►
From YouTube: 10/29/2020 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the sixth meeting in calendar year 2020. Please see the revised 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
Good
afternoon
and
welcome
everyone
to
our
meaning
of
the
our
first
virtual
meeting
rather
of
the
legislative
commission,
will
the
secretary
please
call
the
role.
C
D
E
B
A
Thank
you,
it
sounds
like
we've
got
everybody
with
us,
so
a
couple
of
housekeeping
reminders
just
generally
before
we
get
started
with
everything
today.
I
would
ask
that
anyone
who
does
testify
either
in
public
comment
or
during
the
course
of
our
discussions
today
to
please
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
before
you
testify,
so
that
we
can
have
that
accurately
reflected
in
the
records
for
this
meeting.
A
If
anyone
wants
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
commission's
agendas
minutes
reports,
you
may
be
added
to
our
mailing
list
by
following
the
links
on
the
website
of
the
nevada
legislature
or
by
providing
information
to
our
staff
contact.
Information
for
staff
is
also
listed
on
the
website
and,
in
addition,
we
do
accept
written
comments
which
may
be
emailed
or
mailed
before,
during
or
after
our
legislative
commission
meeting.
A
A
If
you
have
called-
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
all
comments
will
be
limited
to
not
more
than
two
minutes
per
person
and,
of
course,
always
welcome
to
submit
again
additional
written
comments,
and
they
will
be
added
to
the
record
for
this
meeting
as
well.
A
If
you
prefer
to
wait
in
later
in
the
meeting,
we
are,
of
course
going
to
have
that
second
period
of
public
comment
once
we've
done
the
business
of
the
committee
and
you
can
always
join
us
at
that
point
in
time.
I
would
also
note
that,
for
anyone
who
is
wishing
to
give
comment
on
any
of
the
items
on
our
agenda,
that
would
include
regulations
for
which
the
commission
is
going
to
approve.
A
Now
would
be
the
time
for
you
to
voice
those
public
comments
either
now
or
during
that
second
period
of
public
comment,
because
when
we
hear
the
regulations
we'll
be
hearing
from
the
entities
and
then
allow
the
commission
to
ask
questions.
So
if
you're
here
wanting
to
give
comment
on
any
of
the
regulations,
we
will
be
taking
a
look
at
today.
Now
would
be
the
time
to
do
that
or
in
that
second
period
of
public
comment.
A
F
G
The
rule
is
squarely
preempted
by
federal
law
and
would
harm
nevada
businesses
and
citizens,
particularly
if
imposed
on
its
due
date,
effective
date
of
january,
1st,
2021,
the
federal
energy
policy,
conservation
act
or
epcot,
and
subsequent
amendments
broadly
preempts,
state
energy
conservation
regulations
concerning
covered
products,
including
general
service,
lamps,
epcot
preempts,
the
rule,
because
it
seeks
to
regulate
what
is
exclusively
within
federal
authority.
This
is
not
just
nema's
view.
G
G
If
the
legislative
commission
disagrees
with
the
department
of
energy's
conclusion,
nema
respectfully
requests
that
the
rule
be
amended
to
state
that
it
is
quote
without
effect
to
the
extent
preempted
by
federal
law
or
regulation.
Nevada,
businesses
and
consumers
would
be
harmed
by
january
1st
2021,
effective
date.
Nevada
retailers
would
face
a
daunting
challenge
of
identifying
which
of
their
products
meet
the
rules
definition,
but
are
not
within
one
of
the
rules.
28
enumerated
exclusions
and
then
removing
those
products
from
inventory,
with
just
two
months
notice,
heading
into
a
busy
holiday
season
during
a
global
pandemic.
G
The
current
state
of
the
supply
chain
would
almost
guarantee
that
consumers
would
find
empty
shelves
and
few
lighting
options
at
a
minimum.
We
ask
that
the
rules
effective
date
be
set
to
september
2010
2021,
to
allow
an
orderly
response
by
impacted
businesses
in
nevada
and
for
a
thorough
consideration
by
the
commission
of
the
rules.
Legal
flaws.
In
conclusion,
nema
requests
that
the
rule
be
stopped
in
the
alternative.
G
F
F
D
G
First
of
all,
the
light
bulb
standards
required
by
the
legislature
and
developed
by
the
energy
office
will
effectively
move
the
market
in
nevada
to
led
light
bulbs.
These
are
very
efficient
bulbs
that
are
widely
available
from
retailers
throughout
the
state
throughout
the
country.
Indeed,
a
typical,
led
light
bulb
will
save
the
the
consumer
about
25
to
50
over
the
life
of
the
bulb,
and
it's
far
more
efficient
than
the
incandescent
light
bulbs
that
are
being
replaced.
G
The
regulations
were
initially
proposed
in
the
fall
of
2019.
Indeed,
the
state
law
initially
requires
that
the
regulations
take
effect
as
of
january
1
of
2020..
So
we're
a
bit
behind
in
getting
the
regulations
in
place,
but
I
I
was
very
pleased
to
to
note
that
there
were
some
initial
concerns
raised
by
the
nevada
resorts
association.
G
C
G
With
natural
resources,
defense,
council,
nevada
conservation,
league
and
others,
consensus
was
developed
onto
as
to
what
should
be
recommended
for
the
the
scope
of
of
the
standards
of
the
regulations,
and
that
recommendation
was
submitted
to
the
nevada
energy
office
earlier
this
year,
and
the
regulations
adopted
in
the
summer
reflect
the
the
the
recommendations
of
the
nevada
resort
association
as
well
as
the
environmental
community.
So
it's
a
good
consensus
set
of
recommendations
that
address
some
initial
concerns
also
want
to
respond
to
the
claim
that
that
nevada
is
preempted.
G
G
Those
are
the
two
states
that
have
this
exemption
from
preemption
california
implemented
the
standards
on
january
1st
of
this
year,
nema
brought
a
lawsuit
and
the
u.s
district
court
for
the
eastern
district
of
california
rejected
the
claims
of
nema
and
the
standards
are
now
being
implemented
and
quite
successfully
across
the
border
since
since
january
first
of
this
year.
G
The
final
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
these
standards
will
provide
significant
emissions.
Reductions
for
nevada,
helping
to
reduce
electricity
helps
to
mean
that
we
want
our
power
plants.
Less
and
that
provides
significant
reductions
and
any
missions
that
that
contribute
towards
environmental
problems.
Thank
you
for
the
chance
to
testify
today
and
I'd.
Be.
Welcome.
No
also
want
to
direct
you
to
the
written
comments
that
we
submitted
to
this
docket,
along
with
natural
resources,
defense,
council,
the
nevada
conservation
league
and
the
southwest
energy
efficiency
partnerships,
which
are
on
the
record.
F
F
F
F
F
Moving
on
to
the
next
caller
can
the
caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
of
732,
please
press
star,
6
now
to
unmute
yourself,
please
slowly,
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
have
two
minutes.
Please
begin
good
afternoon.
Members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
kyle
davis,
k-y-l-e
b-a-v-I-s.
E
We
are
here
today
in
support
of
regulation
r
119.
E
You
should
have
a
letter
on
nellis
with
our
support
that
was
mentioned
earlier
by
mr
galaski,
along
with
accompanying
legal
analysis
that
will
demonstrate
the
state's
ability
to
adopt
these
regulations.
Our
organization
was
proud
to
support
ab54
during
the
2019
legislative
session,
which
I
would.
E
The
legislature
and
we
participated
in
the
regulatory
process
which
has
been
described
was
a
a
really
good
process
that
that
brought
various
parties
together
and
arrived
at
a
compromise
solution
that
works
for
the
state
of
nevada.
These
regulations
have
broad
support
from
a
number
of
different
entities
that
participated
in
this
process
and
would
encourage
this
committee's
adoption
of
these
regulations.
E
In
terms
of
helping
nevadans,
save
energy,
save
money
on
their
utility
bills
and
helping
reduce
pollution
in
our
state.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
F
F
A
Working
you
so
much
for
helping
to
facilitate
our
public
comment
again.
There
will
be
another
period
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
so
if
you've
missed
this
first
segment
of
public
comment,
please
be
sure
to
join
us
through
till
the
end
and
give
your
public
comment
there
or,
alternatively,
give
it
in
writing
with
that.
We'll
move
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
item,
number
three,
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
the
meetings
held
on
august
25th,
2020
and
september
18th
of
2020..
A
I
would
note
that
members
of
the
committee
have
had
copies
of
those
minutes
and
have
had
a
chance
to
review
them,
and
they
are
also
available
online
for
anyone
who
is
joining
us
virtually
at
this
point
in
time.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
or
comments
on
minutes.
A
Fantastic
and
I
think,
a
second
from
assemblyman
daily
any
discussion
on
the
motion
being
none.
We
will
turn
it
over
to
our
secretary
to
roll.
D
C
E
J
E
E
E
A
A
We
will
first
ask
members
of
the
committee
if
they
have
any
regulations
that
they
would
like
to
hold
for
additional
discussion
and
then
we'll
vote
to
approve
any
of
the
remaining
regulations.
After
that,
we
will
go
item
by
item
through
the
regulations
that
have
been
asked
to
be
held
and
have
the
agency
come
forward.
Who
adopted
the
regulation
to
address
any
questions
related
to
the
regulation
from
members
of
the
committee.
A
So
I
do
already
have
a
number
of
regulations
that
were
requested
to
be
pulled,
and
so
I
will
read
those
up
for
members
of
the
committee.
I
do
so
that
in
case
they're
on
your
list,
we
can
make
sure
to
include
I've
already
received
a
request
from
settle
senator
settlemyre
to
roll
r053-19
for
the
board
of
athletics.
D
A
Assistance
others
that
committee
members
would
like.
Madam
chairwoman,
I
have.
A
A
I'm
not
seeing
any
so
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
full
list
of
those
that
we
are
pulling
to
set
aside
for
additional
questions
and
comments,
so
that
members
of
the
committee
have
the
full
list,
and
those
of
you
who
are
following
along
online
also
have
that
full
list.
The
first
one
is
r047-19
for
the
nevada
interest,
scholastic
activities
association.
A
Vehicles,
so
if
you
just
heard
a
regulation
that
you
were
waiting
to
potentially
testify
on,
we
will
be
taking
additional
testimony
on
those
we
have.
Also.
The
remaining
regulations
are
103.
A
r111-19,
r002-20,
r016-20,
r020-20,
r025-20,
r035-20,
r058-20,
r065-20,
r066-20,
r070-20,
r084,
that's
and
our
014-19
that
are
remaining,
and
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
those
regulations.
If
there
is
one
to
be.
E
A
D
K
E
J
E
E
I
A
Thank
you.
So
those
regulations
have
been
adopted
by
the
legislative
commission.
We
will
go
back
to
our
list
of
those
regulations
that
have
been
requested
to
be
pulled
for
additional
discussion
and
we'll
start
with
the
first
one
on
our
list,
which
is
r047-19
for
the
nevada
interscholastic
activities
association.
That
was
a
request
from
senator
hardy,
and
so
when
we
are
ready
I'll
turn
it
over
to
senator
hardy,
to
ask
the
questions
that
he
has.
H
It's
been
my
impression
that
in
a
small
school
there
are
students
that
play
on
jv
teams
and
then
to
get
experience.
They
take
them
up
to
a
varsity
team,
and
so
I'm
concerned
that
this
would
not
allow
them
to
have
that
kind
of
experience
in
the
same
day,
and
I
think
it
probably
not
wise
to
do
it.
I
know
there's
probably
a
reason
for
the
regulation,
but
I
think
that
it
probably
may
make
a
smaller
school
suffer
more
than
a
larger.
H
A
Do
we
have
anyone
from
the
interscholastic
activities
association?
Yes,.
L
Chairman
chairman
canaveral,
this
is
paul
anderson,
I'm
legal
counsel
for
the
niaa
I'd
be
happy
to
address
that
question.
I
think
the
assemblyman's
understanding
of
the
regulation
may
be
a
bit
different
than
what's
written.
This.
This
regulation
was
passed
primarily
to
help
small
schools.
L
It
was
sponsored
by
our
smaller
classification
schools,
based
on
the
fact
that
they
have
a
fewer
number
of
students
who
are
able
to
compete
and
by
allowing
players
to
compete
at
more
than
one
level
in
one
day,
in
a
particular
sport,
for
instance,
basketball,
a
jv
player
who
may
be
needed
up
on
a
ross.
The
varsity
roster
could
play
the
jv
game,
but
could
be
up
on
the
varsity
roster,
as
perhaps
the
10th
player
on
the
team.
L
In
case
there
was
a
need
for
a
player
based
on
a
foul
situation
or
whatever
it
would
allow
that
player
an
opportunity
to
get
a
full
game
in
or
whatever
at
the
jv
level,
but
still
be
able
to
be
on
the
varsity
team
in
case
he
or
she
was
needed.
Then,
and
as
I
say,
that's
that's
been
requested
by
our
smaller
classification
schools
in
order
to
allow
them
to
continue
to
have
multi-level
multi-level
teams,
jv
teams
and
varsity
teams
in
a
particular
sport.
H
And
chair,
if
I
may,
maybe
I'm
reading
this
wrong
section.
One
of
this
regulation
prohibits
a
pupil
who
participates
in
a
sanctioned
sport
from
participating
in
more
than
two
levels
of
competition
during
the
day,
thereby
allowing
the
pupil
to
participate
in
two
levels
of
competition
in
a
single
day.
So
you're
saying
what
then,
when
when
I
read
the
word,
prohibits
I
get
nervous,
so
they're
still
allowed
to
do
that.
What
are
they
prohibited
from
doing
then
in
this
regulation?
L
At
is
the
prior
regulation
prohibited
students
from
doing
that,
the
regulation
now
allows
students
to
do
that
to
to
be
able
to
participate
other
than
in
the
sport
of
football
in
in,
in
a
particular
sanctioned
sport
at
two
level:
two
different
levels
in
one
day,
for
instance
at
jv
and
a
varsity
level.
L
H
Apparently
I'm
misreading
it,
and
so
I
will
withdraw
my
objection
if
the
intent
is
to
actually
let
them
do
exactly
what
you've
said.
M
Yeah,
so
you
know
I've
coached
at
a
small
school
and
the
way
the
regulation
read
is
yeah.
It
looked
at
the
number
of
quarters
per
day
at
some
point
and
I
think
they
may
have
changed
that
since
then.
The
way
I
read
this
right
here
is
you're
basically
saying
we're.
We're
basically
saying
you
can
play
two
games
in
a
day.
I
think
it's
two
levels,
but
we're
just
going
to
consider
that
one
game
for
the
purposes
of
making
sure
that
that
student
isn't
ineligible
or
breaking
any
kind
of
rules.
M
That's
the
way
I
read
it,
so
it
is,
it
provides
more
flexibility.
The
way
I
read
the
the.
E
The
language
of
this
particular
regulation
is
that
correct.
Mr
anderson.
L
Yes,
what
you're
saying
is
correct
and
what
it
allows,
as
I,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
is
our
smaller
our
smaller
schools
in
our
smaller
communities
as
well
as
we
have
a
lot
of
small
charter
schools.
