
a
deletion
for
the
fee
for
processing
review
of
applications.
D
So
is
the
review
no
longer
happening
or
is
there
there?
So
there's
still
be
a
review,
it's
just
a
different
process
or
it's
included
in
something
else
notice.
You-
and
I
don't
have
the
section
here
for
that
one,
but.
E
Those
variances
are
actually
variances
for
from
federal
regulations,
which
we
do
not
process
the
the
epa
environmental
protection
agency
processes
those.
So
we
have
removed
those
regulations
for
clarity
and
to
minimize.
D
A
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
else
who
has
questions
or
comments,
so
we
do
have
a
motion
by
assemblyman
daily
and
is
there
a
second
second
from
senator
dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
E
M
E
E
E
E
A
The
motion
carries
and
the
regulation
is
adopted.
We
are
going
to
take
just
a
moment,
as
I
was
notified
that
I
actually
inadvertently
had
left
off
the
regulation
that
had
been
continued
r182-18
from
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
But
I
did
not
read
that
in
the
consent
agenda
for
the
remaining
items,
we
did
not
have
a
request
to
pull
that
one.
This
was
the
runner
or
the
members
of
the
committee
will
remember
that
this
was
the
regulation
that
was
requested
to
be
continued.
A
It
should
have
been
included
in
our
consent
agenda,
since
we
did
not
have
a
request
to
pull
this
for
individual
consideration,
but
at
this
point
in
time,
if
there
is
no
additional
questions
or
concerns
from
members
of
the
committee
or
of
the
commission
on
this
one,
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
our
182-18
from
the
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
A
So
moved
by
assembly,
woman
carlton
is
that
a
second
from
senator
rowdy
any
discussion
on
that
motion.
A
Seeing
none
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
a
roll
call
vote
just
to
make
sure
we
have
a
clear
record
of
that.
Madam
secretary.
E
G
E
E
G
E
F
A
Thank
you
so
much
so
that
regulation
is
also
deemed
passed
and
will
be
adopted.
So
thank
you,
members
of
the
commission
for
allowing
me
to
jump
in
there
with
that
one.
We
are
going
to
move
back
to
the
ones
that
were
called
for
individual
consideration.
A
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
that
was
requested
for
some
additional
conversation
was
r0999-19
from
the
nevada
state
board
of
veterinary
medical
examiners
and
senator
hardy
had
requested
for
that
one
to
be
pulled
so
we'll
turn
it
over
to
you.
Senator
hardy.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
It
was
to
point
out
that
kevin
powers,
language
is
in
that
is
a
good
moral
character,
and
so
I
think
it's
consistent
with
what
we
were
doing
and
what
we
were
talking
about
consistent
with
the
original
intent.
F
A
Any
additional
discussion
or
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
Being
none,
we
will
go
ahead
and
is
there
a
motion
to
adopt
our
09-19
from
the
commission
removed
by
senator
hardy?
Is
there
a
second.
E
E
G
F
E
E
H
A
A
Okay,
so
that
regulation
then,
is
unanimous
and
will
be
adopted.
We
will
move
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
to
request
for
some
additional
consideration,
which
is
our
120-19
from
the
state
environmental
commission.
That
was
a
request
from
assemblyman
daily,
so
assemblyman
daily.
If
you
would
please
go
ahead
and
we
will
go
from
there.
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
very
similar
question
to
the
last
one
from
the
environmental
commission
is:
are
the
regulations
that
we're
adopting
in
relation
to
the
federal
cfrs
that
have
been
adopted,
going
to
change
or
lower
the
standards
of
air
quality
in
the
state
in
any
fashion?
Or
did
we
do
the
same
thing
as
you
mentioned
before
that
if
it
was
going
to
lower
it,
she
said
we're
not
accepting
that
we're
not
adopting
that
part
of
the
regulation
just
wanted
to
very
very
similar
question
to
the
last
last
regulation.
H
Already
good
afternoon,
this
is
agony
with
the
nevada
division
of
environmental
protection.
That's
an
excellent
question
as
we
as
we
evaluate
these
federal
rules
as
the
epa
is
approving
them.
One
of
the
main
questions
that
we
ask
ourselves
with
the
air
program
is
what's
impact
with
the
nevada
air
quality,
and
so,
as
we
did
also
with
this
batch
of
regulation,
we
we
deem
that
none
of
these
regulation
is
significantly
impacting
air
quality
in
nevada.
H
If
that
was
the
case,
we
would
have
probably
taken
actions
at
the
time
when
epa
was
approving
this
regulation
and
possibly
taking
action
through
a
regular
state
regulatory
process.
But
currently
we
haven't
seen
any
any
of
these
rules
impacting
air
quality
in
nevada.
D
Change
regulations
that
then
impact
air
quality
in
the
state
of
that
I
know
we're
allowed
to
have
regulations
higher
than
the
feds
we
just
can't
have
them
be
lower,
so
I
just
want
the
state
levels
that
we've
enjoyed
to
be
maintained
at
the
very
least
that
was
it.
Thank
you,
madam,
and,
and
I
can
make
a
motion
unless
someone
else
has
a
question.
A
Additional
discussions
or
questions
from
members
of
the
commission
saying
none.
There
is
a
motion
from
assemblyman
daily
to
adopt
our
120-19.
Is
there
a
second
from
members
of
the
commission
senator
ratty
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Seeing
none,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
a
role
call
though.
D
C
E
E
E
F
E
A
Moving
on
to
our
next
items
on
our
agenda
for
additional
consideration
for
regulation
are
r011-20,
which
was
a
request
by
senator
hardy
from
the
state
board
of
health
and
then
we'll
do
that
one
first
and
then
r012-20
also
from
the
state
board
of
health,
also
a
request
from
senator
hardy,
so
senator
hardy.
If
you
want
to
go.
F
Ahead.
Thank
you.
Madam
chair.
I
had
a
a
timing
question.
We
talked
in
this
bill
in
the
regulation
about
48
hours
before
or
no
later
than
48
hours
and
my
question
for
the
folks
who
wrote
it
is:
how
does
the
48
hours
and
the
72
hours
72
hour
hold
as
it
were?
How
do
those
two
things
mesh
or
are
they
disparate
and
they
don't
are
the
apples
and
oranges?
Can
you
kind
of
describe
the
difference.
G
N
Line
this
is
leon,
raven,
division
of
public
and
behavioral
health.
Dr
carter,
thank
you
for
your
question.
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
oh
direct
me
a
little
closer
to
the
specific
section
of
the
regulation
that
you
just
referenced.
