►
From YouTube: 3/1/2023 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the first meeting in Calendar Year 2023. 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
B
B
C
Good
afternoon
or
evening,
I
suppose
good
evening,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
ninth
meeting
of
the
legislative
Commission
Madam
Secretary.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
assemblywoman
Dickman
assemblyman
Haven
assemblywoman
Hanson
assemblywoman
hardegy
assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno
Senator
kanazaro
Senator
goikichia,
Senator,
Hammond,
Senator,
Hansen,
Senator,
Harris,
Senator
Lang,
chair
Yeager.
C
Here
we
do
have
a
quorum.
Please
mark
assembly,
woman,
Monroe
Moreno
present
when
she
arrives
as
not
do
we
have
a
quorum?
All
of
us
here
are
up
in
Carson.
City
I
want
to
say,
welcome
again
to
those
of
you
in
the
audience
here
in
Carson
City
and
to
those
joining
us
in
Las
Vegas
or
by
telephone.
Just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters
before
we
get
started.
If
you're
going
to
testify
today,
please
State
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
before
testifying.
C
If
anybody
would
like
a
copy
of
the
commission's
agendas
minutes
or
reports,
you
may
be
added
to
our
mailing
list
by
following
the
links
on
the
legislature's
website
or
by
providing
information
to
our
staff
contact
information.
Information
for
staff
is
also
listed
on
the
legislature's
website.
In
addition,
we
accept
written
comments
which
may
be
emailed
or
mailed
before,
during
or
after
the
meeting.
The
information
regarding
where
to
send
written
comments
is
also
on
the
website
and
listed
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
We'll
go
next
to
agenda
item
number
two.
B
D
D
C
D
D
E
Of
the
minutes
committee
members
you'll
have
found
in
your
packet
the
draft
minutes
for
the
December
28th
2022
legislative
commission
meeting.
These
draft
minutes
are
also
available
on
the
legislature's
website.
Let
me
first
ask
if
there
is
any
discussion
or
Corrections
on
those
minutes
from
commission
members
and
seeing
none
of
that
I
would
accept
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
E
Any
discussion
on
that
motion.
Seeing
no
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
E
Anyone
opposed,
nay,
hey
motion
carries
the
minutes
for
the
December
28
2022
legislative
commission
meeting
are
approved
next
up
agenda
item
number
four,
which
is
our
court
mandated
status
report
regarding
the
Nevada
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
technology,
fee
refund
project,
and
as
always,
we
have
Mr
sever
here.
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
DMV
Mr
sever,
please
proceed
and
then
we'll
see
if
we
have
any
questions.
E
E
The
DMV
started
issuing
these
refunds
by
sending
out
checks
to
businesses
on
February
22nd
of
last
year.
Sixty
one
thousand
and
five
business
refunds
were
issued
for
almost
2.2
million
dollars
and
as
of
yesterday,
forty
four
thousand
eight
hundred
sixty
two
business
refunds
have
cleared
for
more
than
1.6
million
or
74
percent.
E
More
than
3.8
million
in
customer
refunds
were
made
available
to
the
public
on
April
4th
of
last
year,
and
as
of
yesterday,
82
2047
of
those
refunds
have
been
issued
for
more
than
242
000
or
6.35
percent.
Many
of
our
customers
have
told
us
to
keep
the
refund,
which
is
not
reflected
in
these
stats.
The
DMV
has
conducted
a
fifteen
thousand
dollar
advertising
campaign,
received
a
lot
of
media
coverage
and
posted
many
times
on
social
media
to
inform
and
remind
customers
about
the
refund.
E
We
are
proactively
encouraging
our
customers
to
pick
up
the
refunds
when
they
visit
our
offices
and
plan
on
doing
a
final
advertising
push
in
April
to
remind
them
to
claim
their
refunds.
Any
friends
remaining
after
June
30th
2023
will
revert
to
the
state
highway
fund
pursuant
to
section
4.7
of
Senate
Bill
457
of
the
2021
legislative
session.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
E
E
E
Okay.