Now
that
have
difficulties.
You
know
having
more
than
one
level
of
a
particular
sport,
and
so
it
allows
them
to
have
a
varsity
team
and
a
junior
varsity
team
to
fill
rosters
have
enough
players
on
each
roster
to
where
they
can
compete.
L
By
allowing
some
of
the
players,
who
may
be
junior
varsity
players
to
be
up
on
the
varsity
after
the
junior
varsity
game
and
play
if
needed,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
they're
going
to-
and
there
are
precautions
in
the
the
reg
that
place
some
some
responsibility
on
the
coaches
to
make
sure
the
safety
of
the
students
you're
not
overplaying
somebody,
but
it
does
allow
them
to
fill
a
roster
and
have
a
junior
varsity
team
and
a
varsity
team
lets
the
player
play
at
both
levels
in
one
day
and
it,
as
you
indicated
it
it.
L
D
So
basically
you,
mr
anderson,
you
in
this
I'm
looking
at
section
one
subsection
three.
It
basically.
E
You're
not
worried
about
the
number
of
quarters
in
a
night
so
presumably
again
you're
putting
some
of
the
responsibility
on
the
coach
and
the
the
school
staff.
You're.
Basically
saying
you
could
play
six
quarters,
you
could
play
seven
quarters.
E
For
those
small
schools
that
you
know
they
do
have
a
tough
time
fielding
a
jv
team.
If
you
can
like
field
one
team,
you
obviously
want
to
fill
the
varsity
team,
but
there's
several
players
that
need
more
experience
and
they
won't.
They
won't
get
it
if
they're
not
playing
at
least
the
jv
level.
So
you
bring
down
one
or
two
players:
let
them
play,
and
then
you
have
to
have
them
for
the
varsity
season
as
well.
E
A
I
have
a
motion
to
do
pass
from
assemblyman
wheeler
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Seeing
none
we'll
have
the
secretary
take
a
roll
call
vote.
D
H
D
A
Right
so
that
regulation
is
passed,
we
will
move
to
the
next
one
on
our
list,
which
is
r053-19
for
the
board
of
athletic
trainers.
That
was
a
request
from
senator
settlemyre
to
pull
that,
and
so
we'll
turn
it
over
to
him
to
ask
his
questions
and.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
with
that
being
said,
I
was
curious
within
this
regulation.
How
many
hours
of
actual
physical
work
in
the
form
of
dry
needling
has
to
be
done
by
a
student
before
they're,
given
the
ability
to
practice
dry
needling?
I
was
reading
through
the
regulation
and
the
number
of
hours,
so
it
doesn't
specifically
say
it
says
150
hours,
but
how
much
of
that
actually
has
to
be
within
physical
utilization
of
dry
needling.
M
M
I
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
answer.
During
testimony
we
had
a
lot
of
discussion
in
commerce
and
labor
forget
the
new
title
of
committee.
Sorry,
but
in
that
respect
it
was
indicated
that,
due
to
the
similarity
with
acupuncture
that
there
would
be
some
requirements
on
the
actual
number
of
hours
that
someone
would
actually
have
to
manipulate
and
utilize
dry
needling.
I
A
Yes,
senator
hardy.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
One
of
the
knitty
picky
things
is
that
the
athletic
trainer
will
have
to
get
consent
from
the
patient
and
athletic
trainers.
Many
times
do
things
to,
or
with
minors
and
they're,
not
going
to
be
able
to
logistically
quote
unquote,
get
permission
from
the
patient
when
it
happens
to
be
a
minor,
but
one
of
the
things
that
concerns
me
is
we.
We
actually
had
this
debate
in
the
session
to
create
a
nrs
as
opposed
to
an
nac,
and
I
I
think
we're
shortchanging
that
process.
H
When
we
start
looking
at
needles
and
pneumothoracies
and
hitting
things
I
get
a
little
nervous
with
dry
needles
without
the
appropriate
or
the
length
of
training,
that's
needed,
so
I
will
not
be
supporting
this
either.
Thank
you.
C
Yes,
madam
chair
carlton,
please
thank
you
very
much,
so
this
was
a
very
talked
about
piece
of
legislation.
Last
section
I
I
apologize.
I've
got
too
many
things
on
my
desk
here,
so
I
I
guess
what
I
need
to
jog
my
memory
and
if
the
gentleman
from
the
athletic
trainers
I
know
we
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
numerous
sports
teams
using
some
of
these
techniques
on
some
of
the
professional
athletes
that
there
were
a
number
of
athletic
trainers
in
the
state
that
were
really
not
interested
in
this.
C
This
was
a
sort
of
a
different
level
of
athletic
trainer.
So
if
the
representative
from
the
board
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
this-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
same
level
of
education
is
applied
across
the
board
for
the
same
scope
of
practice,
so
that's
that's
my
key
and
that's
what
I've
always
looked
at.
So
if
we
could
get
those
answered,
please.
M
Yes,
so
the
level
the
level
of
athlete
in
general
is
doing.
This
is
with
the
professional
sports
teams
or
the
collegiate
sports
teams
and
or
performance
medicine
like
cirque
du
soleil.
So
these
are
advanced
highly
trained
people,
they
all
have
master's
degrees,
they've
all
done
advanced
training
in
dry
needling.
To
this
point
they
are
currently
doing
it.
I
recently
was
talking
to
the
athletic
trainers
from
the
golden
knights,
actually
just
a
few
days
ago.
You
know
this
is
an
integral
part
of
their
training
and
what
they
do
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
M
It's
the
same
with
the
las
vegas
raiders.
This
is
going
on
basically
every
day
currently,
and
you
know
we,
we
feel
that
the
training
is
similar
to
what
the
physical
therapists
are
doing
as
far
as
the
advanced
skills
and
courses
to
do
this.
This
regulation
is
basically
the
same
as
the
physical
therapist
that
was
passed
in
december,
and
you
know
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
more
specific
questions
than
that.
C
And
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
and
those
are
the
things
that
I
needed
to
hear
because
I
know
we've
had
multiple
discussions
about
this
particular
technique
and
always
wanting
to
make
sure
that
if
a
certain
procedure
or
practice
is
used
and
we're
going
to
categorize
it
that
way
within
that
particular
practice,
we
always
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
the
same
across
the
board
and
in
a
lot
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
last
session
about
dry
needling,
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
take
anybody
out.
C
That
would
be
qualified
to
do
it.
Knowing
that
it's
done
in
a
lot
of
different
areas,
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everybody
did
it
safely
and
effectively
and
that
everyone
above
followed
the
one
one
one
rule
one
needle
one
patient
one
insertion.
That
was
the
major
goal
and
I'm
satisfied
with
the
images
that
I
have
and
I
would
be
able
to
support
this
regulation
today.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
people
who
admit
that
it's
already
being
done
by
athletic
trainers,
which
is
somewhat
interesting,
but
if
we
look
at
the
athletic
trainer
that
is
doing
this
with
the
cirque
du
soleil.
The
athletes
that
are
professional
athletes
that's
a
little
different
and
I'm
not
sure
that
this
differentiates
other
than
25
hours
of
didactic
instruction
and
training,
and
that
could
be
24
hours
of
didactic
in
one
hour
of
training.
H
H
Therapist
as
it
were,
and
what
our
athletic
trainer
and
what
this
it
opens
too
much
and
and
again
you
still
don't
have
the
patient
being
able
to
give
direction,
and
so
I
suspect
that
what
you're
trying
to
say
in
this
and
I'll
ask
for
that
clarification
is
this
will
not
be
done
by
a
athletic
trainer
on
a
minor.
M
That
that
has
always
kind
of
been
the
understanding,
but
it's
not
written
like
that.
This
was
written
basically
exactly
the
same
as
the
physical
therapy
legislation
which
passed
you
know.
I
I
personally
don't
see
someone
doing
this
on
a
minor
and
especially
with
you
know,
without
consent
of
their
parent.
As
far
as
people
that
have
expressed
interest
in
doing
this
clinically,
which
we
we
surveyed
our
members,
I
don't
think
we
and
michelle's
on
the
line
here
as
well.
M
I
don't
think
we
had
anyone
that
was
in
that
arena
at
this
time
and
as
far
as
the
number
of
hours
it's
25
hours,
you
write
up
didactic
instruction
plus
another
125
hours
of
didactic,
instruction
training.
So
really
it's
150
hours,
total
of
training.
I
M
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you,
but
this
does
say
specifically
specifically,
is
related
to
dry
needling,
so
the
aspects
of
anatomy
relevant
to
driving
the
control
of
bloodborne
pathogens,
the
you
know
the
circumstances
under
which
dry
needling
may
or
may
not
be
appropriate.
So
it's.
This
is
all
related
directly
to
that.
And
yes,
I
agree
that
you
said
you
know
it
could
be
one
hour
of
hands-on
24
hours
of
coursework,
but
also
these
courses
must
be
approved
by
the
border
certification,
which
I
can
guarantee.
M
You
will
not
approve
a
course
that
is
one
hour
of
hands-on.
They
they
have
their
own
ways
to
assess
these.
These
programs,
as
well
as
the
board
of
athletic
trainer
training,
can
also
approve
or
deny
these
these
courses
we
would
not
approve.
Of
course,
that
was
one
hour
of
hands-on
in
general.
These
are
you
know,
three-day
courses
where
people
travel
to,
and
it
is
very
much
a
hands-on.
N
And
excuse
me
if
I
may
also
interject,
please.
E
N
Also,
the
difference
in
the
consideration
between
a
physical
therapist
and
an
athletic
trainer.
An
athletic
trainer
in
the
state
of
nevada
must
work
under
physician's
orders,
so
a
high
school,
my
understanding
would
have
a
physician
and
they
are
the
ones
that
would
give
the
orders
to
the
athletic
trainer.
An
athletic
trainer
would
not
have
authorization
on
their
own
to
perform
dry
needling
on
a
minor.
M
H
E
M
Appreciate
that
I
do,
I
do
appreciate
that,
and
you
know
I
think,
that
as
more
professional
sports
teams
move
to
nevada,
you
know
this
is
is
is
absolutely
something
that
is
is
being
being
done
throughout
the
country
in
professional
sports,
and
I
really
feel
that
you
know
by
having
you
know
not
having
this.
We
could
be
very
much
limiting
the
ability
of
their
athletic
trainers
to
basically,
you
know,
keep
up
with
you
know.
Current
trends
in
in
sports
medicine.
H
M
From
time
to
time,
he
provides,
but
mostly
their
direction
is
for
understanding
orders,
so
they
would
be
writing
standing
orders
and
so,
for
this
would
be
something
that
the
athletic
trainer
at
the
high
school,
if
they
were
to,
let's
say
hypothetically,
want
to
do
this.
They
would
need
to
have
standing
orders
from
their
physician
to
allow
them
to
do
this
in
the
high
school,
and
I
can't
imagine
that
that
that
happening,
that
a
physician
would
give
them
the
standing
orders
plus
they
would
need
to
consent
of
the
parent.
M
D
E
Hi,
madam
chair,
thank
you
very
much.
I'm
reading
section
three
here
where
it
says
before
performing
dry
needling
an
athletic
trainer
must
obtain
a
sign
form
which
provides
informed
consent
from
the
patient,
but
I
see
nothing
in
here
that
says
that
it
must
have
consent
from
the
patient's
parent.
If
the
patient
is,
you
know
under
18
years
old.
So
why
wasn't?
That
added
in
here
is
what
I'm
asking
just
to
senator
hardy's
point.
M
You
know
it's
my
understanding
that,
as
far
as
an
athletic
trainer
is
concerned,
but
we
would
always
need
consent
to
treat
a
minor
in
any
way.
You
know
I'm
also
the
director
of
the
athletic
training
education
program
at
unlv,
and
this
is
like
when
we
teach
this
within
our
curriculum
anytime.
We
we
treat
a
minor.
We
need
to
consent
to
to
treat
it's,
it's
just
common
common
sense
in
the
in
the
medical
world,
and
maybe
you.
G
M
This
is
something
that
should
have
been
added
to
this,
but
that's
that's
why
it
wasn't
it's,
because
we
always
need
consent
to
treat
a
minor.
E
Okay,
because
what
you
have
here
is
you
know
the
signature
of
the
patient
and
that's
an
afflict
athletic
trainer
who
forms
dry,
kneeling
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
but
again
nothing
from
the
parents.
I
think
you're
right.
It
should
have
been
added
in
here,
and
I
don't
think
I
can
support
it.
If
that's
not
in
there
could
we
is
there
a
way
to
change
that.
M
So
assembly
assemblyman
this
was
passed
for
physical
therapists
with
the
same
language.
Why
was
that
not
brought
up
in?
In
their
case.
N
N
N
So
it
I
would
be
curious
from
legal
counsel
if
we
can
connect
the
dots
anywhere
to
be
able
to
say
that
if
a
regulation
says
that
you
have
to
have
informed
consent,
that
there's.
G
N
Place
in
the
law
that
says
informed
consent
for
somebody
under
the
age
of
18
is
a
minor
to
see
if
that's
already
handled.
If
it's
not.
What
I
would
suggest
is
our
current
state
is
that
we
have
folks
doing
this
without
the
permission,
I
think
we
generally
support
the
idea
of
having
more
training
and
a
greater
level
of
oversight
over
dry
needling.
N
So
my
recommendation
would
be
that
we
passed
this
regulation
so
that
everything
that
is
good
about
this
regulation
can
move
forward
and
if
we
don't
have
a
connection
someplace
else
in
the
law.
That
makes
it
clear
that
the
informed
consent
anywhere
that
we
say
in
informed
consent
means
that
a
minor
would
have
to
have
a
parent's
permission.
N
Then
we
should
probably
bring
back
the
rigs,
for
I
hate
to
say
this,
but
for
all
of
the
dry
dry
needling
groups.
That
would
just
add
that
line.
So
for
me,
it
doesn't
sound
to
me
like
there's
an
imminent
danger
of
dry
needling
happening
on
young
people.
I
think
we
have
time
to
come
back
and
make
it
right
if
we
need
to
make
it
right,
but
I
think
there
is
a
challenge
with
not
moving
forward.
N
So
I
think
me,
that's
the
right
part
right
path
forward,
move
move
this
along
because
it's
got
a
lot
of
good
things
in
it
and
then
ask
legal
to
say:
okay,
does
this
cover
it,
and
if
it
doesn't,
then
we
should
bring
it
back
for
dry,
needling
consistency
consistently
across
the
board
as
an
amendment
to
the
existing
nac
thanks.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
just
told
this
came
out
unanimously
with
respect
to
physical
therapists,
and
so,
if,
ultimately,
a
policy
problem
that
we
need
to
address
down
the
road
for
parody
sake
alone,
I
don't
know
why
we're
entertaining
a
different
treatment
right
now.
I
believe
that
there
was
testimony
provided
that
nothing
happens
to
a
minor
without
their
parents
commissioned
by
but
by
by
law.