F
So
looking
at
section
8,
for
instance,
no
other
than
48
hours
after
receiving
an
application,
so
through
the
bill,
we're
talking
about
48
hours
as
opposed
to
72
and
then
so
are
we
making
a
decision
at
48
hours
or
are
we
saying
that's
part
of
the
72
hours
if
they're
a
danger
to
their
self
or
others
where
where's
the
clock
start?
Where
does
it
end
and
is
it
changing
the
72
hours
to
48
hours,
I'm
just
kind
of
confused
about
how
it
relates
to
the
72-hour
holds.
N
So
the
whole
decision
is
not
going
to
be
affected
at
all
all
the
48
hours.
The
provision
that
I
see
is
strictly
for
reporting
reporting
purposes,
so
it
is
for
data
gathering
purpose,
but
the
decision
on
petitioning
for
more
involuntary
commitment
to
the
facility
still
remains
within
72
hours
from
the
beginning
of
the
hold.
N
F
N
Time
frame
it
does
not
affect
the
decision
on
proceeding
with
the
application
for
involuntary
admission
of
the
person
alleged
ought
to
be
personal
mental
health
crisis,
so
those
48
48-hour
requirements
are
only
applicable
to
the
point
when
the
decision
has
been
made,
whether
or
not
to
pursue
involuntary
commitment
or
discharge.
The
person
from
the
mental
health
facility,
oh
and
well
again,
that
time
frame
does
not
have
any
impact
on
the
decisions
on
whether
or
not
somebody
needs
to
be
placed
in
the
psychiatric
facility.
A
Chair
additional
questions
or
requests
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
E
E
I
D
G
E
E
E
A
Thank
you,
motion
carries
and
the
regulation
will
be
adopted,
we'll
move
to
the
next
regulation
and
senator
hardy
a
this
was
a
request
from
you
as
well
r012-20
from
the
state
board
of
health
as
well,
and
so
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you
for
any
additional
follow-up
questions.
F
G
N
Thank
you.
This
is
leon
raven
of
public
and
behavioral
health
once
again
senator
hardy.
If
you
could
point
out
to
me
a
specific
section
of
the
regulation
that
you
have
concerned.
F
I
would
be
looking
at
one
conclusion
of
the
hearing
and
I
have
to
say
it's
on
page
six,
subsection,
five
and
the
sense
upon
conclusion
of
the
hearing.
The
committee
mary
mac
may
recommend
approving
the
request
to
involuntarily
administer
psychotropic
medicine
to
the
patient.
Only
if
the
member
of
the
committee,
who
is
a
psychiatrist,
or
at
least
one
other
member,
determined
that
the
patient
presents
a
substantial
likelihood
of
serious
harm
to
himself
or
herself
or
others
as
determined
pursuant
to.
N
Thank
you
senator
hardy
again
and
dr
leonard
for
the
record.
I
would
like
to
indicate
that
the
committee,
according
to
this
regulation,
consists
of
three
members
and
the
one
of
those
three
members
must
be
a
psychiatrist
and
the
intent
of
this
regulation.
N
N
Thank
you.
No,
it's
going
to
hurt
it
so
this
question
again:
it's
dr
leon
raven
for
the
record,
or
this
regulation
is
only
intended
for
facilities
that
are
able
to
conduct
the
process
of
review
of
involuntary
administration
medication
internally
for
those
facilities
that
are
too
small
or
they
will
continue
with
their
current
process.
N
So
if
I
may
draw
your
attention
to
section,
I'm
sorry.
N
Right
right,
but
there
is
an
early
section
in
the
regulation
that
speaks
that
our
facilities,
or
that
are
not
able
to
do
the
internal
process.
Internal
review
should
continue
with
the
current
court
hearings
as
currently
established
process.
N
So
section
8,
actually
on
page
three,
that
if
a
public
or
private
mental
hospitality
has
not
established
the
procedure
set
forth
in
sections
nine
through
fourteen
inclusive
of
this
regulation,
psychotropic
medication
must
not
be
administered
to
the
patient
without
consent.
Unless
the
patient
has
been
admitted
involuntarily
and
the
practitioner
who
is
the
primary
responsible
for
treatment
patient
obtains
from
the
court
that
order
so
section
8
actually
outlines
the
process
for
those
facilities
that
are
not
able
to
pursue
internal
review
of
the
application
for
involved
or
administration
of
the
medications.
F
N
For
the
record,
this
is
definitely
on
raven
division,
public
and
behavioral
health.
Yes,
you
are
correct.
So
presently
the
process
involves
a
court
review,
so
the
same
court
that
orders
involved
through
admission
also
reviews
the
requests
for
involuntary
administration
of
the
medication.
N
Currently,
they
go
through
the
court,
so,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
the
facility
is
able
to
conduct
internal
reviews,
all
those
decisions
are
strictly
within
course
jurisdiction.
However,
with
this
regulation,
facilities
that
are
able
to
arrange
for
internal
view
would
be
able
to
do
that
internally.
A
Chair
additional
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
And
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
additional
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
We
do
have
a
motion
from
senator
hardy
to
approve
our
012-20.
Is
there
a
second
on
that
motion?
Second,
a
second
from
assemblywoman
carlton.
I
think
I
heard
yes
fantastic.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
E
C
E
C
C
A
Thank
you,
motion
carries
and
the
regulation
is
adopted.
Our
final
regulation
for
consideration
is
r018-20,
which
is
which
was
a
request
by
assemblymen
in
daily,
so
something
in
daily.
If
you
want
to
go
ahead
for
the
state
environmental
commission
go
ahead
and
ask
your
questions
and
we'll
go
from
there.
D
Thank
you
manager.
My
question
is
in
section
10
subsection.
Three
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarification
on.
Why
c
and
g
some,
you
know,
subsection
three
are
wouldn't
require.
A
new
notice
when
it
says
c,
is
a
material
modification
that
significantly
deviates
from
the
previously
approved
design
during
construction.
Now
I
can
understand
when
maybe
just
change,
design
and
construction
wouldn't
impact
the
overall
project
that
would
require
new
hearing,
but
one
be
a
clarification
on
that,
but
gee
where
it
says
they
change
to
the
operating
plan.
D
If
the
change
alters
the
potential
for
to
degrade
the
waters
of
the
state,
why
would
that
not
need
to
go
through
a
new
hearing
if
it's
potentially
going
to
degrade
the
water
of
the
state?
So
I
was
curious
on
those
two
things
quickly.
If
you
can
give
some
explanation
or
with
that
new
language,
that's
been.