That
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number.
Four.
Next
up
agenda
item
five,
which
is
Administrative
regulations.
We
have
our
legislative
Council,
Brian
Fernley
with
us
on
Zoom
today
and
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council,
Asher
Killian
is
with
us
here
in
Carson
City
to
assist
us
with
this
item.
There
were
two
types
of
proposed
approvals
for
regulations
under
item
five
today,
but
item
5A
has
been
withdrawn,
so
commission
members,
anyone
watching
and
for
the
public
5A
has
been
withdrawn.
E
We
will
not
be
considering
that
the
Department
of
Agriculture
has
determined
that
it
needs
more
time
to
make
some
additional
changes
to
our
104-20,
so
they
will
be
submitting
a
new
regulation
instead
of
asking
for
an
extension
on
r104-20.
Therefore,
we're
going
to
move
on
to
agenda
item
5B.
This
evening
we
have
16
regulations
submitted
for
approval
pursuant
to
nrs233b.067.
These
regulations
are
all
contained
in
the
booklet
provided
to
all
the
members
today
and
also
posted
on
the
Nevada
legislature's
website.
E
So
let
me
get
back
to
the
regulations
that
have
been
identified
to
be
pulled
for
further
discussion
out
of
the
16
regulations.
So
far,
there's
only
one
regulation
that's
been
identified
for
discussion
and
that
is
r153-22.
That's
a
State
Board
of
Health
regulation.
Again,
that's
r153-22
from
the
State
Board
of
Health.
E
E
E
E
All
right,
so
we
only
have
two
that
have
been
pulled
so
at
this
time
and
let
me
just
State
for
the
record.
So
it's
clear.
The
two
that
have
been
pulled
in
numerical
order
are
r066-22.
State
Board
of
Education
and
r153-22
State
Board
of
Health
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
remaining
regulations
that
were
not
pulled
from
that
were
not
pulled
for
further
discussion.
E
All
right
hearing,
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
carries
so
those
remaining
14
regulations
have
been
approved
and
we'll
next
take
the
regulations
that
have
been
pulled
for
discussion
and
we
will
start
with
r066-22.
That
is
a
state
board
of
education
regulation.
E
And
I'm
not
sure
who's
here,
for
that
one
but
looks
like
you've
been
designated,
or
at
least
voluntold
to
come
to
the
table,
and
so
we'll
give
Senator
Hammond
a
chance
to
ask
whatever
questions
he
had
on
r066-22.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
I.
Don't
have
many
many
very
many
questions,
because
I
was
asking
a
little
bit
before
and
I
know
that
you
guys
give
me
a
shot
at
calling
Amber
Reed
beforehand,
but
I
I
didn't
take
the
opportunity
and
I
should
have.
E
The
question
is
during
the
discussions
when
they're
debating
this
particular
regulation
and
they're.
Looking
at
whether
or
not
a
I
guess
doubling
the
number
of
minutes
for
a
kindergarten
for
kindergartner
to
attend
school
was
was
deemed
needed.
I
was
looking
at
some
of
the
language
afterwards
and
it
said
it'd
have
no
economic
impact.
However,
there's
got
to
be
some
sort
of
impact
and
I
wanted
to
see.
E
If
there
was
a
discussion
on
that,
because
now
you're
asking
that
you
know
for
some
of
these
students
be
going
instead
of
120,
240
minutes
and
so
economically
I
mean
it
would
be
better
because
now
you
have
fewer
teachers
that
you
need.
It's
one
teacher
taking
over
two
classes
per,
perhaps
I,
don't
know.
I
just
want
to
know
what
what
came
up
in
that
discussion.
I
guess
I'm
wrong.
If,
if
Senator
guacachi
is
already
shaking
his
head,
no,
then
I
must
be
doing
the
math
wrong.
E
Thank
you
interim
Deputy
superintendent
for
educator,
Effectiveness
and
family
engagement,
Craig
satuki
s-t-a-t-u-c-k-I
for
the
record
I'm,
going
to
defer
your
question
to
director
patioya,
who
is
on
Zoom,
who
will
be
able
to
respond
to
your
question
Center.