I
would
imagine
the
definition
of
consent
means
that
you
have
to
have
capacity
to
provide
it
which
a
child
would
not,
and
so
for
parody
sake
alone.
K
If,
if
we
just
did
this
unanimously
last
session
for
physical
therapists,
I
don't
know
why
we
wouldn't
be
consistent,
and
if
there
was
a
problem,
we're
debating
a
problem,
we
never
have
heard
exists
with
respect
to
whether
or
not
somebody
is
running
out
on
a
football
field
with
a
dry
needle.
I
think
that
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
micromanage
the
folks
that
are
overseeing
this.
We
do
it
across
the
board
in
different
areas,
and
not
every
single
possible
scenario
is,
is
specifically
set
out
either
in
statute
or
in
red.
K
So,
for
the
sake
of
being
at
the
very
least
consistent
what
we
just
did
regarding
physical
therapists,
it
seems
to
me
to
make
sense
to
continue
that
consistency
and
if
we
need
to
put
in
the
law
that
every
physical
therapist
every
athletic
trainer
every
medical
doctor,
every
medical
professional
when
it
comes
to
a
child,
has
to
get
permission
from
the
parent
or
to
be
considered
consent.
K
Then
that's
a
broader
conversation,
but
I
don't
know
that
it's
applicable
to
this
principle
of
being
consistent
and
how
we're
dealing
with
driving
going
and
the
oversight
that
is.
A
Comparison
additional
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
committee.
A
Then,
with
that,
is
there
a
motion
to
be
made
regarding
the
regarding
regulation,
our
zero
r053-19.
A
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
carlton
and
a
second
from
senator
dennis
discussion
on
the
motion.
Senator
settlement.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
As
stated
earlier,
we
did
have
this
discussion
during
session.
We
were
told
that
when
regulations
came
about,
we
would
see
within
that
how
many
hours
of
actual
manipulation
were
required
in
order
for
someone
to
be
allowed
to
practice
dry
needling
we're.
Okay,
with
that
during
session,
therefore
passed
out
unanimously,
with
the
understanding
that
it
would
be
addressed
in
regulation.
It
is
not,
I
agree
with
senator
ratty.
I
It
should
be
all
inclusive
across
all
boards
should
all
be
the
same,
but
I
I
do
believe
there
needs
to
be
some
actual
requirements
of
physical
manipulation,
because,
as
this
reads
right
here,
you
know
particularly
you-
can
do
150
hour,
zoom
class
and
then
be
able
to
do
dry,
needling,
and
I
think
it's
improper,
considering
what
we
require
of
acupuncturist
to
utilize
needles.
Therefore,
I
will
be
opposing.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
The
none
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
please
call
the
roll
call
vote.
D
K
D
J
J
E
E
A
And
the
motion
passes
of
regulation
r053-19
will
be
adopted.
We
will
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
list,
which
is
r100-19
for
the
director
of
the
office
of
energy
within
the
office
of
the
governor,
and
I
believe
that
actually
senator
hardy
had
requested
for
this
one
to
be
pulled.
So
we'll
turn
it
over
to
him
to
go
ahead
and
ask
some
questions.
H
H
So
if
I
do
that
or
if
I,
in
any
rate
the
the
general
lamps
that
exist
now
that
they
showed
pictures
of
in
the
regulation
are
things
that
I
have
in
my
closet,
that
I've
got
ready
to
change
out
and
to
be
able
to
do.
I've
changed
three
bulbs
in
the
last
week
and
all
of
those
bulbs
that
say
they're,
long-lasting
and
long-lifed
and
give
you
the
impression
that
they're
going
to
last
10
years.
It's
not
true,
I
would
love
to
say
all
of
those
bulbs
that
are
more
expensive
last
10
years
or
two
years.
H
So,
yes,
they
are
more
expensive
and,
yes,
I
do
buy
them,
but
at
the
same
time
I
know
that
come
january,
when
this
regulation
comes
in
you're,
going
to
have
people
wake
up
and
say,
my
goodness,
I
can't
afford
those
expensive
bulbs
and,
at
the
very
time,
they're
suffering
from
covid
laid
off
jobs
and
evictions
and
food
deserts
and
all
of
those
things.
This
is
the
wrong
time
for
something
that
is
a
good
idea
to
save
everything
except
people's
money
right
now
and
people's
ability
to
get
a
light
bulb.
H
So
I
I
think
this
is
a
is
a
good
intended
effort
and
I
buy
the
bulbs
that
are
long-lasting,
and
I
appreciate
having
some
in
my
closet
that
I
can
use
from
I
got
before,
but
I
think
this
is
the
wrong
time
to
be
imposing
this
on
this
on
the
citizens
of
nevada.
I
think
let
me
put
it
this
way.
I
would
I
would
be
nervous
about
having
people
call
me
up
and
say
you
know,
you've
taken
away
my
ability
to
get
a
light
bulb
I
can
afford.
P
I'm
sure
this
is
this:
is
david
boxing
director
of
governor's
office
of
energy.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
regulation
this
afternoon.
I
I
frankly
wasn't
expecting
a
a
policy
debate
on
this.
P
I
was
expecting
some
questions
about
the
the
federalism
piece
of
this
which
we're
prepared
to
respond
to,
but
I
I
I
would
respond
to
my
my
good
friend
senator
hardy,
that
I
have
two
been
on
the
same
journey
to
replace
my
household's
light
bulbs,
and
I
have
not
had
that
personal
experience
of
these
light
bulbs
not
living
up
to
their
long,
lasting
promise
and
if
anything,
the
bulbs
have
paid
for
themselves
in
my
household
and
I
think
from
a
policy
perspective
and
what
this
offers
for
nevadans.
P
I
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure.
I
appreciate
that
mr
bob's
in
good
to
see
you
again.
It's
been
a
while
in
that
respect.
You
know
I
myself
have
gone.
D
I
To
led
over
time,
I'm
a
little
bit
more
persnickeny,
so
I
took
a
screw.
You
know
a
sharpie
and
actually
put
the
date
that
I
put
the
bulbs
up
and
on
certain
bulbs
yeah
they
last
actually
10
years.
So
that's
great,
and
sometimes
they
don't.
It
depends
on
if
you're
turning
them
on
and
off
more
often
than
the
manufacturer
thought
you
would
so
if
you
turn
them
on
and
off
more,
they
actually
will
not
make
that
lifespan
lifespan.
But
my
question
was
more
to
an
agricultural
one.
I
know
you're
shocked.
I
Well,
I
still
be
able
to
buy
a
heat
lamp
bowl
so
that
way
for
the
baby
calf.
When
he's
a
little
bit
cold
will
I
still
be
able
to
try
to
get
a
regular
light
bulb.
So
maybe
it's
not
right
thing
to
do,
but
sometimes
it's
difficult
to
start
firm
machinery.
So
sometimes
you
put
a
light
bulb
into
the
engine
compartment
in
order
to
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
start,
however,
led
bulbs
don't
really
work
that
way.
So
in
that
respect,
will
those
still
be
available
for
individuals
in
that
respect,.
P
Senator
so
meyer,
david
bobsley
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
I
have
with
me
today,
robert
yocum,
who
was
our
program
manager,
that
is
our
lighting
expert.
P
We
went
through
a
very
careful
rule,
making
process
to
make
sure
that
how
we
were
approaching
these
light
bulbs
did
have
room
for
these
sorts
of
needed
exceptions,
so
I'll
turn
it
over
to
her
so
that
she
can
give
you
the
definitive
answer
on
your
agriculture
question.
E
I
P
Certainly
senator
david
bobstein
for
the
record
and
just
a
a
quick
trip
down
memory
lane
for
the
legislature
from
a
30
000
foot
level,
clear
back
to
the
2007
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
Nevada
has
occupied
the
field
when
it
comes
to
enacting
light,
bulb
of
energy
efficiency
standards.
P
That's
somebody
stepping
in
there
again,
david
bob's
in
for
the
record
in
2007
nevada,
unanimously
through
ab-178,
passed
early
legislation,
enacting
an
energy
efficiency
standard
because
of
nevada
and
other
states
going
down
that
road
laboratories
of
democracy.
That
pushed
the
federal
government
to
look
at
an
energy
efficiency
standard
congress
acted.
It
was
always
the
understanding
that
the
department
of
energy
was
going
to
enact
a
standard,
and
so
for
many
years.
P
Nevada's
statute
was
on
the
books,
but
regulations
were
not
promulgated
by
my
predecessors
because
of
the
understanding
that
the
federal
government
was
going
to
act
in
response
to
nevada
and
other
states
again
occupying
the
field
so
fast
forward
to
the
last
legislative
session
on
ab54,
which
was
passed
by
both
houses
unanimously
when
our
office
presented
the
amendment
and
ultimately
the
bill.
In
terms
of
this
energy
of
this
light
bulb
energy
efficiency
standard.
P
We
were
very
clear
in
front
of
both
growth
and
infrastructure
committees
as
to
the
federalism
puzzle
before
the
legislature
as
it
pertains
to
this
legislation
and
now
the
regulation
that
is
before
you.
P
We
were
concerned
last
session
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
rollback
effort
by
the
department
of
energy
to
step
away
from
the
understood,
45
lumens
per
watt
regulation,
that
for
many
many
years
industry
consumers
advocates
all
expected
the
federal
government
to
enact
we
were
going
to
pursue
our
backstop
option
with
the
legislation,
and
so
legislation
was
passed.
The
rollback
happened,
and
so,
as
such
our
office
conducted
the
rulemaking
to
go
forward
to
exercise
our
right
to
backstop
what
we
expected
the
federal
government
to
do
so.
P
I
do
have
our
deputy
attorney
general
with
us
today
who
can
update
you
on
the
litigation
that
was
mentioned
in
the
letter
from
the
national
electrical
manufacturers
association,
but
I
would
just
take
a
moment
to
respond
to
their
letter.
We
understand
that
they
don't
their
interests
are,
are
not
served
by
the
fact
that
nevada
has
a
special
place
in
this.
This
federalism
puzzle
because
of
our
early
action
in
2007,
but
nonetheless,
here
we
are.
P
I
I
would
take
issue,
though,
with
the
conclusion
for
from
mr
tolstor's
letter
that
somehow
our
rule
making
process
violated
the
nevada
administrative
procedures
act.
I
think
in
their
letter
they
refer
to
it
as
the
nevada
administrative
code,
in
that
we
had
represented
in
our
informational
sheet
for
this
regulation
that
the
rule
is
no
more
stringent
than
federal
law.
So
we
I
take
exception
to
that.
We
did
not
violate.
P
The
act
in
terms
of
bringing
this
regulation
to
you,
if
anything,
our
answer
to
the
question
on
that
sheet
is
reflective
of
the
fact
that
there
is
no
standard
at
the
federal
level,
and
so
that
is
why
we
have
come
forward
with
this
regulation.
P
So
with
that,
I
will
just
introduce
mr
anthony
walsh,
our
deputy
attorney
general,
who
can
provide
some
more
information
and
some
some
background
on
this
on
this
situation.
E
I
think
thank
you
david.
I
appreciate
that
and
thank
you
senator
settlemeyer,
for
allowing
me
to
speak
today
for
the
record.
My
name
is
anthony
walsh.
I'm
a
deputy
attorney
general
for
government
govern
governor's
office
of
energy.
My
name
is
spelled
a
t-h-o-n-y.
My
last
name
walsh.
E
W-A-L-S-H
is
a
brief,
a
bit
of
background
for
the
for
the
community
today,
42
usc,
6297,
sub,
b
and
four
as
well
as
sub
I
or
someone
on
that
specifically
exempt
california
and
nevada
in
this
federal
rule,
making
process
and
the
litigation
that
has
come
out
of
that
has
been
mostly
in
california's
federal
district
courts
and
the
rulings
that
have
come
down
there.
E
Usually
industry
groups
have
been
seeking
injunctions
and
have
not
been
able
to
receive
them
simply
because
california
and
nevada
are
recognized
as
having
these
exemptions
that
have
been
enacted,
essentially
post,
2018
and
prior
to
any
federal
rules
that
have
been
established
and,
as
director
bob
zien
pointed
out,
no
federal
rule
has
been
established
at
this
point.
So
the
preemption
arguments
furthered
by
opponents
have
not
been
met
with
success
and
essentially
don't
don't
really
go
further
than
a
motion.
E
For
summary,
judgment
portion,
additionally,
nevada
is
part
of
a
coalition
of
states
that
are
challenged.
E
Does
current
rulemaking
in
terms
of
an
anti-backsliding
principle
where,
whereas
the
the
object
is
to
ask
d.o.e
not
to
away
from
a
for
us
for
lumen
standard,
and
if
there
are
any
additional
questions
related
to
that,
I'd
be
happy
to
address
that.
Thank.
A
A
A
I
did
have
just
one
because
we
heard
during
public
comment-
and
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
clarify-
we
had
heard
something
that
there
had.
There
was
a
requirement
that
the
regulation
be
able
to
take
effect
in
january
of
2020,
but
obviously
we're
past
that
time
frame.
Can
you
talk
just
a
little
bit
about
that
requirement
and
the
timelines
that
we're
dealing
with.
P
Certainly,
madam
chair
david
bobstein,
for
the
record,
was
it
was
alluded
to
in
the
public
comment
that
there
was
some
robust
dialogue
as
to
the
technical
specifics
of
the
regulation,
specifically
addressing
concerns
brought
to
our
office
by
the
nevada
resort
association.
P
As
you
can
imagine,
gaming
deals
with
a
variety
of
highly
specialized
light
bulbs,
and
so
it
took
some
additional
time
to
really
work
through
the
technical
aspects
of
of
of
their
concerns
and
and
there
again,
if
there
are
any
questions
on
that,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
have
our
program
manager
robin
yokum
sign
in
on
that
one
to
talk
about
it.
P
I
I
would
also
note
that,
unfortunately,
when
the
national
electrical
manufacturers
association
became
involved
in
the
rulemaking
process,
there
was
no
mention
no
suggestion
of
the
suggestion
that
they
made
during
their
public
comment
that
we
should
somehow,
in
certain
to
this
regulation,
a
passage
reading
without
effect
the
extent
preempted
by
federal
law
number
one
substantively.
I
would
offer
that.
P
That's
that's
a
that's
a
meaningless
statement
and
again
detracts
from
nevada's
special
right
in
this
case
to
promulgate
such
a
standard,
but,
more
importantly,
substantively
to
the
process.
That
was
not
offered
during
their
engagement
to
the
rulemaking
process,
so
they
are
now
coming
in
before
you
late
in
the
hour
to
to
make
that
request.
P
As
was
noted
in
california,
this
association
did
try
to
stop
the
california
energy
commission
from
adopting
their
rule.
They
went
to
court
on
it
lost
twice
so
here
we
are
in
nevada,
hearing
the
same
arguments,
but
rather
than
going
to
court
they're
coming
to
the
commission
to
plead
their
case
and
and
again
I
would
just
respectfully
disagree
with
their
view
on
this
and
argue
the
surface
lee
for
the
legislature's
right
to
continue
to
occupy
the
field
on
this.
P
H
I
mean
I
love
green.