J
J
D
Yes,
it
was
in
section
10,
subsection,
3
examples
of
modifications
to
the
engineering
design
facility
which
do
not
constitute
a
major
minor
modification
and
do
not
require
a
new
public
notice
pursuant
to
subsection
one
and
then
specifically
was
the
changes
where
it
says:
there's
a
material
modification
that
significantly
deviates
from
the
previously
approved
design
during
construction.
D
And
then
I
said
you
know,
I
understand
if
a
change
in
a
design
and
construction
that
might
may
be
significant,
may
not
change
the
nature
of
the
the
overall
facility
and
what
they're
doing,
but
then
in
subsection
g
as
well,
where
it
says
a
change
in
the
operating
plan.
If
the
change
alters
the
potential
to
degrade
the
waters
of
the
state,
why?
Why
would
those
not
need
additional
notice
and
hearing
if
there
are
significant
changes.
N
D
K
Ahead,
hello,
greg
lovato
with
ndep
ndp,
administrator
and,
and
I
think
what
we're
we're
really
trying
to
to
cover
here
is
just
generally
these
are.
These:
are
engineering
design
changes
we're
not
really
talking
about
increasing
the
potential
of
waters
to
degrade
the
state?
K
Sometimes
you
know
if
we
get
an
engineering
design,
change
in
and
they're
changing
material,
we
normally
don't
subject
you
know,
material
actual,
you
know
the
type
of
equipment
they
use.
That
type
of
modification
is
normally
not
subject
to
public
review
and
comment.
Ordinarily,
you
know
the
design
itself
is
normally
just
subject
to
an
engineering
design
review
but
actual
comments
on.
K
You
know
the
type
of
material
used
or
not
normally,
subject
to
public
comment,
and
I
think
we
were
just
trying
to
in
this
section
clarify
that
those
would
not
be
subject
to
public
comment
and
review.
There
would
be
you
know
a
lot
of
time
spent
on.
You
know
major
modifications,
major
facility
expansions,
but
most
of
the
time
engineering
design
itself
doesn't
get
subjected
to
public
comment
and
review,
and
I
think
that's
what
we're
trying
to
just
clarify
here
is
that
those
types
of
changes
would
not
be
subject
to
that
public
notice
and
review.
D
And
would
that
be
in
regard
to
subsection
c,
when
you're
talking
about
the
construction
changes?
Now
I
understand,
if
I'm
hey,
I'm
going
to
have
an
open
bid,
mine
or
I'm
going
to
have
an
underground
mine
or
whatever,
and
I'm
going
to
have
a
a
a
processing
mill
above
ground
and
they
say
hey
well,
I
was
going
to
use
this
type
of
processing
mill
and
I
want
to
use
a
different
one.
Same
location,
same
footprint
same
deal.
They
were
making
that
type
of
change
to
construction.
D
I
can,
I
could
potentially
understand
that,
but
if
they
were
going
to
say
hey
well,
we
want
to
double
it
and
have
a
second
one
and
various
things
and
you're
saying
that's
not
subject
to
additional
notice
in
review
and
then
when
I
read-
and
I
want
you
to
talk
to
me
back
or
you
know
respond
to
that.
But
when
I
read
g
so
it
says-
and
this
is
not
going
to
be
subject
to
additional
review-
it
says
they
change
the
operating
plans.
D
If
it's
going
to
change
the
footprint,
it's
going
to
change
underground
to
underground
and
surface
all
those
would
be
subject,
but
only
if
it's
going
to
degrade
the
water
that
it's
not
subject,
and
so
it's
either
bad
language
or
it's
unclear
or
you're
specifically
saying
you
can
do
what
you
want.
If
it's
going
to
degrade
the
water,
but
anything
else
you
have
to
go
to
hearing.
So
it
doesn't
read
correctly
to
me,
you
tell
me
if
I'm
I'm
reading
it
wrong,
but
it
doesn't.
J
Yeah
again
for
the
record,
this
is
joe
sawyer
bureau
chief
for
the
bureau
of
mining.
No,
I
think
the
intent
here
is
just
looking
at
minor
modifications
that
are
the
lowest
level
for
engineering
design
of
a
facility
and-
and
I
think
part
of
this,
you
would
have
to
look
at
what
constitutes
a
major
modification
and
what
constitutes
a
minor
modification
and
and
and
really
look
look
at
all
that
in
in
total,
and
so
some
of
the
things
that
you
described.
J
You
know
if
they
were
to
change
facilities
that
that
would
most
definitely
rise
to
the
level
of
a
major
modification
that
which
would
require
a
public
notice
and
and
say
say
even
if
you
had
a
milling
facility
and
you
added
a
a
new
circuit
or
a
different
processing
circuit,
might
rise
the
level
of
a
minor
modification.
So
really
these
here
relate
just
to
engineering
design
changes
which
is
our
lowest
level
of
of
modification.
D
Okay
and
and-
and
I
was
I
can
read
in
subsection
one
and
that's
what
subsection
three
refers
back
to
if
there
was
changes
in
the
modification,
design
and
engineering
and-
and
you
know
I
can
ex-
I
can
accept
their
answer.
I
think
you
guys
are
trying
to
do
the
job
and
be
fair
to
everybody
on
those
things
and
then
not
have
additional
burdens,
and
I
know
it
can
be
a
lengthy
process
to
get
approvals
and
various
things.
But
I
was
just
curious
about
those
two.
D
In
particular,
I
mean
because
it
uses
the
term
in
sea
that
significantly
deviates
not
subject
and
then
degrading
the
water
quality,
and
that's
where
I
was
there.
So
then
it's
not
not
totally
subjective.
There's
going
to
be
some
standards
that
you
have
in
other
parts
of
your
regulation,
that's
going
to
determine
whether
it's
a
design,
modification
or
some
other
type
of
modification
on
that,
and
whether
or
not
you
have
to
go
back
to
hearing
so.
E
D
It's
only
to
design
modifications
and
various
things
on
that.
So
thank
you
for
the
clarification.
K
Yeah,
if
I
could
add
one
more,
this
is
greg
lovato
again
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
simon
daly
yeah.
I
think
actually,
this
this
whole
side
of
the
regulation
that
we're
introducing
here
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
you
know
these
engineering
design,
modifications
that
relate
to
material
selection
and
specific
design
choices
that
those
are
specifically
subject
to
review
and
approval
by
the
agency
that
that
we're
trying
to
clarify
for
applicants.
K
Yes,
if
you
change
this.