E
Thank
you
good
evening,
Oya
o-y-a,
director
of
The
Office
of
Early,
Learning
and
Development
for
the
Nevada
Department
of
Ed.
This
regulation
change
is
was
brought
to
our
attention
by
one
of
the
school
districts.
It
really
is
a
catch-up
change
that
has
happened.
Kindergarten
is
full
day,
and
this
is
what
this
regulation
is
changing.
The
payments
were
already
being
made
at
full
day
under
the
old
DSA
planner
or
now
pupil
Center
funding
plan.
So
there
really
is
no
cost
change.
E
E
E
E
E
So
this
my
question
is
under
Section
5
3,
where
it
says
a
medical
facility
listed,
shall
adopt
administrative
procedures
to
ensure
that
only
one
provider
of
Health
Care
will
report
a
case
so
and
actually
I
talked
to
Dr
Titus
about
this
because,
for
example,
she
said
South
Lyon,
Medical,
Center,
hires
rotating
doctors.
E
Does
this
mean
it
has?
They
have
to
choose
one
Doctor
Who's
the
only
one
reports,
and
could
it
be
a
designee?
Thank
you.
Assemblywoman
through
chair
Misty,
Allen,
m-I-s-t-y-a-l-l-e-n,
Suicide,
Prevention
coordinator
for
the
state,
and
thank
you
for
your
question.
Assemblyman
Dickman.
The
single
provider
is
meant
to
prevent
duplicate
reporting
so
say
they
went
into
the
emergency
department
or
ended
up
in
another
facility
that
is
mandated
to
report
by
this
law.
We
don't
want
both
reports
coming
through,
so
it's
intended
to
be
that
primary
reporting
physician
at
the
moment
of
admittance.
D
F
There
is
a
fine
in
this
of
a
thousand
dollars,
so
we
need
to
understand
exactly.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Killian,
Chief,
Deputy
legislative
Council,
so
the
the
regulation
is
written,
doesn't
provide
for
designees
of
providers
of
Health
Care
to
do
this
reporting,
and
especially
if
you
look
in
section
four
subsection
two
of
this
regulation,
there
is
some
discretion
exercised
by
the
provider
about
what
information
is
included
in
the
report,
so
allowing
a
designee
to
do
this
kind
of
reporting
would
be
a
substantive
change.
F
E
You
have
to
make
it
out
loud.
We
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
how
to
get
a
second
from
Senator
canizarro.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
Senator
Hansen,
thanks
Mr,
chair
yeah.
The
points
that
assemblywoman
dick
been
brought
up
I
think
are
valid
I
having
served
on
the
legislative
commission
for
many
years.
It
was
very
common
when
a
little
thing
like
this
was
caught.
It
is
true
that
the
the
reg,
as
currently
written
in
the
absence
of
that
would
would
be
a
bit
of
a
problem.
E
So
what
we
used
to
do
is
just
push
it
off
to
the
next
legislative
commission.
Meeting
I
do
realize
that's
going
to
be
in
May
or
going
to
be
a
little
while.
So
that
would
be
my
recommendation.
I'm
sure
this
wasn't
some
kind
of
a
thing
where
Health
Department
is
trying
to
slip
something
through
the
cracks
here,
but
the
doctors
are
concerned
because
you
definitely
want
to
have
that
option
in
in
the
regulation,
so
I
would
just
recommend
to
postpone
it.
E
But
if
not,
you
could
pass
it
now
and
then
maybe
at
their
next
regulatory
thing
they
could
add
it.
Perhaps
I,
don't
know,
but
one
one
thing
or
another.
We
do
need
to
get
that
in
the
regs
thanks
Mr
chair.
Thank
you,
Senator
Hansen
Is,
there
further
discussion,
assemblywoman
Dickman,
thank
you
chair
just
you
know
with
this
with
the
thousand
dollar
fine
being
part
of
it.