I
love
energy.
I
think
you
know.
Realistically,
when
I
looked
at
this
particular
thing,
I
got
online
and
I
looked
at
the
pictures
of
the
light
bulbs
that
would
no
longer
be
allowed.
You
know
the
decorative
light
bulbs
that
go
on
my
chandelier.
H
P
To
respond
to
senator
hardy's
concerns
david
bobsien
for
the
record,
I'm
very
tempted
to
flip
my
laptop
screen
screen
skyward,
and
I
would
show
you
the
led
chandelier
light
bulbs
that
I
have
above
my
dining
room
table
here
that
have
been
working
for
me
quite
well
for
at
least
a
year
again.
I
I
understand
the
policy
concern,
but
I
would
respectfully
disagree.
P
The
nominal
cost
involved
to
the
consumer
is
more
than
offset
by
the
energy
savings.
Additionally,
this
regulation,
a
similar
regulation,
has
been
in
effect
in
the
california
market
for
over
a
year.
P
Policy-Wise,
if
we
don't
do
this,
you
know
nevada
stands
to
become
the
dumping
ground
for
the
product
that
is
is
is
is
no
longer
the
preeminent
technology
that
will
save
consumers
money
on
their
electric
bills.
P
Senator
david
bobson
for
the
record
I
I
would
offer
and-
and
I
I
very
much
appreciate
your
concerns
for
consumers
and
just
as
an
informational
point,
we
are
hopeful.
There
is
a
a
docket
open
for
the
the
puc
on
mv
energy's
demand
response.
I'm
sorry
demand
management
programs
and
what
they
are
contemplating
is
a
transition
period
where
some
incentive
dollars
will
be
used
to
assist
consumers
with
the
purchase
of
these
more
energy
efficient,
light
bulbs
to
to
help
with
the
transition
in
the
marketplace.
P
So
I
I
don't
want
anyone
walking
away
from
this
meeting,
thinking
that
we
are
not
in
tune
or
of
or
having
concern
for
consumers
and
and
retailers
as
we
are
making
this.
This
shift.
H
I'm
sure
if
I
may,
I
think,
that's
wonderful,
it's
not
in
our
regulation.
Obviously,
so
you
know
it's
wonderful
to
think
about
that,
but
this
takes
effect
in
less
than
three
months.
A
Am
if
there
are
no
additional
questions,
we
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
beneath
us
thompson
to
do
pass.
Is
there
a
second.
C
A
From
senator
ratty
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
D
E
J
E
D
D
A
And
the
motion
passes
regulation
r00
dash
is
adopted.
We
will
go
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
for
regulations,
consideration
which
is
r112-19
the
peace
officer,
standards
and
training,
commission
and
we'll
turn
it
over
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
and
she
requests
to
have
this
one
pulled
for
additional
discussion.
C
Thank
you
so
much
chairwoman,
so
the
as
I
was
reading
the
regulations.
I
guess
I
wanted
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
what
the
goal
was
to
accomplish
this.
It
seems
like
it
we're
discussing
some
very
specific
type
of
personnel
and
people
who
might
move
out
of
a
category
one
or
category
two
position
and
then
go
into
very
other
specific
types
of
employment
like
being
with
the
commission
and
then
the
director
being
able
to
reinstate
them
back
in
I.
I
don't
see
that
this
regulation
is
prompted
by
any
specific
change
in
law.
K
K
Reciprocity
applies
because
they
went
to
the
state
of
utah.
On
the
other
hand,
if
that
same
officer
went
to
work
for
our
academy
here
or
the
u.s
marshall
service
secret
service,
and
they
worked
there
for
six
years,
they
would
be
ineligible
for
the
reciprocity
track
that
we
currently
have.
So
this
was
just
trying
to
close
that
loophole
of
those
officers
that
may
work
within
the
field,
but
we're
left
out
of
the
reciprocity
regulation.
K
Yes,
jim
mike
sherlock
for
the
record,
so
the
five
years
is
just
making
this
new
section
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
regulation,
which
is
60
months.
So
we
kept
it
consistent,
just
brought
them
into
that
that
same.
K
C
And
my
apologies:
we've
got
a
small
number
of
people
we're
talking
about,
but
would
you
say
that
this
has
been
an
issue
for
the
past
for
five
applicants
in
this
past
year?
Ten
applicants
in
this
past
year.
K
Mike
sherlock,
for
the
record,
I
I
couldn't
give
you
a
number.
I
I
personally
am
aware
of
some
that
have
elected
not
to
return
to
nevada
because
they
were
not
eligible
for
the
reciprocity
track
from
all
over.
The
state.
Metro
comes
to
mind
being
a
bigger
agency
where
we
see
people
even
want
to
come
back
to
the
state,
but
I
don't
have
a
specific
number
for
you,
but
it
happens
fairly
frequently.
C
Oh
okay,
I
guess
I
guess.
I
think
that
my
concern
was
more
about
that
five
consecutive
years
of
an
inactive
status
and
then
not
having
to
pass
to
re
re-go
through
any
of
the
the
basic
certificates
and
the
class
the
classes
they're
in.
But
it
seems
like
if
it's
a
concern,
a
bigger
concern
among
different
types
of
groups
within
this
conversation
than
this
just
specific
group.
So
I
thank
you
for
helping
me
to
understand
that.
K
Pleasure
again
mike
sherlock
for
the
record
just
to
clarify
evenings
those
returning
under
this
track
are
still
required
to
meet
the
current
hiring
standards.
In
terms
of
background,
they
have
to
go
to
a
reciprocity
academy,
which
is
the
only
difference
they
still
have
to
meet
the
physical
readiness
requirements
and
pass
the
state
cert
test
certification
test.
So
there
are
those
requirements
that
still
apply
it
just
allows
them
to
return
under
that.
A
Great,
thank
you.
Any
other
members
of
the
commission
have
additional
questions
or
comments.
K
Madam
chairs
of
steven
fryerson,
if
I
may
just
briefly,
I
want
to
make
sure-
and
it's
really
more-
for
the
record
to
be
clear
and
for
the
public
when
we're
talking
about
returning
within
a
five
year
period
of
termination,
we're
not
talking
about
the
layman's
interpretation
of
termination.
When
I
talk
about
folks
that
are
fired,
that
are
able
to
come
back
within
five
years
mike
charlotte
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
K
Yeah
termination
for
us
means
separation,
so
clearly,
where
they're
terminated
for
cause
and
there's
action
on
their
certificate.
This
does
not
apply.
Thank
you
thank
you,
director
and,
and
and
for
the
committee's
edification.
I
should
have
brought
this
up
with
the
previous
matter,
but
when
we
did
the
ab478
and
added
items
for
post
training,
we
didn't
break
down
how
many
hours
each
topic
needed
to
be
covered.
K
So
I
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
this
is
consistent
with
how
we
frequently
deal
with
policies
and
we
leave
it
up
to
agencies
to
to
do
right
by
their
agencies
within
the
parameters
of
the
requirements
of
training.
So
we
put
that
out.
A
All
right
thank
anyone
else,
have
questions
or
comments.
A
A
D
K
E
J
H
I
A
Thank
you.
The
motion
has
been
approved
and
the
regulation
will
be
adopted.
We
move
to
our
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
r003-20
the
committee
on
local
government,
finance
and
assemblyman
daily.
I
did
request
to
have
that
one
pulled
so
we'll
turn
it
over
to
him.
Go
ahead
and
proceed
with
his
questions.
D
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
a
quick
question.
It
might
even
be
more
for
legal
than
anything
else.
I'm
looking
at
the
language
where
it
says
that
information
is
going
to
be
requested
by
the
department
or
committee
of
the
local
government,
and
then
they
have
a
provision
where
they
can
object
and
then
put
in
documentation
on
why
it
should
be
narrowed,
et
cetera,
and
then
that
can
be
modified
or
upheld.
D
D
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
when
the
language
says
he
had
your
objection,
you
can
go
to
judicial
review,
but
in
the
meantime
you
have
to
provide
the
information
not
wait
for
some
decision
from
the
court.
I
think
we
would
not
be
doing
ourselves
as
a
service
if,
if
that
was
the
case,
so
with
an
automatic
stay,
pending
judicial
review
or
does
the
case
proceed
forward,
and
if
the
court
does
something
different
later,
they
have
to
provide
the
information,
so
the
investigation
can
continue.
D
E
Question
jeff
mitchell
for
the
record
m-I-t-c-h-e-l-l
with
the
department
of
taxation
we
provide.
P
E
For
the
committee
on
local
government
finance,
I
unfortunately
did
not
consider
that
a
question
when
helping
to
draft
up
the
regulations
and
had
not
received
a
legal
opinion
on
whether
the
documentation
would
be
state
or
not
upon
a
pill
up
to
the
judicial
route.
So
my
apologies,
but
I
do
not
have
a
clear
answer
for
you
on
that.
D
One
understood-
and
maybe
maybe
legal
counsel
has
some
light
to
shed
on
that
and
I
understand
either
way
whatever
the
rules
are,
if
they
don't
have
to
provide
it
pending
the
exhaustion
of
remedies,
I
don't
know,
but
the
language
clearly
does
say
they
shall
provide
it
and
that
it's
a
final
determination,
so
I
would
pursue
making
them
provided,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
rule
is.
So
if
someone
can
answer,
I
don't
know.
S
And
this
is
this:
is
brian
fernley
legislative
council
looking
at
that
regulation,
yes,
you're
right,
correct
the
the
local
government
would
be
required
to
provide
the
documentation
as
far
as
judicial
review,
of
that,
if
a
if
an
agency
or
if
a
local
government
decided
to
challenge
that
I
mean
it,
would
be
really
up
to
the
court
to
decide
whether
they
needed
to
preserve
the
status
quo
and
and
not
not
require
that
documentation
to
be
provided
or
whether
to
allow
that
information
to
be
provided.
S
So
I
just
don't
think,
there's
anything
that
could
be
done
in
the
regulation
to
restrict
the
power
of
a
court
to
to
prevent
the
information
from
being
released.
But
again
the
under
this
regulation.
The
the
local
government
would
be
required
to
provide
it
and
if
they
wanted
to
challenge
that
they'd
have
to
go
to
court
and
the
court
would
have
to
deal
with
it.
D
G
D
Take
every
delay
that
they
could
but
and
when
you're
ready
I'm
happy
to
make
a
motion
to
approve.
I
just
wanted
the
verification
on
that.
One
issue.
A
Any
additional
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission
being
none.
We
do
have
a
motion,
then
by
assemblyman
daily
who
do
pass.
Is
there
a
second
of
a
second
from
senator
dennis
and
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
D
K
E
J
J
D
A
Okay,
thank
you.
The
motion
does
pass
and
the
regulation
will
be
adopted.
We'll
move
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
r008-20
for
the
state
board
of
pharmacy,
and
that
was
a
request
from
senator
sotomayor.
So
we'll
turn
it
over
to
him
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
with.
I
H
H
So
does.
Is
this
regulation
simply
totally
only
about
gonorrhea
or
in
subsection
b?
I
guess
I'm
asking
brian
this
does
that
include
the
chlamydia
and
the
syphilis
as
well,
recognizing
that
treating
partners
is
critical
in
order
to
stop
the
passage
of
one
bacteria
to
to
another
person.
N
H
E
Dave
wiese
for
the
record.
Okay,
thank
you
senator
and
thank
you
for
your
time
here
just
way,
a
big
close,
a
little
bit
of
background.
The
board
has
worked
very
closely
with
the
health
department
and
the
std
prevention
and
control
program,
and,
as
many
of
you
know,
nevada
ranks
low
in
treatment
for
stds
a
there
are
times
where
a
doctor
sees
one
partner
but
doesn't
see
the
other
partner
and
the
strictest
reading
of
the
definition
of
law
may
have
caused
them
to
hesitate
to
treat
the
the
sexual
partner.
E
So
the
board
and
the
state
health
department
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
clear
that
that
was
a
good
thing
to
treat,
as
you
said,
so.
The
guidance
that
the
cd
at
the
cdc's
website
was
selected
by
the
clinicians
at
the
health
department.
That
is
the
proper
way
to
treat
sexually
transmitted
disease
and
max
chewing
so,
okay,
so
those
would
include
all
the
sexually
transmitted
diseases
that
are
that
the
cdc
is
recommending.
A
D
J
I
D
B
A
I
I
I
E
A
And
I'm
sorry
if
I
could
just
clarify
on
that
on
that
point,
the
requirement
that
it
is
a
vote
of
the
county
commission.
Is
that
that's
not
what
is
that
by
operation
of
this
regulation
or
was
that
the
operation
of
the
statute
that
had
been
passed,
requiring
the
regulation.
E
E
S
Madam
chair,
this
is
brian
fernley.
I
think
I
might
have
some
answers
on
some
of
these
questions.
If
that's
all
right-
yes,
please!
So,
yes,
it
was.
I
can
look
up
the
bill.
It
was
sb
48
of
the
2019
session
authorized
counties
whose
population
is
less
than
100
000
to
adopt
the
the
attacks
on
on
diesel
fuel.
S
The
the
that
bill
says
that
the
board
cannot
adopt
that
ordinance
unless
the
ordinance
is
approved
by
at
least
two-thirds
of
the
members
of
the
board
or
the
the
the
imposition
of
the
taxes
approved
by
the
voters
in
the
county.
So
there
are
by
statute.
There
are
two
ways
for
that:
tax:
be
imposed,
two-thirds
vote
of
the
board
of
county
commissioners
or
by
a
vote
of
the
people
in
the
county
that
the
regulation,
the
statute,
would
trump
any
regulation.
So
that
does
not
need
to
be
placed
in
the
regulation.
S
A
S
Correct
by
statute
for
the
tax
to
be
imposed,
it
would
need
a
two-thirds
vote
of
the
board
of
county
commissioners
or
a
vote
of
the
people,
and
so
this
regulation
would
only
come
into
play
once
that
had
happened.
A
Right
right,
okay,
I
think
that
makes
a
bit
more
sense.
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
any
additional
questions
or
comments.
Senator
hardy,
please.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
for
those
counties
that
have
three
county
commissioners,
you
have
to
have
a
two-thirds
vote
to
pass
anything.
H
I
Master
friendly's
comment:
this
does
not
trump
the
nrs,
which
requires
either
of
the
people.
Two-Thirds
vote
didn't
really
care
for
that
concept
of
the
two-thirds
vote.
But,
as
old
saying
goes,
we
are
not
here
on
legislative
commission
to
rehash
or
we
go
through
particular
issues.
We
may
have
lost
the
battle
on
during
session,
so
this
is
consistent
with
been
passed
and
in
that
respect
I
support
it,
even
though
I
don't
support
the
concept
because
of
the
two-thirds,
but
I
appreciate
that
clarification
on
the
record.
I
A
So
we
do
have
a
motion
to
do
pass.
Is
there
a
second
from
the
committee
rabbit?
I
see
a
second
and
something
going
benitez
thompson.