Yes,
if
you
change
that
that's
subject
to
additional
review
and
approval
by
ndep,
it's
just
not
subject
to
an
outside
public
notice,
review
and
comment
again,
so
this
was
really
just
trying
to
clarify
what
the
process
is
going
to
look
like.
So
this
isn't
a
you
know
something
that
currently
that
we
would
require.
K
You
know
some
type
of
public
notice
and
comment.
You
know
that's
really
reserved
for
facility
applications
and
major
major
modifications.
So
this
is
just
clarifying
that,
for
this
additional
level
of
review,
we're
requesting
explicit
approval
authority
for
for
engineering
design,
changes
that
are
material.
K
Those
are
the
ones
that
the
applicant
knows
ahead
of
time
now,
more
more
transparently,
they
have
to
come
back
to
the
agency
for
review
and
approval,
and
so
so
this
is,
as
opposed
to
being
a
a
decrease
in
regulation.
It's
actually
a
clarification
just
to
make
sure
that
everyone's
on
the
same
page,
with
respect
to
this,
so
I
I
think
you're
following
along
with
what
our
intent
was
here,.
D
Yeah
and
and
understood,
and
thank
you
for
the
the
explanation,
that's
why
I
asked
to
ask
the
question-
and
I
and
I
agree
with
you
the
the
burden
to
get
some
of
these
things
through
is
substantial.
It
takes
years,
sometimes
popular
comments
and
arguments
and
various
things
back
and
forth.
D
It
can
take
a
substantial
period
of
time,
and
I
do
with
the
explanation
understand
that,
so
this
would
be
additional
review
if
they've
gone
through
all
that
public
processing
and
they
want
to
make
a
an
engineering
or
a
design
change
that
has
to
go
back
through
the
review,
but
doesn't
have
to
go
through
the
possibly
year-long
process
to
a
public
comment
in
various
things.
D
People
should
do
their
homework
and
get
their.
You
know
first
bite
at
the
apple
and
if
it
is
significant,
then
I
suppose
they
can
always
still
challenge
those
approvals
if
they,
if
they
chose,
but
with
that.
Madam
chair,
those,
I
don't
have
any
other
questions,
and
I
I
am
comfortable
with
the
understanding
of
it
now
and
would
make
a
motion
when
you're
ready.
A
Seeing
none,
I
do
have
a
motion
to
approve
from
assemblyman
daily
regulation.
R018-20
is
there
a
second.
A
Seeing
none,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
we'll
do
a
roll
call
vote.
D
E
G
G
E
F
E
C
A
Fantastic,
the
regulation
does
pass
and
that
will
conclude
our
review
of
regulations
under
section
b.
We
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
move,
and
thank
you
again
to
all
the
agency
heads
who
are
here
with
us
and
and
agency
representatives
who've
been
able
to
answer
all
of
our
questions.
We
really
appreciate
being
with
us
today
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
to
item
number
c
on
argenth,
which
is
a
request
for
approval
of
extension
of
deadlines
for
interim
and
statutory
commissions
or
committees.
A
Rather,
this
item,
of
course,
relates
to
deadlines
that
we
have
for
completing
interim
studies
and
submitting
ddrs
requested
by
those
committees
to
the
legislative
council
bureau.
This
item
was
requested
by
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
and
so
we'll
turn
it
over
ms
merdos.
If
you
would,
if
you
could
go
ahead
and
present
this
item
to
the
commission,.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
item
relates
to
the
deadlines
for
completing
whoops,
completing
the
work
of
the
interim
and
statutory
committee
studies,
this
interim
for
and
for
submitting
the
bdr
requests
that
come
from
those
interim
committees.
I
You
may
recall
that
at
the
june
5th
meeting
of
this
committee,
commission
six
committees
asked
for
and
were
granted
extensions
of
their
deadlines
for
completing
their
work.
This
interim
and
for
submitting
the
bdrs
the
legislative
council.
Those
requests
were
all
based
on
delays
caused
by
the
covid19
pandemic.
I
Since
then,
in
addition
to
difficulties
related
to
the
pandemic,
we've
also
had
two
special
sessions
over
a
period
of
about
three
weeks,
and
these
unique
circumstances
have
now
affected
all
of
the
interim
committees
and
for
the
most
part,
and
it's
the
reason
that
I'm
suggesting
that
the
legislative
commission
extend
both
the
deadlines
for
completing
the
interim
and
statutory
studies
and
the
deadline
for
submitting
any
bdrs
that
might
be
approved
by
those
committees
to
the
legislative
council.
I
I
believe
that
a
reasonable
deadline
would
be
september,
30th
2020,
but
the
lcb
is
willing
to
make
any
deadline.
Work
we're
just
looking
at
trying
to
end
this
process
in
time
for
us
to
recover
and
be
ready
for
the
legislative
session
and
for
any
bdrs
coming
from
these
committees
to
be
for
the
time
for
those
to
be
drafted.
So
that's
our
request
on
this
today.
Thank
you.
A
Still,
the
same
deadline,
senator
any
additional
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
And
I'm
not
I'm
not
seeing
any.
Oh
sorry,
senator
satomir,
please.
E
I
I'm
not
sure
if
you're
looking
to
me
for
an
answer,
I'm
not
the
legislative
counsel
anymore.
No,
but
the
difference
here
is
that,
at
least
in
my
mind,
for
whatever
it's
worth
is
that
this
is
a
coordinated
effort
between
three
or
four
groups
of
people.
I
For
each
one
of
these
committees,
we
have
the
staff
from
the
legislative
council
bureau,
as
well
as
including
research,
physical
or
legal
staff,
or
all
of
them,
plus
the
staff
for
bps
to
make
sure
that
these
meetings
can
happen,
and
then
we
have
all
the
legislators
who
do
drive
this,
the
the
chairs
of
each
one
of
these
committees,
but
also
all
the
members
and
so
getting
all
this
done
within
the
time
of
the
of
the
requirements
there
is,
I
just
don't
think
it's
possible
at
this
point.
I
Actually,
the
statute
requires
that,
after
a
certain
date,
I
think
it's,
this
fall
all
of
the
legislators,
bdrs
be
given
priority,
so
it's
up
to
the
legal
division
to
get
all
these
things
done
within
the
time
allowed,
which
is,
is
going
to
be
very
difficult
this
time,
especially
with
a
fairly
new
staff,
but
I'm
betting
on
them
to
make
this
work.
A
Additional
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
Seeing
none,
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
the
request
for
the
extension
as
outlined
by
ms
erdos.
I'm
just.