I
just
think
that
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
changed,
especially
for
the
rural.
D
G
Will
have
the
opportunity
to
work
on
it
and
bring
it
back
to
the
next
legislative
commission
meeting,
which
will
likely
be
sometime
after
session
I,
don't
anticipate
having
another
one
during
session
further
discussion,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
regulation.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye.
E
E
So
the
vote,
the
vote
count
on
that
was
six
in
favor
five
against.
We
do
need
seven
votes
on
the
commission
to
pass
substantive
regulation,
so
the
motion
fails.
The
regulation
is
not
approved
and
I.
Think
based
on
the
discussion,
probably
have
some
good
direction
about
where
to
go
on
that.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
being
here
tonight
appreciate
it.
E
All
right,
thank
you,
commission
for
your
Indulgence
I'm,
frankly
not
used
to
getting
through
regulations
that
quickly
on
our
agenda,
so
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number
five
and
our
next
item
up
is
agenda.
Item
number
six,
which
is
the
presentation
of
the
legislative
Council
bureau's,
audited
annual
financial
report
for
fiscal
year
2022..
We
have
our
Chief
Financial
Officer
Dan
Russian
here
with
us,
and
he
is
going
to
present
this
item
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance.
D
For
a
question
so
Mr
Russian
the
floor
is
yours,
Mr,
chair
for
the
record,
this
is
Daniel
Russian,
Chief,
Financial,
Officer
of
the
legislative,
Council,
Bureau
and
I'm.
Here
today
to
present
the
annual
financial
report
for
the
LCB
for
the
fiscal
year
ended,
June,
30,
2022.,
copies
of
the
report
are
in
the
meeting
packet
and
under
agenda
item
six
posted
on
the
legislature's
website,
given
that
our
time
is
limited
and
because
the
financial
report
contains
a
lot
of
information,
I
will
focus
this
presentation
on
a
few
key
points.
D
Please
feel
free
to
stop
me
at
any
time.
If
anyone
has
any
questions
before
we
begin,
I
wanted
to
note
that
I
prepared
this
report
with
financial
data
provided
by
the
lcb's
accounting
unit
and
I,
wanted
to
take
a
moment
to
express
my
thanks
to
their
Chief
accountant
and
the
staff
of
the
accounting
unit
for
their
efficiency
and
accuracy
and
maintaining
the
final
Financial
records
of
the
LCB
during
fiscal
year.
2022
the
accounting
unit
had
two
experienced
employees
retire
and
was
only
able
to
fill
one
of
the
vacancies
before
the
end
of
the
year.
D
However,
despite
this
and
other
challenges,
there
were
no
delays
in
the
year-on,
closed
procedures
and
the
external
Financial
audit
was
completed
on
time.
With
no
audit
findings
noted
this
speaks
to
the
high
level
of
Competency
and
professionalism
of
the
lcb's
accounting
unit
and
I
appreciate
their
efforts
and
dedication.
D
The
annual
financial
report
of
the
LCB
was
prepared,
in
accordance
with
U.S
generally
accepted
accounting
principles
and
includes
the
Standalone
financial
statements
of
the
three
state
funds
administered
by
the
LCB.
Those
are
the
legislative
fund,
the
contingency
fund
and
the
state
printing
office
fund.
The
legislative
fund
accounts
for
the
operations
of
the
LCB
and
the
legislature
when
it
is.
E
The
lcb's
financial
statements
were
audited
by
the
CPA
firm
of
crow
LLP
governmental
auditing
standards
require
that
two
separate
audit
reports
be
issued
for
the
lcb's
financial
statements.
The
first
audit
report
on
page
one
is
in
the
end
is
the
independent
Auditor's
report,
which
provides
Assurance
on
the
financial
statements
themselves.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
audit
report
is
unmodified.
This
represents
the
highest
level
of
assurance
available
from
the
auditing
profession
that
the
lcb's
financial
statements
are
fairly
presented.
E
The
second
audit
report
can
be
found
on
page
55..