We
will
open
it
up
for
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
J
So
I
just
want
to
be
clear
so
because
it's
in
the
statute
that
trumps,
whatever
we
do
in
regulation
but
and
the
way
I
understand
it
is-
this-
will
provide
a
regulation.
Should
it
be
passed
by
two-thirds
of
the
county
commission,
but
should
it
be
passed
by
a
vote
of
the
people?
Does
that
mean
they
have
to
come
back
with
some
additional
regulation
on
how
to
do
that?
Or
does
this
cover
that.
S
Again,
this
is
a
brian
ferdinand
legislative
council.
There
would
not
need
to
be
another
regulation.
The
the
or
the
ordinance
imposing
the
tax
would
require
the
two-thirds
vote
or
approval
of
the
people,
and
then
this
regulation
would
implement
that
action.
Should
that
should
that
action
occur,
I
would
implement
in
both
scenarios.
A
D
H
E
J
B
E
H
I
N
A
Motion
pass
and
the
regulation
will
be
adopted.
We
will
move
on
to
the
last
regulation.
We
have
pulled
under
this
agenda
item,
which
is
r150-20
also
for
the
department
of
motor
vehicles,
and
we
will
turn
it
over
to
senator
settlemyre
for
his
questions.
J
I
150
20
is
on
our
books.
We
have
a
tab.
Maybe
it
was
mailed
to
me
individually
that
I
did
not
see
in
that
respect.
I
looked
online
and
I
having
a
little
problem
finding
it
online,
but
that's
nothing
new.
That
being
said,
is
there
anybody
there
to
try
to
explain
it
or
where
I
can
find
it
or
a
link
to
it?
So
I
could
actually
read
it
or
does
everybody
else
have
in
front
of
them?
I'm
the
only
one.
I
guess.
That's
the
other
question.
E
S
Yes,
and-
and
this
is
brian
fernley
legislative
council
again-
that
was
one
that
we
received
that
was
emailed
to
all
of
the
commission
members,
I'm
looking
for
the
date
on
it.
It
looks
like
it
should
have
been
emailed
to
the
commission
members
on
tuesday,
so
today's
thursday,
so
it
should
have
been
emailed
on
tuesday.
A
And
it
it
is
on.
If
you
follow
the
link
on
the
agenda,
the
regulations,
it
should
be
there
as
well.
That's
where
I
found
it.
I
I'm
sure,
with
that
I
won't
belabor
the
point.
I
will
be
voting.
No,
the
fact
that
it
to
me
it
violates
the
open
meeting
law
process
because
we
have
not
had
it
sufficiently
for
enough
days
notification
in
the
general
public
I
find
problematic.
I
haven't
read
it
at
all
and
I'm
not
saying
it's
good
or
it's
bad.
I
just
think
it's
flawed
and
should
be
delayed
until
the
next
lecture.
I
H
H
A
C
S
H
Yeah,
I
remember
it,
but
I
I
do
have
concerns
that
if
it's
the
same
kind
of
thing
we
dealt
with
earlier
with
somebody
not
knowing
something
that
was
online
or
whatever.
H
J
So
the
way
I
read
this
particular
one-
and
maybe
we
can
have
dmv
speak
to
this,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
allowing
for
folks
to
be
able
to
that
weren't
eligible
before
for
alternative
type
services
to
be
able
to
do
that
and
in
the
situation
that
we're
in
right
now,
with
the
wait
list
that
we
have
at
dmv.
I'm
just
wondering
what
a
delay
and
this
will
do
to
being
able
to
get
more
people
to
to
be
able
to
get
their.
J
E
N
J
Madam
chair,
while
we're
waiting,
I
had
asked
about
this
before
this
meeting,
because
I
called
the
reg
before
and
my
concern
is
that
currently,
I
believe,
they're
operating
under
temporary
regulations,
and
if
we
don't
approve
this
today,
that
those
temporary
regulations
will
expire
so
then
we
will
have
an
event
we'll
build
up
another
backlog
at
dmv.
If
we
don't
pass
this
today,
that's
my
understanding.
So
hopefully
we
can
get
somebody
to
do.
S
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is,
it
was
an
emergency
or
it
is
an
emergency
regulation
of
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
that
emergency
regulation
is
currently
in
effect.
What
r150-20
does
is
it
would
adopt
a
permanent
regulation
to
take
the
place
of
the
emergency
regulation
that
is
currently
in
place.
S
The
emergency
regulation
expires,
I
pulled
it
up.
It
looks
like
it
expires
on
november
23rd,
2020
and,
and
and
so
yeah.
The
emergency
regulation
expires
november
23rd,
and
what
this
regulation
would
do
would
adopt
a
permanent
regulation
to
take
the
place
of
the
emergency
regulation
that
is
currently
in
place.
I
Madam
chair,
if
it's
okay,
with
your
senator
dennis
the
question,
is
the
concept
of
the
alternative
service
transaction?
Is
this
the
process
that
we
used
to
allow
prior
to
lodge
calm,
taking
away?
One
person
could
come
in
and
do
the
paperwork
for
other
individuals
in
order
to
help
facilitate
them
because
they
had
created
kind
of
their
own
business?
I
J
I
don't
know
that
I
can
answer
that.
My
interest
in
this
was
the
electronic
submission
of
documents
and
those
kind
of
things
that
they've
been
able
to
do
during
the
pandemic
kind
of
kind
of
bring
the
weight
list
down.
So
that's
what
I
was
looking
at
as
far
as
that.
What
you're
referring
to
I
I
didn't
ask
about
that.
J
So
I'm
not
sure
that
that's,
whether
that
is
or
not,
I
guess
dmv
would
have
to
answer
that
but
yeah
like
I
said,
my
concern
was
being
able
to
do
some
of
the
electronic
things
that
they've
been
able
to
allow
people
to
do
where
in
the
past,
you
had
to
come
in
in
person
to
turn
that
paperwork
in
this
allows.
For
some
of
that.
F
F
F
Okay,
so
to
senator
sander
settlemyre's
question.
These
regulations
do
not
speak
to
the
the
concerns
that
you
brought
up.
These
regulations
are
simply
the
currently
the
dmv
and
has
been
for
several
years
offers
an
online
platform
for
the
mydmv
portal
for
applicants
to
conduct
address
changes,
duplicates
renewals
in
a
very
limited
capacity
online,
using
our
internet
services.
F
What
these
regulations
do
is
open
that
that
online
transaction
and
actually
all
alternate
services.
We
we
do
transactions
by
mail
service,
we
also
have
kiosk
transactions
etc,
but
these
regulations
open
those
transactions
up
to
much
a
much
larger
group
of
our
our
our
customers.
F
So,
for
example,
when
we
went
to
an
eight-year
driver's
license
back
in
2014,
we
limited
the
the
the
scope
of
the
applicants
that
could
use
those
services
with
federal
law
changes
that
have
come
out
with
the
real
id
act,
etc.
We
are
now
able
to
open
that
back
up
and
use
a
every
other
renewal
kind
of
cycle
to
help
out
help,
keep
people
out
of
our
offices
and
essentially
limit
the
backlog
that
we
have
seen
growing
since
the
pandemic.
A
And
I
do
have
a
motion
to
do
past.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
questions
or
comments
that
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
jump
up.
Is
there
a
second
on
the
motion?
Okay,
I
have
a
second
from
senator
dennis
and
any
discussion
on
the
motion
being
none,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
call
the
roll
call
vote.
E
D
E
E
E
R
Finally,
got
through
the
regulation
all
right,
yeah,
yes,.
E
E
A
It
is
unanimous:
okay,
the
motion
passes
and
the
regulation
is
adopted.
We
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
to
the
next
item
on
our,
which
is
item
number
4b,
review
of
emergency
regulations
that
have
been
submitted
by
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation.
S
S
It
established
a
procedure
for
the
administrator
of
the
employment
security
division
to
adopt
emergency
regulations
related
to
unemployment
insurance
under
this
procedure.
If
the
administrator
determines
an
emergency
exists
and
the
governor
signs
the
administrator's
written
statement
of
emergency,
the
administrator
may
adopt
an
emergency
regulation
upon
adopting
the
emergency
regulation.
The
administrator
is
required
to
submit,
submit
the
regulation
to
the
legislative
council
for
transmission
to
the
legislative
commission,
which
is
why
you
have
the
regulation
before
you
today.
S
If
the
commission
objects
to
the
emergency
regulation,
the
regulation
is
returned
to
the
administrator
to
address
the
objection
and
would
be
resubmitted
at
a
subsequent
meeting
of
the
commission.
If
the
commission
approves
the
regulation,
the
legislative
council
will
file
the
regulation
with
the
secretary
of
state
and
will
become
effective
at
that
time.
S
The
emergency
regulation
that
is
before
you
today
was
sent
to
the
legislative
council
last
friday
october
23rd,
so
we
are
within
that
15-day
period
within
which
the
commission
may
consider
the
regulation
and
either
approve
or
object
to
it.
So
with
that
introduction,
that's
that's!
What
this
agenda
item
is
about.
A
Great
thank
you,
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission
assemblyman
daily.
D
Yeah,
just
real
quick,
madam
chair,
so
as
it's
a
an
emergency
regulation
that
the
time
limits
for
the
duration
of
the
regulation
for
emergency
regulations
still
play
or
because
we
approve
it
that
creates
or
makes
it
as
if
it's
a
permanent
regulation
or
do
they
have
to
come
back
and
file
and
do
the
hearing
and
everything
for
a
permanent
regulation
to
be
adopted.
At
a
later
time.
B
S
I
am
glad
you
reminded
me
I
actually
I
forgot
to
mention
that
if
the
regulation
is
approved
and
becomes
effective,
it
will
be
effective
for
120
days.
Unlike
the
233b
procedure
for
emergency
regulation,.
S
D
Understood
and
thank
you,
madam
sure,
I
just
wanted
to
refresh
my
memory
on
that.
So.
D
They
need
to
come
back
and
do
a
regular
permanent
regulation.
Have
a
workshop?
Have
a
hearing
at
public
input
adopt
a
regulation
that
then
comes
before
the
legislative
commission
for
regular
approval
for
a
permanent
regulation,
and
I
understand
we
need
to
be
flexible
with
all
the
things
that
are
going
on
right
now,
especially
with
dieter.
D
So
I
I'm
in
support,
but
just
wanted
to
have
my
memory
refreshed
on
that
leg
of.
A
I
am
not
seeing
any
is
there
a
motion
to
approve
madam
chair
motion
from
assemblywoman
carlton,
a
second
second
from
senator
dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
A
D
K
J
E
H
A
Thank
you.
The
motion
passes
and
the
regulation
will
be
adopted
that
will
bring
us
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
a
review
of
a
regulation
of
the
nevada
cannabis
compliance
board.
It
has
been
submitted
for
our
consideration
and
I
am
again
going
to
turn
it
over
to
brian
fernley,
to
help
explain
this
item
for
all
of
us,
mr
fernley,
whenever
you're
ready.
S
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
another
unique
procedure
that
for
the
legislative
commission,
that's
kind
of
outside
what
the
normal
procedure
is
for
the
review
of
regulations.
This
one
was
originates
from
ab533
of
the
2019
session
under
nrs
233b
0.039,
as
amended
by
ab533.
S
However,
nrs
678,
a
.460
which
was
enacted
by
ab533,
prescribes
a
procedure
for
the
cannabis
compliance
board
to
adopt
regulations
after
the
board
adopts
a
regulation.
The
board
is
required
to
file
a
copy
of
that
regulation
with
the
legislative
council
and
the
board
is
prohibited
from
making
the
regulation
effective
by
filing
it
with
the
secretary
of
state
until
15
days
after
the
day
on
which
the
regulation
was
adopted
during
that
15
day
period.
S
If
any
legislator
requests
that
the
legislative
commission
examine
the
board's
regulation,
the
legislative
commission
must
review
the
regulation
or
refer
it
to
the
subcommittee
to
review
regulations.
If
it
is
reviewed,
the
scope
of
the
review
is
to
determine
whether
the
regulation
conforms
to
statutory
authority
and
carries
out
legislative
intent.
S
If
the
commission
or
the
subcommittee
approves
the
regulation,
the
regulation
will
be
filed
with
the
secretary
of
state
and
will
become
effective
at
that
time.
If
the
commission
or
the
subcommittee
objects
to
the
regulation,
the
regulation
is
returned
to
the
board
for
revisions
and
must
be
returned
with
the
necessary
revisions
within
60
days
for
resubmission
to
the
legislative
commission
or
the
subcommittee
to
review
regulations.
S
The
cannabis
compliance
board
regulations
that
are
before
the
commission
today
were
received
on
october
20th.
So
we
are
currently
within
the
15
day
period
within
which
a
legislator
may
request
review.
I
did
receive
one
request
for
review
of
this
regulation
from
a
legislator,
so
that
is
why
it
is
before
the
commission
today.
H
Thank
you.
I
I
asked
brian
fernley
for
this
to
be
reviewed,
and
I
was
kind
of
surprised
that
the
the
cannabis
board
I'll
call
it
has
the
ability
to
be
exempt
from
transparency,
and
so
that
being
said,
I
I
think
where
I'm
coming
from
is,
I
think
it
every
regulation
that
they
have
should
come
before
us.
Like
everyone
else,
does
I
don't
think,
there's
a
downside
to
transparency
in
something
that
deals
with
addictive
qualities,
and
you
know
one
out
of
10
people
who
use
it
are
addicted
to
it.
H
One
out
of
six.
If
you
start
before
the
age
of
18,
you're
addicted
to
it
and
smoke
is
still
smoke
and
plants
vary
in
their
intensity,
as
so,
it's
very
hard
for
somebody
who
quote
gives
a
medical
marijuana
recommendation
to
know
how
much
is
given
and
how
often
to
give
it
and
doctors
can't
really
prescribe
it.
H
So
you
go
to
a
place
and
they
tell
you
whether
it's
recreational
or
medicinal,
and
they
tell
you
what
to
do,
and
we
know
that
there's
a
continuum,
that's
very
hard
to
predict
how
effective
it
will
be
and
how
again,
given
person
will
act.
So
I
think,
on
the
very
nature
of
the
challenge
that
we
have
with
an
addictive
substance,
to
make
this
exempt
from
our
direction
is
worrisome.
Fortunately,
the
way
it
passed
is
amended.
H
We
do
have
the
ability
to
bring
it
forward,
and
so
I
think
that
that's
a
rational
thing
to
do.
One
two
questions
I
had
that
weren't
and
aren't
necessarily
answerable
is
when
I
looked
at
the
section
14-
and
maybe
it's
subsection,
14
5-
I
don't
have
the
whole
bill
before
me,
but
I
think
what
I
had
a
problem
with
when
it
says
anybody
who
has
even
less
than
a
five
percent
ownership
in
a
company
that
does
the
cannabis
that
they
have
the
board
may
require
them
to
get
a
license
and.
D
H
H
H
Never
knows
that,
and
so
I
I
have
a
major
problem
with
having
quote
a
board:
may
that
doesn't
have
any
incentive
or
any
direction
or
any
stated
I
have
to
find
out
who
owns
or
owns
a
part
of
this,
this
enterprise
that
deals
with
a
federally
illegal
to
use
drug.