H
A
H
H
We
might
end
up
having
to
do
two
in
a
day.
So
I
appreciate
you
giving
everyone
the
opportunity
to
get
their
work
done.
That
being
said,
the
chairs
need
to
put
it
into
high
gear
and
get
their
meetings
scheduled
and
get
their
work
done.
The
sooner
their
work
gets
in
the
faster
it'll
get
drafted
so
hopefully
they'll
get
that
message.
A
I
could
not
agree
more
assemblywoman
and
again,
I
know
we've
we've
kind
of
all
said
it,
but
a
huge
thank
you
to
all
of
the
very
hard
working
staff
who've
been
able
to
facilitate
this
new
way
of
us,
having
meetings
and
and
being
able
to
conduct
our
business.
A
And
yes,
it
is
incumbent
upon
all
of
us
as
legislators
to
make
sure
that
we
are
getting
our
work
done
in
a
timely
fashion
and
again
just
a
huge
thank
you
to
all
of
the
really
wonderful
and
brilliant
folks
who
are
helping
to
make
this
work
and
get
us
up
and
going
for
all
these
meetings.
We
we
truly
appreciate
it
with
that.
Madam
secretary,
if
you
could
please
go
ahead
and
open
the
we'll,
do
a
little
call
vote.
D
E
E
G
E
E
C
E
A
Why
it's
your
honor,
I
think
we
may
have
lost
her
momentarily.
I
have
allowed
him
in
favor.
Thank
you.
Motion
carries
and
those
ex
deadlines
in
the
extended
and
again
just
I
think
beyond
to
the
assemblywoman's
point.
You
need
to
make
sure
that,
as
chairs
and
members
of
committee
we're
all
on
top
of
it
and
certainly
to
our
chairs
outside
of
the
legislative
commission,
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
our
work
done.
But
thank
you.
A
Okay,
we'll
move
on
to
item
number
d
on
our
agenda,
which
is
a
request
for
approval
of
session
hires.
We
of
course,
all
know
that
there
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
that
does
go
into
making
our
legislative
sessions
run
and
to
facilitating
each
of
those
and
each
session.
There
are
a
number
of
employees
who
are
hired
ahead
of
session,
who
are
asked
to
begin
before.
I
You,
madam
chair,
the
there's
a
chart
of
proposed
session
hires,
for
which
we're
seeking
approval
today
in
the
materials
for
this
item
in
the
packets
and
also
on
the
legislature's
website,
under
the
tab
for
this
meeting,
in
addition
to
the
normal
session,
hires
that
we
would
have
and-
and
those
are
all
the
things
that
we
that
we
know
we're
going
to
need
and
we're
asking
for
approval
and
we're
going
forward
with
those
pretty
much
for
certain.
I
There
are
some
anomalies
today
that
I
just
sort
of
wanted
to
explain
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
on
on
any
of
these.
Actually,
the
first
sort
of
oddity
is
probably
the
32
bps
intern
camera
operators
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
just
generally,
the
lcb
that
is,
is
to
plan
ahead
for
the
for
the
21
session,
and
we
believe
that
to
properly
do
that
to
ensure
that
we're
ready
for
whatever
happens
here.
I
I
It
could
be.
I
guess,
theoretically,
completely
virtual,
where,
where
you
as
legislators,
are
working
from
your
offices,
but
the
best
guess
that
I've
seen
is
probably
somewhere
in
the
middle,
where
we
would
have
some
virtual
meetings.
So
we
would
only
hire
these
positions
if
we
were
if
they
were
needed
to
allow
us
to
do
frankly.
I
What
that
would
be
for
is,
if
you
wanted
to
do
most
or
all
of
the
committee
meetings
during
the
legislative
session
every
day,
in
the
same
way
that
you've
been
doing
them,
where
you
can
have
up
to
eight
or
ten
going
at
the
same
time
in
a
day,
and
to
do
that
with
the
system
that
we
have
currently,
which
is
what
we'll
be
working
with
for
session.
We
would
need
this
number
of
bps
camera
folks
in
order
to
do
the
things
that
you've
heard
like
during
the
special
session.
I
You
heard
it's
the
camera
folks
who
are
working
there,
each
each
like
all
the
time
that
you're
in
in
those
meetings
to
make
sure
that
everything's
working
right,
but
also
to
call
upon,
say
members
of
the
public
or
the
zoom
people
on
zoom
to
come
forward.
And
it's
the
whole
press
star
nine,
to
raise
your
hand
that
kind
of
stuff
all
of
those
people
are
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
not
all
of
them
would
need
to
be
on
site.
I
If
you
were,
you
might
have
recognized
some
of
the
voices
during
the
special
session.
A
number
of
those
were
the
folks
who
actually
work
in
the
las
vegas
office
and
they
were
working
from
home,
as
were
some
of
the
folks
that
work
in
carson
city
working
from
home
and
they're
able
to
do
that
on
their
computer
and
and
provide
these
services.
So
that's
really
what
we're
talking
about
here
and
again.
I
The
reason
that
we'd
like
to
get
approval
for
for
the
amount
that
we
think
would
be
needed
is
so
that
we
can
continue
with
those
plans
and
know
that
if
we
do
need
to
trigger
that
plan,
that
we
will
have
our
resources
available,
but
we
would
not
hire
them
until
we've
determined
that
we
need
to
do
it
need
to
go
in
this
fashion.
Another,
I
think
sort
of
anomaly
is
under
the
director's
office.
I
added
three
human
resources
trainers.
I
I
didn't
really
know
what
else
to
call
them:
it's
probably
not
too
accurate,
but
the
what
we're.
What
I
know
now
is
that
we
have
a
number
of
senior
people
in
the
council
bureau
who
are
eligible
to
retire
and
who
are
truly
thinking
about
it.
And
so,
if
we
get,
you
know
some
number
of
those
retirements
right
before
session.
I
I
Should
that
come
to
pass
and
I
think
the
rest
of
these
things
that
are
that
you
see
there
are
pretty
much
debugger
for
for
a
session.
But
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
about
these
positions.
G
So
brenda
on
the
32
intern
camera
operator,
what
what
do
we
normally
have
in
the
in
the
past
would
have
used.
I
Sorry,
I
had
to
do
is
say
interim
cameras
and
I
couldn't
find
my
unmute.
I
apologize.
We
normally
have.
We
normally
add
three
to
five.
I
believe
for
the
session
for
this
expensive
session
and
then
actually
some
of
those
people
end
up.
Staying
and
filling
other
positions
that
become
available.