This
report
provides
an
assurance
opinion
on
the
lcb's
internal
controls
over
financial
reporting,
compliance
with
provisions
of
laws,
regulations
and
contracts
and
other
matters.
I
am
also
pleased
to
report
that
this
audit
report
is
also
unmodified
and
there
are
no
financial
reporting,
internal
control
or
compliance.
Audit
findings
reported
for
2022.
E
fiscal
year.
2022
is
now
the
third
consecutive
year
with
no
audit
findings
noted,
but
the
lcb's
external
auditors,
as
I
stated
earlier.
My
intent
is
to
keep
this
presentation
as
brief
as
possible.
To
that
end,
I
would
note
that,
on
page
11
of
the
report,
the
balance
sheet
shows
that
the
legislative
fund
ended
fiscal
year
2022
with
a
fund
balance
of
approximately
27
million
dollars.
Of
this
total
amount,
just
under
1
million
is
classified
as
non-spendable
as
it
relates
to
inventory
and
prepaid
expenses,
and
approximately
18
million
has
been
committed
for
specific
purposes.
E
D
D
Thank
you,
Dan
and
good
evening,
members
of
the
United
Council
Bureau
for
the
record
I'm
Joe
uijaya
I,
am
here
to
represent
Crow
LLP
to
present
the
other
results
of
this
year's
financial
statements
for
fiscal
year
2022.
before
we
presented
the
audio
results.
Just
wanted
to
remind
you
that
our
other
objective
is
to
express
an
opinion
that
your
financial
statements
are
in
accordance
with
gap
or
accounting
principles
generally
accepted
in
the
United
States.
D
Those
standards
require
that
we
perform
the
audit
to
obtain
reasonable
rather
than
absolute
Assurance,
whether
the
financial
statements
are
free
of
material
misstatement
with
that
going
into
our
audit
results.
So
for
fiscal
year
2022,
as
dad
mentioned,
we
have
issued
unmodified
opinion
to
all
of
the
two
deliverables
that
we
audit
unmodified
opinion
means
that
it's
a
clean
and
smooth
and
highest
level
of
opinion
that
we
can
provide.
H
As
an
auditor,
you
can
also
refer
to
page
one
and
page
55
within
the
agenda
package
for
those
two
opinions
and
in
addition
that,
in
addition
to
that,
we're
required
to
provide
communication
if
we
know
certain
disagreements
or
difficulties,
among
other
things,
encountered
during
the
audit
and
again
happy
to
say
that
we
did
not
note
any
difficulties
in
character
during
the
audit.
No
disagreements
with
management,
we
did
not
know
significant
unusual
transactions,
related
party
findings
and
issues
and
Independence
issues.
H
At
this
point,
I'd
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
appreciate
members
of
The
Crow
audit
team
for
their
hard
work
and
also
thank
members
of
Nevada
legislative
Council,
Bureau
management,
So,
Daniel,
Russian,
jolanta,
astronomer
and
all
members
of
the
finance
department
team
for
their
collaboration
on
these
audits.
With
that
I'm
happy
to
open
it
up
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
D
D
Okay,
I,
don't
see
any
questions,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
we
appreciate
you
being
here
on
Zoom
as
well.
Thank
you
thank
you.
So
that
completes
agenda
item
number
set
or
number
six.
Next
up
is
agenda.
Item
number:
seven
legislative
audit.
We
have
two
different
items
on
this
agenda
and
we'll
take
each
one
in
turn,
and
these
items
do
require
action
by
the
committee.
D
So
we
have
Dan
Crossman,
who
is
our
legislative
auditor
he'll
be
presenting
both
of
the
items
and
we'll
start
with
item
7A
Mr
Crossman
will
give
you
a
chance
to
present
that
take
any
questions
and
then
we'll
look
for
a
motion.
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
record,
Dan
Crossman
legislative
auditor
under
agenda
item
7A
in
your
packet.
You
will
see
a
letter
from
assemblywoman
houtigi
who's.