H
So
I
I
will
be
voting
no
on
this
and
recognizing
that
the
cannabis
board
bless
their
hearts,
has
a
huge
challenge
ahead
of
them,
making
sure
that
we
do
this
legally
and
but
I
think,
unless
the
board
has
the
ability
to
investigate
somebody
who
is
even
less
than
a
five
percent
owner
or
exercises
influence
over
such
a
person
who
owns,
I
think
we've
got
a
gaping
hole
that
people
can
take
advantage
of
in
the
state
of
nevada.
C
And
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
this
is
probably
to
mr
fernley.
So
it
was
my
understanding
that
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we
put
in
for
the
cannabis
compliance
board
mirrored
the
gaming
control
board
and
that
there
are
some
things
that
will
come
before
us
and
some
things
that
won't
because
of
the
nature
of
the
business.
So
am.
I
is
my
recollection,
correct.
S
S
So
with
a
few
very
small
exceptions,
their
regulations
do
not
come
to
the
lcd
for
drafting
and
are
not
put
before
the
legislative
commission
for
review
and
approval
this
provision
in
the
original
version
of
ab533
this
this
procedure
for
legislative
commission
review
was
not
in
the
original
version
of
ab533.
It
was
amended
into
the
bill
during
session
to
allow
a
legislator
to
request
review
of
the
legislative
commission
so
so
that
that
is
a
difference
from
the
gaming
control
regulate
board.
S
In
that
the
legislative
commission
can
review
or
can
review
regulations
upon
request
of
a
legislator.
S
The
678a
460
also
does
lay
out
the
procedure
for
the
cannabis
compliance
before
to
adopt
regulations,
and
it
does
include
you
know,
posting
notice
and
and
having
a
meeting
to
consider
posting
the
regulation
for
the
public
and
having
a
meeting
a
public
meeting
at
which
the
the
regulation
is
heard.
But,
yes,
assemblyman,
carlson,
you're
correct.
This
was
modeled
on
the
the
provisions
governing
the
game,
control
board.
C
So
it
would
be
my
just
common
sense
figuring
out
on
this,
that
there's
actually
more
transparency
here
than
there
is
with
the
gaming
control
board.
S
With
the
the
difference
between
between
the
game
control
board
and
the
cannabis
compliance
board,
is
this
procedure
where
a
legislator
can
request
that
the
legislative
commission
hear
the
regulation
and
within
15
days
after
it's
submitted
to
the
legislative
council?
So
so
I
guess
in
that
sense
there
is
more
opportunity
for
the
legislature
to
for
the
legislative
commission
to
consider
cannabis
compliance
board
regulations
than
there
would
be
gaming
control
board
regulation.
Okay,.
C
D
Just
to
comment,
madam
chair,
and
following
up
on
what
assembly,
women
carlton,
which
is
saying
so
yes,
when
this
came
through
the
judiciary
committee
last
session,
they
had
the
same
language
modeling
after
the
state
gaming
control
board
and
having
an
exemption
to
the
the
rulemaking
process
on
233b.
As
you
might
imagine,
if
you
can't
tell
by
now
that
I
pushed
back
on
that
pretty
hard,
this
was
the
compromise
that
they
came
up
with
where
it's
a
modified
process,
but
we
do
get
to
review
and
take
a
look
at
the
regulation.
D
I
think
it's
important
so
in
that
fashion,
assemblywoman
carlton
is
correct.
It
is
more
transparent,
less
transparent
than
the
gaming
control
board,
but
we
do
have
that
ability-
and
you
know-
I
think
I
think
I've
mentioned
this
before.
We
should
have
a
a
request-
to
review
their
regulations
if
they
come
to
us
in
that
continental
fashion,
so
that
we
can
go
through
this
process.
D
But
there
are,
there
were
some
arguments
and
the
compromise
they
made
with
this
to
have
an
expedited
process
where
they
could
go
through
and
make
their
regulations
without
the
normal
procedures.
So
this
was
a
compromise
and
I'm
satisfied
with
it.
It
seems
to
be
working.
This
is
the
second
time
we've
seen
their
regulations,
and
so
apparently
it's
it's
working
as
designed
just
to
comment
there.
Thank
you.
D
E
S
E
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
There
is
more
transparency
than
the
gaming
control
board
in
that.
If
we
find
out
that
they
pass
the
regulation,
then
we
can
say
we
would
like
it
to
come
before
us,
but
if
we
don't-
and
I
would
just
ask
each
one
of
you,
your
own
head,
did
you
know
that
there
was
a
regulation
that
passed
and
if
we
didn't
know,
then
it
would
just
happen,
which
means
that
there's
no
transparency
unless
we
do
know-
and
so
you
can
talk
about
more
transparency,
but
translucence
is
not
opaque
and
it's
not
transparent.
H
So
just
because
we
can
see
better
through
the
smoke
than
we
could
through.
The
wall
doesn't
mean
that
we
actually
can
see
clearly,
and
so
I
agree
with
assemblyman
daily,
where
we
ought
to
have
a
standing
rule,
that
we
see
the
regulations
and
the
process
should
be
transparent,
not
translucent.
A
Questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission
speaker
fryerson,
please.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
recognize
this
is
relatively
new
territory
and
we're
exploring
and
set
out
to
be
the
gold
standard,
but
I
believe
it
would
be
a
worse
decision
to
do
nothing
than
to
do
something.
So
we
have
an
industry,
that's
here.
We
need
to
be
able
to
regulate
it.
We
need
to
facilitate
a
structure
that
has
been
vetted.
K
That
will
allow
for
better
regulation
of
that
industry
and,
I
believe,
to
fail
to
to
move
would
be
a
disservice
and
it
would
be
an
act
of
doing
nothing
rather
than
something,
and
so
an
improvement
on
transparency
and
moving
this
forward,
I
think,
is,
is
responsible
for
being
able
to
to
to
provide
oversight
and
get
this
get
the
oversight
of
this
industry
going
without
losing
even
more
time.
A
Thank
you,
speaker
fryerson.
I
I
would
agree
with
those
sentiments
and
certainly
appreciate
the
ability
to
review
the
regulations
and
then
bring
them
for
the
commission
for
us
to
consider.
If
we
do
have
questions
specifically
about
those
regulations,
additional
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
Seeing
none
is
there
a
motion
from
the
commission
motion
to
approve
motion
to
approve
from
assemblywoman
carlton,
a
second
from
senator,
dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion
being
none,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could
call
the
roll
call
vote.
D
E
E
J
E
H
E
A
The
motion
passes
and
thank
you
for
giving
us
an
overview
of
that
you're
firmly.
We
are
the
item
before
as
well.
We
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
item,
number
4d,
the
request
for
approval
of
session
hires
for
the
2021
legislative
session,
and
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
erdos,
who
can
discuss
the
need
for
additional
session
hires
or
the
2021
legislative
session,
vince
your
news
whenever
you're
ready.
Thank
you,
madam.
E
E
Worldwide
cyber
threats
in
in
the
past
few
months,
we
have
been.
E
Also
the
new
applications
and
are
creating
additional
programs
to
enable
efficient
operation
of
our
virtual
operations.
We
believe
these
positions
are
necessary
to
ensure
the
security
of
our
computer.
A
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission
on
this
item?.
A
I
do
have
a
motion
to
approve
senator
hardy
and
a
second
from
senator
dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
D
L
E
E
E
E
E
A
Okay
and
we
are
approved
for
the
new
session
for
the
new
session
hires.
Thank
you,
ms
erdos,
for
being
able
to
present
that
to
members
of
the
committee.
We
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
item
number
four
e,
which
is
the
approval
of
appointments.
Under
this
item
of
the
agenda.
We
have
the
need
to
appoint
a
member
to
the
task
force
on
alzheimer's
disease,
which
is
created
by
nrs
439.5083,
with
the
retirement
of
senator
joyce
woodhouse
and
her
alternate.
Who
is
senator
david
parks?
A
There
is
a
need
for
the
commission
to
appoint
a
replacement
for
senator
woodhouse
on
the
task
force
on
alzheimer's
disease,
because
there
is
a
meeting
coming
up
shortly.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
senator
ratty,
because
I
believe
he
does
have
a
nomination.
A
I
do
have
a
recommendation
and
a
motion
to
replace
senator
woodhouse
with
senator
dandera
loop
on
the
task
force
for
alzheimer's
disease.
Any
questions
or
comments
from
members
of
the
commission
on
that
motion.
H
D
E
E
H
I
B
A
So
the
motion
pass
and
senator
donderol
luke
will
be
appointed
to
the
commission
on
alzheimer's
disease.
We
are
actually
going
to
take.
I
just
received
some
in
some
information
from
senator
spearman
that
we
are
going
to
take
one
item
out
of
order.
We
are
going
to
instead
of
going
to
item
number
five,
which
is
the
next
item
on
our
agenda.
We
are
going
to
move
briefly
to
item
number
seven,
which
is
the
review
of
recommendation
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission.
A
As
I
understand,
senator
spearman
does
have
another
meeting
that
she
has
to
be
in
very
shortly,
so
we
do
have
her
with
us
to
present
the
recommendations
of
the
sunset
subcommittee.
The
members
of
the
legislative
team
will
likely
recall
that
there
are
no
bill
draft
requests
allocated
by
statute
for
the
sunset
subcommittee,
and
traditionally
the
legislative
commission
has
used
a
portion
of
its
allocation
of
10
bdrs
for
the
for
this
particular
commission,
senator
spearman.
We
will
go
ahead
and
turn
it
over
to
you.
A
I
do
believe
that
she
has
a
description
and
can
provide
some
background
on
five
bvrs
that
the
subcommittee
would
like
to
have
approved
by
the
legislative
commission,
and
then
we
will
go
ahead
and
be
with
the
commission's
pleasure,
so
senator
spearman,
if
you
could,
please
walk
us
through
those
requests.
Q
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
indulgence.
It's
good
that
it's
zoom
and
I
don't
have
to
drive
across
town,
but
that
also
creates
some
other
some
other
difficulties.
So
thank
you
for
taking
out
of
order
for
the
record,
I
am
senator
pat
spearman
representing
senate
district
one
in
clark
county
today
today.
I
am
here
as
the
chair
of
the
sunset
committee
of
the
legislative
commission
for
the
29th
2019
and
2020
international
rep
to
present
the
subcommittee's
recommendations
for
legislation.
Q
Q
Nrs232B.250
requires
a
subcommittee
to
submit
its
recommendations
for
legislation
to
the
legislative
commission.
The
legislative
commission,
in
turn,
has
often
included
the
subcommittee's
recommendations
amongst
its
10
authorized.
Bill
drafts,
including
included
in
the
meeting
package
for
today's
meeting,
is
an
abstract
providing
background
on
the
subcommittee
and
the
summary
of
recommendations
approved
by
the
subcommittee
at
its
final
meeting
on
august
31st
2020
over
the
course
of
six
meetings.
This
interim
this
interim,
the
subcommittee
reviewed
15
entities
and
received
reports
from
20
entities
reviewed
last
and
last
interim.
Q
I
will
briefly
explain
the
five
requests
for
each
bill
draft
and
representatives
for
the
most
part
of
all
the
entities
entities
should
be
available
for
any
detailed
questions.
Along
with
the
subcommittee's
committee
policy,
analyst
jennifer
rudy
and
the
subcommittee's
council
eileen
o'grady
number
one
state
board
of
parole.
Commissioners
nrs
213.108..
Q
Nrs213.1243
to
require
the
district
court
judge
to
impose
the
sentence
for
the
underlying
crime
and
for
the
conditions
of
lifetime
supervision
of
sex
offenders
to
be
imposed
after
any
period
of
probation
or
term
of
imprisonment
and
for
any
period
of
release
on
parole,
also
to
amend
213.108.85
to
require
comprehensive
review
of
the
standards
adopted
regarding
risk
assessment,
at
least
every
five
years.
Instead
of
every
three
years
number
two,
the
commission
to
study
governmental
purchasing.
Q
The
subcommittee
recommends
legislation
to
amend
nrs
642.280
to
require
graduation
from
a
mortuary
science
program
instead
of
specific
hours
of
coursework,
to
satisfy
the
requirement
for
licensure
as
an
involvement.
This
would
bring
nevada
in
line
with
the
majority
of
states
that
simply
require
graduation
from
a
mortuary
science
program
and
facilitate
the
use
of
the
closest
general
home.
Q
Even
if
it's
across
the
state
border,
california,
has
legislation
allowing
for
the
transport
of
human
remains
to
an
adjacent
state
or
disposition
without
a
death
certificate
or
commit
or
disposition
transfer
under
specific
circumstances,
including
the
body
being
found
within
specific
mileage
from
the
state
border
and
released
from
the
coroner
with
the
jurisdiction
where
the
remains
are
found.
The
office
of
vital
records
has
indicated
support
or
to
address
this
complex
issue
number
four:
the
advisory
committee
to
study
laws
concerning
sex
offender
registration
nrs179d.132.
Q
The
subcommittee
recommends,
as
requested
by
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
legislation,
to
terminate
the
committee
and
transfer
its
duties
to
the
advisory
commission
on
the
administration
of
justice,
nrs
1762-176-0123,
the
nevada
sentencing,
commission,
nrs,
176.0133
of
the
newly
created
department
of
sentencing
policy
in
rs,
176.01323
or
both
entities.
Neither
the
office
of
the
eternal
attorney
general
nor
the
subcommittee
had
a
preference
of
which
entity
should
take
on
these
additional
duties
number
five.
Q
Finally,
the
subcommittee
voted
to
require
the
nevada
board
of
homeopathic
medicine,
medical
examiners,
nrs
6308.1,
to
report
to
the
legislature
on
or
before
the
first
day
of
the
2021
session
on
his
progress.
Implementing
the
provisions
of
senate
bill
98
in
2019
further,
the
subcommittee
recommends
that
a
bill
draft
be
requested
in
case.
The
report
does
not
indicate
that
the
total
of
the
provisions
of
sb
sb
98,
including
the
appointment
of
new
board
members
to
replace
all
members
serving
at
the
time
the
legislation
was
enacted,
have
been
completed.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
these
recommendations
for
legislation
represent
considerable
work
by
the
subcommittee
of
this
interim,
and
I
appreciate
the
consideration
that
the
legislation
legislative
commission
has
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and,
as
noted
previously,
representatives
from
the
entities
should
still
be
online
for
any
detailed
questions
and
the
subcommittee
staff
is
available
to
thank
you.
Ma'am.
A
Thank
you
senator
spearman.
At
this
point
in
time,
we
will
turn
it
over
to
members
of
the
commission
for
questions,
but
I
just
did
want
to
clarify
at
least
my
understanding.
This
is
a
vote
to
allow
for
those
pdrs
to
be
processed.
Obviously
we
would
have
separate
consideration
of
the
particulars
and
the
policy
behind
each
of
those
during
the
legislative
session
and
ultimately
take
votes
on
that
quote
today.