G
G
Yeah,
no,
so
this
is
quite
a
bit
more
and,
like
you
said
you
wouldn't
hire
these
until
we
got
closer
to
session.
I
mean
you'd
hire
some,
but
you
you'd
wait
to
see
what
we
needed
is
that
was
that
what
you
were
saying.
C
H
I
Yes,
that's
our
intent
and
again,
as
we
get
closer
to
this,
we
would
have
to
formalize
those
plans,
but
that
again
that's
worked
in
the
past
for
these
two
special
sessions.
So
I
don't
see
why
not.
H
Of
very
well
qualified
folks
that
choreographed
and
did
shows
on
the
strip
that
won't
be
working
for
a
while,
so
they
might
be
interested
in
something
like
this,
so
I
think
you
would
have
a
wealth
of
people
available
to
you
in
southern
nevada
who
might
be
interested
in
this
type
of
thing.
Thank
you.
A
Hearing
and
seeing
none
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
the
session
hires,
as
outlined
by
ms
erdos
emotion,
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
carlton.
I
did
see
a
second
from
senator
hardy
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Seeing
none
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
we'll
go
forward
with.
D
E
A
M
E
F
E
A
Promotion
carries
and
those
will
be
approved,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item.
On
our
agenda
item
number
e:
the
request
for
approval
of
transfer
of
funds
appropriated
for
fiscal
year,
2019
2020
to
fiscal
year,
2020
2021.,
ms
aries
can
go
ahead
and
I
think,
walk
us
through
this
item
and
then
I
believe
also
mr
product
is
available.
If
we
should
have
any
additional
questions
whenever
you're
ready.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
you,
as
you
indicated,
the
these
requests
were
from
the
fiscal
analysis
division
and
there
was
one
for
the
continued
improvements
of
the
budget
accounting
system
of
nevada,
which
is
basin.
I
believe
those
changes
became
necessary
because
of
changes
that
were
made
on
the
executive
branch
system
that
it
that
it
parallels,
and
then
the
conference
room
chairs
and
the
conference
room
table
the
the
delay
in
there.
I
It
was
because
of
the
the
covet
and-
and
so
that
was
fully
intended-
and
I
think
would
but
for
that
reason
b
have
all
been
made
in
the
in
the
correct
year,
but
because
they
weren't
we're
asking
to
move
these
amounts
to
the
to
the
year
that
we're
currently
in
now
and
as
the
chair
indicated
mark
robotic,
is,
I
believe,
up
on
here
too,
and
he
is
probably
more
able
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
about.
A
H
This
is
mark
from
poddock.
The
chairs
were
ordered,
as
replacement
chairs
for
some
very
old
chairs
that
we
have
in
the
conference
room.
The
conference
room
is
not
designed
for
social
distancing
at
this
time,
but
but
the
chairs
were
ordered
and
and
budgeted
and
ordered
prior
to
covet
coming
into
into
place,
and
we
do
use
the
conference
rooms
just
for
far
fewer
people
than
we
normally
would
and
the
chairs
are
necessary
for
that
purpose.
H
The
table
itself
we're
looking
to
get
a
larger
table,
which
it
was
not
originally
intended
to
be
such,
but
it
would
lend
itself
more
to
social
distancing
with
a
larger
conference
room
table
in
our
in
our
largest
conference
room
in
the
fiscal
males,
division.
A
Additional
questions
comments
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
Okay,
I
am
not
seeing
any.
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
the
transfer
of
funds
as
outlined
motion
from
senator
hardy.
Is
there
a
second
for
the
motion?
Second,
that's
it
from
assemblywoman
carlton.
Any
further
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Seeing
none,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
please
go
ahead
and.
A
D
E
E
G
F
E
A
Thank
you
in
motion
carries
the
request
will
be
approved.
We
will
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda.
It's
item
number
f,
which
is
appointments
of
members
to
committees
and
similar
entities
we
have
appointing.
We
have
some
members
to
be
appointed
to
both
the
nevada
commission
on
minority
affairs
and
the
advisory
council
on
mortgage
investments,
and
mortgage
lending
members
should
have
the
information
regarding
these
appointments
in
your
meeting
packet
under
separate
tabs
for
each
of
those.
That
information
is
also
available
on
the
legislative
website.
A
For
those
of
you
who
are
joining
us
virtually
and
would
like
to
take
a
look
at
those
meeting
materials.
They
contain
the
information
for
both
of
the
appointments
to
those
well
for
the
appointments
to
both
of
those
particular
entities,
and
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
erdos
to
walk
us
through
that
information.
Mr
dos.
I
Tab
is
a
letter
to
the
chair
from
emily
kuh,
the
management
analyst
for
the
commission
on
minority
affairs,
and
there
are
two
vacant
positions
and
three
reappointments
that
they're
asking
for
so
they're
asking
for
the
appointment
of
two
new
members
and
those
they're
listed
there
as
the
first
two
members
listed
yvette,
martel
de
luca
and
angelica
velardo,
and
then
there
are
the
the
next
three
members
are
asking
to
be
reappointed
for
their
second
terms.
I
What
follows
this
in
our
in
our
packets
and
in
the
information
that's
on
the
website
is
the
resumes
of
of
those
people.
I
I
think
that's
everything
that's
in
here
that
you
just
need
to
determine
whether
you
wish
to
appoint
these
new
new
members
and
reappoint
the
three
other
members
that
are
listed
there.
A
Any
thank
you,
mr
editors.
We
appreciate
it
any
discussion
or
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
G
Just
a
quick
question.
G
My
question
was
for
her
now
the
process
that
she
went
through
to
get
submissions
for
the
position.
A
I
don't
know
that
we
have
her
with
us,
but.
G
A
Process,
I
know
that
this
was
certainly
information
that
was
provided
to
us
by
the
department
of
business
and
industry.
Miss
cou
had
sent
over
the
letter,
along
with
all
of
the
letters
of
recommendation
for
the
individuals
who
had
either
called
to
this,
and
I
I
will
speak
out
of
turn,
but
I
believe
there
is
an
application
process
that
must
be
accompanied
by
some
of
these
other
items
that
are
included
in
your
meeting
packet
as
well.
A
I
Man,
I'm
sure
I
apologize.
I
do
not-
and
I
haven't
involved
in
this
process
before,
but
I
think
that
what
we'll
do
in
the
future
for
these
sorts
of
appointments
is
ask
that
question
and
ask
them
to
include
that
in
the
material
that
they
provide
to.
I
G
Madam
chair,
I'm
willing
to
make
a
motion.
I
think
they're
both
highly
qualified
great
candidates.
So,
if
we're
ready
for
motion,
I
I
would
make
that
motion.
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
additional
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission,
so
I
do
have
a
motion
from
senator
dennis
to
approve
the
appointments
to
the
commission
on
minority
affairs
and
the
advisory
council
on
mortgage
investments
in
mortgage
lending.
Is
there
a
second
from
the
commission?
That's
second
from
senator
hardy
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
E
E
E
G
E
E
G
Madam
chair
medicare,
the
senator
dennis
I
I
just
realized-
I
I
wasn't
clear,
but
I
think
everybody
understood
this,
that
we
were
approving
the
two
new
ones,
plus
the
reappointment
of
the
other
three.
So
I
don't
think
that
I
think.
E
A
I
I
apologize.
We
have
a
second
group
of
appointments
to
make.
I
Got
it
sorry,
we
have
a
second
group
of
two
appointments
to
make
reappointments
to
make
to
the
advisory
council
on
mortgage
investments
and
mortgage
lending.
I
Today,
if
you
look
in
the
packet,
you
have
a
letter.
I
From
sheehy
asking
for
those
adam
horowitz
and
alicia
taylor
to
be
reappointed
behind
that
letter
is
a
letter
from
adam
horowitz
asking
to
be
reappointed
and
then
also
alicia
taylor's
resume
and
a
similar
request
to
be
reappointed.
A
A
That's
okay,
so
we
will.
We
will
go
ahead
then,
and
consider
the
appointments
for
the
mortgage
advisory
council
on
mortgage
investments
and
mortgage
lending
were
there
any
additional
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
on
those
two
reappointments.
A
Seeing
then,
is
there
a
motion
to
be
made
to
approve
the
two
reappointments
as
outlined
in
your
reading
materials?
I
see
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
a
second
from
senator
hardy,
any
discussion
on
the
motion
being
none,
madam
secretary.
If
you
could
go
ahead
and
we
will
do
a
roll
call,
though.
D
E
E
L
G
D
F
E
A
And
that
motion
then
we'll
pass
as
well
for
the
appointment
for
our
reappointment
rather
of
the
members
for
the
advisory
advisory
council
on
mortgage
investments
of
lending,
and
that
will
conclude
our
action
on
the
appointments
for
those
committees.
We
will
move
on
now
to
item
number
five
under
the
legislative
honor.
The
next
two
items
on
our
agenda
will
be
presented
by
our
very
own
legislative
auditor,
dan
crossman,
and
we
will
turn
it
over
to
you
to
go
through
the
two
items
under
sub
a
and
7b
mr
crossman.
H
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
chair
canazarro
and
members
of
the
legislative
commission
for
the
record
dan
crossland
legislative
auditor.
I
have
two
quick
items
for
your
consideration
today
under
agenda
items
5a
and
5b
under
tab,
5
you'll
see
a
letter
from
the
commission
dated
august
10th
that
requesting
permission
for
the
audit
division
to
perform
audits.
The
first
paragraph
in
that
letter
pertains
to
agenda
item
5a
schedule
1,
which
is
on
the
next
page
lists
the
audits
we
currently
have
in
progress
in
accordance
with
nrs218e.205.
H
We
are
requesting
approval
to
continue
these
audits,
as
we
will
not
be
able
to
present
all
of
them
to
the
audit
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission
before
the
start
of
the
2021
legislative
session.
As
a
result,
we
respectfully
request
that
the
commission
approve
continuation
of
these
audits
under
agenda
item
5a.
Thank.
A
You
questions
or
concerns
from
members
of
the
commission
for
agenda
number
agenda.
Item
number
five.
A
A
I'm
not
seeing
any.
There
was
a
motion
from
senator
hardy
to
approve
the
request
for
an
extension,
and
I
see
a
second
from
assemblyman
daily.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
E
J
G
E
E
A
Thank
you
men's
okay
and
the
motion
passes
at
mr
craftsman.
We'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you
under
item
number
agenda.
Item
number
5b.
H
All
right,
thank
you
again
for
the
record
dan
crossman
legislative
auditor
under
agenda
item
5b.
Pursuant
to
nrs218.120,
we
are
requesting
approval
of
our
biennial
audit
plan,
which
is
included
as
schedule
2
on
the
next
page
with
agencies
that
have
multiple
divisions
or
programs.
It
is
possible
that
we
will
perform
more
than
one
audit
of
those
agencies.
H
The
timing
of
the
audits
is
contingent
upon
available
staffing
resources
and
may
be
impacted
by
additional
audits
placed
on
the
audit
division
by
the
legislative
commission
or
by
the
legislature.
During
the
2021
legislative
legislative
session,
the
proposed
audits
were
selected
using
a
risk
assessment
process.
H
A
Not
seeing
anybody
requesting
for
comments
or
questions,
so
yes,
we
do
and
we
do
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
in
carlton
to
approve
the
request
under
5b,
and
I
see
a
second
from
senator
hardy
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
E
G
G
E
A
Thank
you
and
that
request
will
be
approved.
Thank
you,
mr
crossman,
for
being
here
to
walk
us
through
those
items
under
agenda.
Item
number
five.
We
appreciate
it.
We
will
now
be
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
item
number
six.
It
is
a
progress
report
report
regarding
litigation.
We
are
joined
by
kevin
powers,
our
general
counsel,
who
will
provide
us
with
a
report
regarding
the
various
court
cases
involving
the
legislature
that
are
currently
in
progress.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
kevin
powers,
lcd
legal
general
counsel,
lcb
legal
will
be
reporting
on
two
cases
today,
because
those
are
the
two
cases
that
we
have
developments
in
since
the
last
legislative
commission
meeting.
Both
of
these
cases
are
related,
so
I
will
discuss
them
together.
L
Those
cases
are
settlemeyer
versus
state
of
nevada,
which
is
in
the
first
judicial
district
court
and
then
state
x-rail,
canazarro
versus
first
judicial
district
court,
which
is
in
the
nevada
supreme
court.
This
office
discussed
these
cases
extensively
at
the
legislative
commission
meetings
on
the
december
30th
2019
and
on
february
6
2020.
L
In
the
underlying
case
in
the
district
court,
the
plaintiffs
are
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
senate
bill
number,
542
and
551
of
the
2019
legislative
session.
The
plaintiffs
claim
that
these
bills
created
generated
or
increased
public
revenue
and
that
they
violated
article
4,
section
18
of
the
nevada
constitution,
because
the
bills
did
not
receive
a
two-thirds
majority
vote
in
the
senate.