A
As
I
understand
it,
and
I'm
sure
that
miss
erdos
can
correct
me
if
I
am
wrong
or
mr
burnley
will
as
well
that
this
is
a
vote
to
allow
for
these
bbrs
to
be
admitted
and
then
the
legislative,
the
legislative
body
would
consider
them
during
the
2021.
A
Great,
so
without
we
will
open
up
for
any
questions
from
members
of
the
commission
on
these
five
recommendations,
as
outlined
by
senators.
D
Madam
chair,
not
necessarily
a
question
just
comment
on
recommendation
number
two
regarding
the
government
purchasing
folks
and
they're
getting
two
bill
draft
requests.
I
oppose
that
in
the
committee
when
we
were
sitting
as
the
sunset
subcommittee,
I
I
don't
support
that
portion
of
it
going
forward
today.
D
I'm
sure
that's
not
a
surprise
to
senator
spearman,
but
anyway
I
can
expound
on
that
more
if
you'd
like,
but
I
don't.
I
don't
support
that
going
forward
and
yes,
I
do
understand
that
this
is
just
allowing
a
bill
to
be
drafted
and
that
it
would
go
through
the
regular
committee
process
and
introduction
and
vetting
and
all
of
that
stuff,
I'm
still
not
in
favor
of
that
recommendation.
E
Oh,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that,
while
I
don't
agree
with
some
of
them,
this
goes
through
a
process
where
we're
going
to
take
it
to
committee.
We're
going
to
look
at
it.
It
may
make
committee,
it
may
not
make
committee,
so
I
don't
really
have
a
problem
with.
J
J
A
I
don't
believe,
there's
anything
but
I'll
turn
it
over
to
ms
erdos
to
kind
of
further.
Let
us
know
about
that.
One.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
We
do
have
a
couple
coming.
I
think
that
I
know
of.
E
E
To
the
legislative
council
bureau
and
the
legislature
in
general,
but
I
I
don't
believe
that
we
would
have
cause
to
get
you
past
the
10
that
the
legislative
commission
has
allowed
at
this
point.
I
I
don't
have
anything
near
that.
J
A
And
we
do
have
a
motion
to
approve
the
five
bdr
requests,
as
just
outlined
by
senator
spearman
on
behalf
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
committee,
and
I
heard
a
second,
I
have
a
second
from
senator
ratty
any
discussion
on
the
motion
being
none,
madam
secretary,
if
you
could,
please
call.
E
J
I
I
A
The
motion
passes
and
we
will
go
ahead
and
have
those
bdrs
to
be
submitted
and
thank
you
senator
spearman,
for
being
with
us.
We
are
going
to
move
back.
No
thank
you.
We
will
move
back
to
our
spot
on
the
agenda
before
we
took
this
item
out
of
order.
We
are
on
item
number
five,
which
is
litigation,
and
we
do
have
a
litigation
report
to
be
presented
by
mr
kevin
powers,
but
we
will
turn
it
over
to
him
to
go
ahead
and
update
us.
R
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
kevin
powers,
general
counsel,
lcb
legal
division.
I
know
it's
been
a
long
meeting,
but
we
do
have
several
cases
to
go
through
and
I
will
try
to
move
through
them
as
quickly
as
possible
under
agenda
item
5a.
The
first
case
is
morenc
versus
state
in
the
nevada
supreme
court.
In
this
case,
the
plans
are
challenging.
R
The
legislature
froze
the
subsection
for
tax
credits
after
existing
amount
of
6.655
million.
The
legislature
also
eliminated
potential
future
10
increases
that
were
not
legally
operative
and
binding
yet
because
they
would
not
lawfully
go
into
effect
and
become
legally
operative
and
binding
until
the
beginning
of
future
fiscal
years,
because
ab458
froze
those
subsection
for
tax
credits
and
eliminated
the
potential
for
future
annual
increases
for
future
fiscal
years.
R
The
plaintiffs
claim
that
ab458
created
generated
or
increased
public
revenue
and
bill
violated
article
4,
section
18
of
the
nevada
constitution,
because
the
bill
did
not
receive
a
two-thirds
majority
vote
in
the
senate
on
may
20th
2020
the
district
court
entered
an
order,
granting
summary
judgment
in
favor
of
the
state
and
the
legislature
and
upholding
the
constitutionality
of
ab458
and
its
order.
This
report
found
that
ab458
did
not
increase
public
revenue
because
the
bill
froze
the
amount
of
subsection
four
credits
at
their
existing
amount
of
6.655
million.
R
This
report
thus
concluded
that
ab458
was
not
subject
to
the
two-thirds
requirement
after
the
court
entered
its
order.
The
plaintiffs
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
to
madison
court
on
october
26
2020.
The
parties
completed
their
briefing
for
the
appeal.
The
parties
are
awaiting
a
nevada
supreme
court
determination
of
whether
it
will
hear
oral
arguments
in
the
appeal
or
whether
it
will
decide
the
appeal
on
the
police
without
oral
argument.
This
is
the
first
of
the
pending
two-thirds
requirement
cases.
R
R
There
are
two
cases
that
will
be
combined
so
I'll,
combine
agenda,
item,
number,
5b
and
agenda
item
number
5c
that
is
settlemeyer
versus
state
of
nevada,
which
is
in
the
first
judicial
district
court
and
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
nevada
versus
settlemeyer,
which
is
in
the
nevada
supreme
court.
R
In
the
district
court
case,
the
plaintiffs
challenged
the
constitutionality
of
senate
bill
542
and
senate
bill
551
of
the
2019
legislative
session.
Claims
claim
that
these
bills
created
generated
or
increased
public
revenue,
and
they
violated
article
4,
section
18
of
the
pneumatic
constitution,
because
the
bills
did
not
receive
a
two-thirds
majority
vote
in
the
senate.
R
The
plaintiffs
named
several
state
officers
and
agencies,
the
executive
branch
and
legislative
branch
as
defendants
in
their
official
capacity.
The
executive
branch
defendants
include
the
lieutenant
governor,
the
governor,
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
and
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles,
because
those
two
agencies
administer
the
provisions
of
sb-551
and
sp555
on
542.
R
The
executive
branch
defendants
are
represented
in
the
litigation
by
the
office
of
the
attorney
general.
The
legislative
branch
defendants
are
senator
canazzaro
in
her
official
capacity
as
senate
majority
leader
and
claire
clift
in
her
official
capacity
as
secretary
of
the
senate.
In
addition,
the
legislature
is
a
defendant
intervener.
All
of
these
legislative
branch
defendants
are
represented
by
lcb
legal
as
their
statutorily
authorized
counsel.
Under
nrs
218
720.
R
Finally,
the
district
court
found
that,
while
there's
a
concept
of
legislative
deference,
that
deference
does
not
exist
to
violate
the
clear
meaning
of
the
dramatic
constitution.
Consequently,
the
district
court
declared
that
sp
542
and
violated
article
4,
section
18
2
of
the
nevada
constitution,
because
the
bills
were
not
passed
by
the
senate
by
two-thirds
vote.
R
R
Additionally,
in
its
order,
the
district
court
ruled
that
the
plaintiffs
are
not
entitled
to
recover
attorney
fees
of
special
damages
for
bringing
their
claims
for
declaratory
injunctive
relief,
because
there
was
not
bad
faith
in
regard
to
this
litigation.
Therefore,
the
district
court
granted
final
judgment
in
favor
of
the
defendants
on
any
claims
to
recover
attorney
fees
and
special
damages.
R
Finally,
defendants
senator
canazzaro
secretary,
cliff
governor
sissel
act
and
lieutenant
governor
marshall,
who
were
being
sued
in
their
official
capacities,
argue
that
they
are
not
necessary
in
proper
party
defendants
and
are
entitled
to
absolute
legislative
immunity
as
a
matter
of
law.
In
this
action
in
its
order
and
final
judgment,
the
district
court
ordered
that
those
defendants
be
dismissed
from
the
action.
So
the
remaining
defendants
are
the
department
of
taxation,
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
and
the
legislature.
All
the
individual
defendants
from
the
executive
legislative
branch
were
dismissed
by
the
district
court's
order.
R
Chair
of
the
legislative
commission
directed
the
lcb
legal
division
under
nrs218f720,
take
all
actions
necessary
for
the
legislature
to
appeal
the
district
court's
order
and
final
judgment
and
to
seek
a
stay
pending
appeal
of
the
district
court's
order
as
soon
as
possible.
On
october
9th
2020,
the
legislature
filed
its
notice
of
appeal
with
the
nevada
supreme
court.
On
that
same
day,
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
and
the
department
of
taxation
filed
their
notice
of
appeal
with
the
magic
report
on
october
12
2020,
the
legislature
and
the
state
departments
filed
in
the
district
court.
R
An
emergency
joint
motion
for
an
administrative
stay
and
a
joint
motion
for
a
stay
pending
appeal
on
october
13
2020,
the
district
court
granted
the
emergency
joint
motion
for
an
administrative
stay
and
the
joint
motion
for
a
state
repeal.
However,
on
october
20th
2020,
the
plaintiffs
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
asking
the
district
court
to
reconsider
its
order.
R
The
next
item
is
agenda.
Item
5d,
in
that
case,
is
nevada
policy
research,
institution
versus
canazzaro
in
the
8th
judicial
district
court
in
clark
county
miss
litigation.
The
issue
is
whether
state
legislators
are
prohibited
by
the
separation
of
powers,
provision
in
the
nevada
constitution,
from
holding
positions
of
public
employment
in
the
state
executive
branch
or
with
local
governments.
R
In
the
interest
of
promoting
judicial
efficiency
in
economy,
lcb
legal,
contacted
mpri's
council
by
email
correspondents
and
asked
council
whether
mpri
would
be
agreeable
for
entering
to
a
stipulation
regarding
the
intervention
of
the
legislature
on
a
september,
23rd
2020
npr's
council
responded
by
email
that
mpri
was
not
agreeable
to
the
proposed
stipulation
of
the
legislature's
intervention.
Therefore,
on
september
30th,
2020
lcb
legal
filed
the
legislature's
motion
to
intervene
on
october
4th
2020
mpri
filed
its
opposition
to
the
motion
intervene
and
the
district
court
has
scheduled
a
hearing
on
the
motion
intervene
for
november
19.
2020.
R
next
is
agenda
item
5e,
lander,
county
versus
state
of
nevada
in
the
first
judicial
district
court
in
carson
city.
This
case
involves
three
joint
resolutions,
proposing
constitutional
amendments
that
were
passed
by
the
legislature
during
a
30-second
special
session.
Those
resolutions
were
sjr,
1,
agr,
1
and
agr2.
R
In
response
to
the
passage
of
those
resolutions,
lander
county
filed
a
complaint
claiming
that
the
legislature
exceeded
his
constitutional
authority
to
pass
those
three
resolutions
specifically
claiming
that
the
resolutions
were
outside
the
scope
of
the
governor's
population
and
that
the
resolutions
were
passed
on
an
expedited
basis
in
the
special
session
without
allowing
real
and
meaningful
input
from
affected
parties
or
from
the
public
at
large.
Given
the
restrictions
placed
on
the
special
session
due
to
the
coven-19
pandemic.
R
On
october
23rd
2020,
the
party
submitted
a
procedural
stipulation
to
the
court
for
approval.
The
procedural
stipulation
would
grant
intervention
for
the
legislature,
allow
additional
plaintiffs
to
enter
the
case
and
establish
a
briefing
schedule
for
dispositive
motions
for
summary
judgment
today
on
october
29
2020,
in
accordance
with
the
stipulation
lander
county,
filed
an
amended
complaint
that
added
pershing
county
and
white
pine
county
as
additional
plaintiffs
upon
approval
of
the
stipulation
by
the
court.
The
parties
will
proceed
in
the
district
court
with
their
stipulated
breathing
schedule
for
dispositive
motions
for
summary
judgment.
R
The
last
case
on
the
agenda
agenda
item
5
f
is
charleston
versus
state
of
nevada
in
the
united
states,
ninth
circuit
court
of
appeals.
This
case
claims
to
challenge
the
constitutionality
of
nevada's
laws
that
give
certain
less
populated
counties
in
nevada.
The
local
option
to
license
and
regulate
legal
brothels
claims
claim
that
the
state
laws
and
the
implementing
local
ordinances
are
preempted
by
the
federal
criminal
laws
which
involve
interstate
travel
and
illegal
prostitution
and
sex
trafficking.
R
On
october
29
2019,
the
federal
district
court
dismissed
the
complaint
for
lack
of
constitutional
standing
to
pursue
their
preemption
claims,
because
the
district
court
founded
the
plaintiffs,
who
were
all
residents
of
texas,
not
established
that
nevada's
laws
concerning
legal
brothels
caused
the
plaintiffs.
Any
personal
injury,
in
fact
that
was
traceable
to
those
nevada
laws
and
redressable
by
the
federal
courts.
Brain
has
filed
a
notice
of
appeal
at
the
ninth
circuit.
The
parties
have
completed
their
briefing
on
the
appeal,
and
the
ninth
circuit
has
scheduled
oral
argument
in
the
appeal
for
december
9th
2020..
R
E
Yes,
madam
chairs,
it's
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question.
I
think
what
we're
seeing
here
is
kind
of
an
example
of
we're,
seeing
some.
E
Representation
throughout
this,
whether
and
I
realize
it's
quite
legal-
the
majority
party
is
a
majority
party
the,
but
I
would
like
us
to
think
maybe
of
looking
at
one
of
our
remaining
bdrs
to
try
to
have
actual
partisan
representation
both
during
the
session
and
in
any
any
type
of
lawsuits
that
come
against
us
when
we're
against
each
other,
and
I
just
think
that
would
be
a
little
more
fair.
You
know
for
the
minority
party,
no
matter
who.
K
Well,
I
have
a
quick
question.
I
should
know
the
answers,
but
I
don't
mr
powers
as
we
see
an
increasing
number
of
lawsuits
and
refiling
of
lawsuits
and
revisiting
of
issues
that
have
been
addressed
before.
K
Is
there
an
option
or
or
is
it
typical
for
legal
fees
to
be
required
of
the
party
that
does
not
prevail.
R
That
also
occurs
in
the
rare
circumstances,
when
the
lcb
legal
division
also
represents
individual
members
of
the
legislature
in
their
official
capacity
when
they're
acting
on
behalf
of
the
legislature.
Again.
In
those
circumstances,
the
lcb
legal
division
does
not
typically
seek
recover
attorney
fees
and
costs
from
any
plaintiffs
who
are
bringing
those
legal
actions
against
individual
legislators
in
their
official
capacities.
R
That
has
been
the
standing
policy
on
at
this
point,
but
the
legal
division
as
a
nonpartisan
legal
agency
takes
no
position
one
way
or
the
other
keep
in
mind.
However,
if
the
lcb
legal
division
was
directed
to
seek
attorney
fees
or
costs,
we'd
have
to
change
the
way.
We
do
our
time
sheets
and
record
keeping,
because
right
now
do
not
keep
track
of
individual
hours
spent
on
individual
cases.
R
We
also
do
not
keep
track
of
any
individualized
costs
for
individualized
cases.
Obviously,
those
two
changes
will
come
with
administrative
burdens
and
costs
themselves
doesn't
mean
that
the
lcb
legal
division
could
not
do
that.
It
just
means
that
if
we
were
going
to
go
forward
on
the
legislature
as
an
institution
or
individual
legislators
in
their
official
grassy
exceeding
attorney
fees
and
costs
from
plans
bringing
these
lawsuits,
that
would
require
a
change
in
internal
processes
and
procedures.
A
Thank
you
any
additional
questions
from
members
of
the
commission.
A
I
am
not
seeing
any
so
we
are
actually
going
to
move
to
item
number
six
on
our
agenda.
I
would
remind
for
anyone
who
is
joining
us
virtually
who
is
waiting
for
that
second
period
of
public
comment.
We
will
be
moving
to
that
item
as
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
since
we
already
since
we
already
addressed
item
number
seven.
So
we
will
first
hear
item
number
six,
the
legislative
audit
and
then
we'll
be
preparing
for
public
comment.
A
So
if
you
would
like
you
can
go
ahead
and
invite,
I
would
invite
you
to
get
on
the
call
now
so
that
we
will
have
you
ready
in
the
queue
for
when
we
work
to
public
comment
under
items
for
the
legislative
audit.
We
have
our
legislative
auditor
dan
crossman,
who
has
been
with
us
and
he's
going
to
present
the
summary
of
the
audits
considered
by
the
audit
subcommittee,
mr
crossman,
whenever
you
are
ready.
O
Great
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
legislative
commission,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
for
the
record
dan
crossman
legislative
auditor.
I
know
you've
all
anxiously,
looked
down
the
agenda
and
knew
that
the
auditor
was
going
to
talk
so,
and
I
know
I
stand
between
you
and
being
done,
but
I
look
forward
the
opportunity
always
to
share
a
few
things
about
our
audits
under
agenda
item
6a.
I've
included
a
letter
from
senator
parks.
O
O
Additionally,
while
today's
presentation
will
be
an
overview
of
those
reports,
we
are
happy
to
schedule
a
time
to
discuss
any
of
these
reports
in
detail
with
any
of
the
members
of
the
commission
or
present
any
report
to
any
committee
during
session.
So
turning
to
the
next
page
is
a
letter
summarizing
the
release
of
the
statewide
single
audit
for
the
fiscal
year
ended
june
30th
of
2019..
O
The
audit
was
conducted
by
the
cpa
firm
of
I
bailey
under
contract
with
our
office.
The
single
audit
incorporates
an
audit
of
the
state's
financial
statements
and
the
audit
of
the
state's
agency's
compliance
with
requirements
related
to
the
use
of
federal
funds.
This
is
an
audit
required
to
ensure
the
continuation
of
federal
funds
to
the
state.
O
The
auditor's
report
included
a
total
of
40
findings.
Seven
were
related
to
the
audit
of
the
state's
financial
statements,
and
those
findings
resulted
in
some
correcting
accounting
entries.
The
auditors
issued
an
unmodified
or
a
clean
opinion
on
the
financial
statements
indicating
the
financial
statements
were
presented
fairly
and
conform
to
generally
accepted
accounting
principles.
O
O
Overall,
we
found
that
pebbs
contracting
practices
changed
over
the
past
several
years,
focusing
more
on
amending
and
extending
contracts
through
private
negotiations
between
pebs
management
and
vendors.
Instead
of
pursuing
competitive
procurements
contract
amendments
should
not
be
utilized
as
a
default
to
extend
contracts
and
avoid
competitive
procurement
processes.
O
O
We
issued
five
recommendations
in
our
report
that
include
developing
policies
and
procedures
to
ensure
competitive
bidding
practices
are
employed,
as
well
as
the
pet
board.
Developing
policies
to
ensure
those
competitive
procurement
practices
occur
consistent
with
state
guidelines.
The
office
accepted
our
five
recommendations
that
we
made
to
improve
their
operations.
Turning
to
the
next
page
is
a
summary
of
the
audit
of
the
office
of
state
controller
unclaimed
property
program.
O
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
evaluate
their
processes
for
collecting,
administering
and
returning
unclaimed
property.
We
found
that
they
can
strengthen
certain
processes
over
entities,
reporting
of
abandoned
property
to
the
program
and
claims
to
recover
assets.
O
We
identified
concerns
with
the
program's
enforcement
of
its
policy
for
submitting
of
unclaimed
property
payments
via
its
online
reporting
system,
which
contributed
to
unprocessed
reports
and
payments.
The
program
can
also
improve
controls
over
unclaimed
property
system
and
inventory
to
ensure
edits
to
critical
data.
Documenting
the
ownership
of
unclaimed
property
property
is
appropriate
in
our
testing.
We
found
374
000
in
property
that
wasn't
posted
timely
to
the
system
to
allow
rightful
owners
the
opportunity
to
make
a
claim.
O
Additionally,
the
program
should
better
segregate
duties
over
its
unclaimed
property
system,
as
well
as
user
access
to
the
system.
Finally,
controls
over
inventory
of
the
safe
deposit
boxes
could
be
improved.
Some
of
the
issues
we
identified
in
this
audit
were
similar
to
findings
in
prior
audits
that
we've
completed
of
the
program.
O
O
Specifically,
there
are
limited
system
controls
in
the
divisions
database
to
prevent
staff
from
making
changes
to
licensees
accounts,
to
misappropriate
cash
or
to
detect
fraud
once
it
had
occurred.
Furthermore,
internal
control
procedures
designed
to
compensate
for
the
lack
of
system
controls
were
not
being
adhered
to
by
supervisors
and
staff.
O
O
The
division
also
lacks
controls
to
ensure
refunds
are
posted
timely
to
its
database
and
that
only
valid
refunds
are
posted
and
issued
in
our
testing.
We
did
not
identify
any
specific
instances
of
fraud,
but
felt
that
these
recommendations
will
help
ensure
that
the
identification
of
such
things
will
be
prevented
or
prevent
the
occurrence
of
some
of
these
types
of
issues
we
cited
in
our
report:
scope
limitation
related
to
the
lack
of
records
so
associated
with
the
testing
of
voided
receipts.
O
As
such,
we
could
not
determine
the
reliability
of
the
agency's
voided
transaction
reports.
The
agency
was
also
unable
to
provide
a
reliable
report
from
the
system
to
identify
the
population
of
transferred
funds
between
licensees
accounts.
As
a
result,
we
were
unable
to
test
whether
amounts
transferred
between
licensees
accounts
were
legitimate.
O
Next,
the
divisions
practices
only
held
brokers
that
manage
property,
manage
properties
accountable
for
submitting
annual
trust
account.
Information,
however,
regulation
requires
all
brokers
to
report,
trust
account
information
or
attest
that
they
do
not
manage
trust
accounts.
Finally,
the
division's
procedures
for
monitoring
monitoring
trust
accounts
are
inadequate
for
13
of
the
19
broker.
Trust
account
reconciliations.
We
tested,
we
observed
the
information
reported
to
the
division,
was
incomplete
or
contained
unallowed
accounting
entries
that
were
not
investigated
by
the
division.
O
Six
recommendations
are
aimed
to
improve
controls
over
broker
trust
accounts
and
the
last
two
deal
with
improving
the
accounts
receivable
collections
process.
The
division
did
accept
the
14
recommendations
we
made
on
this
report
and
on
the
next
page.
Last
but
not
least,
is
our
audit
report
addendum
for
the
records,
communications
and
compliance
division
or
rccd,
which
contains
supplemental
findings,
conclusions
and
recommendations
from
our
performance,
audit
of
the
department
of
public
safety's
records,
communications
and
compliance
division,
information
security.
O
To
the
original
report
was
necessary
because
security
vulnerabilities
existed
in
rccd's
information
systems,
these
vulnerabilities
related
to
outdated
and
unsupported
server
software
providing
details
regarding
those
vulnerabilities.
At
the
time
we
published
our
original
report
would
have
unnecessarily
exposed
those
information
security
weaknesses.
O
As
of
august
of
2016,
we
identified
19
of
the
97
servers,
we're
running
outdated
software
as
the
division
maintains
a
significant
amount
of
information
that
includes
criminal
history,
sex
offender
registry
and
point
of
contact
fire
information,
firearm
information
systems.
The
current
and
supported
software
is
crucial
on
those
servers
to
protect
the
information.
O
That
concludes
my
summary
of
the
audit
reports
issued
on
september
3rd
and
as
as
presented
to
the
audit
subcommittee
as
noted
in
the
letter
from
chair
parks.
The
audit
subcommittee
recommends
that
the
legislative
commission
accept
these
five
reports.
Thank
you.
J
I
don't
have
necessarily
I
I,
these
are
pretty
clear
to
me
and
I
you
know,
support
approving
them.
My
my
question
comes
with
this
last,
the
addendum
and
just
thinking
about
all
of
our
data
systems
in
the
state.
J
If
it
takes
us
that
long
to
get
to
all
of
these
with
all
the
stuff,
with
all
the
data
issues
that
are
going
on
today,
I
just
wondering
I
just
had
a
question:
how
often
are
we
doing
that
type
of
an
audit
on
our
server
systems
to
make
sure
that
they're
all
being
kept
up
to
date
throughout
the
whole
state?
J
O
O
Currently
they
are
both
working
on
two
separate
audits.
So
there's
there
are
two
of
us
trying
to
cover
the
state,
so
we
don't
get
to
every
agency
with
a
lot
of
frequency
on
the
I.t
side.
J
J
You
know
cyber
attacks
and
those
kind
of
things
I
I
know
we
have
policies
in
place
that
they
should
be
following,
but
if
we're
not
auditing
them
in
a
more
timely
manner,
we
could
be
exposing
our
data
if
they're
not
following
those
procedures.
J
So-
and
I
don't
know
I-
I
guess
I
don't
know
what
what
we
would
do
for
that,
but
something
that
we
should
definitely
be
thinking
about
see
if
maybe
there's
a
change
that
needs
to
happen
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we're
able
to
get
to
figure
out
where
those
vulnerabilities
are
quicker.
A
I
don't
see
any
other
folks
jumping
up
for
questions
or
comments
from
mr
crossman.
So
thank
you,
mr
crossman,
for
your
presentation.
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
accept
the
five
audit
reports,
as
presented
by
mr
crossman
this
afternoon,
so
moved.
A
Thank
you
a
second
by
senator
dennis.
I
need
discussion
on
the
motion
being
none.
Madam
secretary
could
call
the
roll
call
vote.
E
E
C
J
B
E
A
You
and
thank
you
again,
mr
crossman,
for
giving
us
that
very
thorough
rundown.
We
really
appreciate
your
work
and
the
audit
reports
have
been
accepted
by
the
commission.
A
We
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
item
number
eight
for
public
comment
and
while
we
are
getting
that
set
up
and
checking
in
with
the
callers
that
we
do
have
online,
I
did
want
to
just
take
a
moment
to
virtually
present,
since
we
can't
be
in
person
at
this
point
in
time,
two
traditional
retirement
packs.
A
We
have
a
plaque
to
honor
cindy
jones,
who
I,
who
was
recently
retired
at
assembly
as
our
assembly
fiscal
analyst,
and
I
believe
that
she
is
actually
with
us
today,
but
is
currently
out
of
the
country
on
a
beautiful
beach
right
now,
which
sounds
very
lovely
and
certainly
well
deserved.
All
of
her
very
hard
work
with
all
of
us.
He
was
given
an
ifc
resolution
at
an
earlier
ifc
meeting
and
we
just
wanted
to
again
say
thank
you
and
provide
her
with
that
retirement
plaque
as
well,
and
thank
her
for
her
service.
A
You
have,
however,
with
that
mark
crompot,
who
is
also.
We
have
a
plaque
that
you
can
today
and
honor
him
on
his
upcoming
retirement
and
again
just
thank
him
for
his
dedication
and
hard
work,
always
being
able
to
be
a
resource
and
answer
all
of
our
questions
and
provide
advice.
When
we
have
those
questions,
I
know
that
he
was
presented
as
well
with
a
resolution
at
the
last
ifc
meeting,
but
I
know
we
wanted
to
all
take
a
moment
to
just
again
say
very
much.
A
Thank
you
for
all
of
your
hard
work
and
congratulations
on
your
retirement,
which
is
also
very
well
deserved.
Ms
erdos
does
have
the
plaques
that
we
we
can
see,
but
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
say
thank
you
and
and
to
virtually
present
mr
kambach
today
with
his
retirement
plaque
and
again
just
thank
you
for
your
service.
A
I
saw
I
saw
senator
roddy,
raise
your
hand,
go
ahead.
N
I
think
there's
so
many
places
where
we're
so
reliant
on
the
professionalism
and
the
strengths
of
our
staff
and
that's
across
the
board,
but
I
think
when
it
comes
to
the
finance
and
assembly
means
ways
and
means
committees.
It's
particularly
true.
They
just
do
such
a
high
level
of
work
that,
as
in
many
cases,
they're
behind
the
scenes
it
makes
us
look
good.
N
So
I
wanted
to
express
my
gratitude
to
mr
gerbatic
for
everything
that
he's
done
to
cindy,
of
course
as
well,
and
then
you
know
perhaps
gratitude
and
apologies
for
the
amount
of
time
that
you've
had
to
spend
with
us
explaining
some
things.
But
thank
you
so
much
mark
you've
just
done
a
fabulous
job
and
you're
going
to
be
missed.
I
A
Well,
thank
you,
commission
members
and
again
just
a
huge
thank
you
to
mark
for
your
service
and,
of
course,
cindy
as
well.
We'll
definitely
definitely
be
missing
one
and
just
really
appreciate
everything
and
congratulations
on
your
retirement.
That
should
be
a
good,
a
good
thing.
A
All
right
that
leaves
us
with
our
final
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
item
number
eight,
our
public
comment.
We
are
doing
the
second
period
of
public
comment
for
those
who
weren't
able
to
join
us
in
the
first
round
or
wanted
to
wait
until
this
last
round.
So
if
you
are
wanting
to
provide
public
comment,
I
know
we
gave
you
a
little
heads
up
before,
but
if
you
want
to-
and
you
aren't
on
now-
please
make
sure
you
call
that
number.
A
That's
on
the
agenda
and
you'll
be
informed
by
our
staff
of
our
broadcast
production
services.
When
you
have
been
connected
with
your
terms
and
we're
going
to
limit
comments,
minutes
per
person,
but
of
course
always
welcome
additional
written
comments
to
be
included
in
the
record-
and
I
am
now
going
to
turn
this
over
to
the
bps
staff
to
keep
up
those
calling
and
speak
and
they
will
inform.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
able
to
facilitate
our
public
comment.
I
know
we
did.
Let
folks
know
earlier
that
we
would
be
moving
to
our
public
comment
again,
always
welcome
to
take
written
comments
for
anyone
who
didn't
want
to
speak
publicly
or
wasn't
able
to
join
us
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
to
our
actual
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
our
adjournment
and
saying
no
further
business
to
come
before
the
legislative
commission
at
this
time.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.