The
plaintiffs
include
eight
senators,
eight
members
of
the
senate
or
eight
senators,
who
also
known
as
the
plaintiffs
senators,
who
voted
against
sb
542
and
sb
551..
L
The
legislative
defendants
include
senator
canozzaro
in
her
official
capacity
as
senate
majority
leader
and
claire
clift.
In
her
official
capacity
as
secretary
of
the
senate
in
the
district
court,
the
plaintiff
centers
move
to
disqualify
lcb
legal
from
representing
the
legislative
defendants
in
their
official
capacity
as
their
statutorily
authorized
council
under
nrs,
218,
f
720.
L
The
district
court
agreed
with
that
motion
and
entered
an
order.
Disqualifying
lcb
legal
lcb
legal
then
filed
a
petition
for
rid
of
mandamus
with
the
nevada
supreme
court
challenging
the
district
court's
disqualification
order.
After
lcb
legal
filed
the
mandamus
action,
the
nevada
supreme
court
issued
an
order
which
stayed
all
district
court
proceedings
pending
resolution
of
the
mandamus
action.
L
The
parties
briefed
the
mandamus
action
and
presented
oral
argument
on
february
11
2020
before
the
full
seven
members
nevada
supreme
court
on
june
26
2020,
the
nevada
supreme
court
issued
a
published
opinion
and
rid
of
mandamus
overturning
the
disqualification
order
and
lifting
the
stay.
That
opinion
is
in
state
x-ray,
canazarro
versus
first
judicial
district
court,
136,
nevada,
advanced
opinion,
number
34
2020..
L
L
But
in
challenging
the
legislation
the
vatican
court
found
that
the
plan
of
senators
are
not.
Similarly,
acting
on
the
legislature's
behalf,
and
thus
they
are
not
considered
lcp,
legal's
client
in
the
situation
of
this
litigation
under
nrs,
218,
f,
720,
lcb
legal
is
authorized
to
represent
the
legislative
defendant
because
they
were
sued
in
their
official
capacity
to
defend
against
claims
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
legislation
and
to
protect
the
institutional
interests
of
the
legislature.
L
Me,
the
district
court,
the
district
court,
characterized
elsieville's
representation
as
picking
sides,
but
that
characterization
is
unfair
and
unsupported
according
to
the
nevada,
supreme
court
and
counsel
for
the
plaintiff.
Senators
acknowledge
that
oral
argument
that
nothing
in
the
record
supports
that
lcd
legal
pick
sides
or
chose
to
represent
the
legislative
defendants.
L
Instead,
lcb
legal
serves
as
nonpartisan
legal
counsel
for
the
legislature,
acting
through
its
duly
authorized
constituents.
Lcb
legal
is
not
authorized
to
advocate
against
legislation
or
official
legislative
acts,
and
thus
lcb
legal
did
not
pick
sides
in
this
litigation.
As
counsel
for
the
plaintiff.
Senators
acknowledge
that
oral
argument.
Lcb
legal,
cannot
take
a
position
contrary
to
the
legislature,
and
thus
lcb
legal
could
not
represent
the
plan
of
senators
in
the
underlying
litigation.
L
Even
if
senator
camazaro
and
secretary
cliff
had
not
been
named
as
defendants,
lcd
legal's
representation
of
the
legislative
defendants
likewise
does
not
damage
its
neutrality
as
defending
a
built.
Constitutionality
is
a
public
nonpartisan
function
and
pursuant
to
nrs,
218,
f,
720,
lcb
legal
would
defend
such
a
bill,
regardless
of
which
political
party
is
in
the
majority.
L
Finally,
the
court
found
that
the
basis
for
lcb
legal's
legal
opinion
regarding
the
two-thirds
requirement
was
not
political
and
counsel.
For
the
plain
of
senators
acknowledged
that
there
was
nothing
improper
about
lcb
legal,
providing
a
legal
opinion
that
was
neutral
to
both
the
majority
and
minority
leaders
during
the
legislative
session.
L
Therefore,
the
national
court
issued
a
rid
of
mandamus
directing
the
district
court
to
vacate
its
order.
Disqualifying
lcb
legal
on
july
9
2020,
the
district
court
entered
that
order
and
vacated
the
disqualification
order.
On
august
13
2020,
the
district
court
approved
a
stipulation
and
order
establishing
a
briefing
schedule
in
the
district
court
for
the
party's
dispositive
motions
on
the
underlying
constitutional
issue.
L
With
regards
to
the
two-thirds
question
that
briefing
will
be
completed
on
september,
14
2020
and
the
district
court
will
hear
oral
arguments
regarding
the
party's
dispose
dispositive
motions
at
the
hearing
in
the
carson
city
course
house
set
for
september
21st
2020
at
1
30
pm,
and
that
is
an
overview
of
the
two
cases
that
have
major
developments
in
them.
Since
the
last
legislative
commission
meeting
I'm
chair
and
I'm
certainly
open
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Any
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
thank
you,
mr
powers.
We
appreciate
your
overview
and
explanation.
As
always,
we
will
now
move
to
item
number
seven
on
our
agenda
item
for
those
of
you
who
are
watching
and
joining
with
us
online.
This
is
now
the
second
public
comment
offering
that
we
will
have
for
this
meeting.
A
I
am
going
to
turn
this
over
to
our
broadcast
production
services
staff
to
go
ahead
and
cue
up
those
calling
in
to
speak,
and
they
will
of
course,
again
inform
you
when
it
is
your
time
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak,
and
then
just
another
reminder
if
you
are
going
to
be
giving
public
comments
to
please
state
and
spell
your
name
so
that
we
will
have
that
for
the
record
and
now
we'll
turn
it
over
to
our
broadcast
production
services.
E
A
We
thank
you
for
being
able
and,
as
always
able
to
help
facilitate,
not
only
our
meetings
and
the
public
participation
as
well.
We
will
with
that
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
public
comment
at
this
point
in
time.
Under
item
number.
Seven
and
the
final
item
on
our
agenda
is
agenda.
Item
number
eight,
which
is
our
adjournment,
I'm
seeing
no
additional
business
before
the
commission
at
this
point.
The
meeting
is
adjourned.
A
Thank
you,
commission
members
for
being
here
today
and
thank
you
to
all
of
our
wonderful
staff
for
being
able
to
not
only
facilitate
our
meeting
but
answer
all
of
our
questions
and
make
sure
that
we
can
conduct
our
business
safely
and
we'll
see,
I'm
sure
we'll
see
each
other
soon.
Thank
you.