D
Chair
of
the
audit
subcommittee
indicating
that
on
January
12th
of
2023,
a
meeting
of
the
audit
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission
was
held
in
which
six
audit
reports
were
presented
and
accepted.
Legislators
were
also
notified
of
the
release
of
these
reports,
following
that
January
meeting
via
email
with
links
to
the
reports
on
our
website.
During
that
meeting,
we
presented
a
summary
of
the
audits
to
the
subcommittee.
We
answered
questions
of
the
committee
members
and
representatives
from
the
agencies
were
able
to
provide
remarks
and
answer
questions
as
well.
D
I
Of
these
reports
and
any
any
level
of
detail,
we'd
be
more
than
happy
to
find
a
time
to
do
that
to
meet
with
you.
We're
also
happy
to
make
any
presentations
to
any
of
the
Committees
that
as
desired.
Turning
to
the
next
page,
is
a
summary
for
the
audit
of
the
Department
of
Human
of
Health
and
Human
Services
Division
of
healthcare
financing
and
policy,
dual
enrollments
and
supplemental
drug
rebates.
I
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
determine
if
the
division
monitored
certain
activities
related
to
management,
Managed,
Care
organizations,
enrolled
participants
and
supplemental
drug
rebate
payments.
We
found
that
the
division
does
not
have
adequate
processes
in
place
to
identify
individuals
concurrently
enrolled
in
other
states,
Medicaid
programs.
Consequently,
the
division
made
improper
monthly
capitation
payments
to
mcos,
because
federal
law
does
not
allow
an
individual
to
be
enrolled
in
more
than
one
state.
We
conservatively
estimate
over
22.9
million
in
improper
capitation
payments
were
made
during
calendar
years,
20
and
21..
I
In
addition,
the
division's
lack
of
oversight
related
to
mco's,
supplemental
drug
rebate
payments
resulted
in
6.9
million
dollars
going
uncollected
for
almost
two
years
until
we
identified
the
missing
payments.
Additionally,
4.2
million
and
rebates
were
invoiced
to
the
drug
manufacturers
by
the
mcos,
but
had
not
yet
been
remitted
to
the
state.
We
made
10
recommendations
to
improve
actions
and
effective
oversight
activities
to
reduce
improper
capitation
payments
and
to
ensure
that
supplemental
drug
rebates
are
collected
by
the
state.
I
All
recommendations
were
accepted
by
the
agency
on
the
next
page
is
the
summary
of
our
audit
of
the
Department
of
Employment
training
and
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation
division.
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
analyze
whether
the
division
was
performing
sufficient
Outreach
for
the
pre-employment
transition,
Services
youth
program
or
priets,
and
to
determine
if
certain
activities
related
to
the
approval
and
oversight
of
the
adult,
Vocational
Rehabilitation
programs
were
adequately
monitored
and
approved.
I
We
found
the
division
can
do
more
to
adequately
implement
the
priets
youth
program.
For
example,
the
division
fell
short
of
meeting
youth
spending
requirements
by
an
average
of
five
percent
since
2018.,
the
impact
of
which
affects
available
funding
for
Adult
Services.
Enhanced
planning
can
help
ensure
program
and
financial
requirements
are
being
met.
Youth
with
disabilities
in
the
rural
communities
also
lacked
Equitable
access
to
resources
through
improved
program
planning,
enhanced
communication
and
coordination
with
school
districts
and
more
robust
Data
Tracking.
I
Finally,
the
division
can
strengthen
oversight
and
Outreach
controls
over
the
administration
of
The
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Services
Program
we
found
counselors
did
not
review
an
average
of
41
percent
of
open
cases
in
accordance
with
the
grant
requirements
in
fiscal
years,
20
and
21..
Additionally,
individualized
plans
of
employment
costs
exceeded
plan
amounts
without
the
adequate
approval
and
56
percent
of
the
cases
we
reviewed.
We
made
eight
recommendations
which
the
division
accepted
and
is
actively
implementing.
I
Next
is
the
summary
of
the
audit
of
the
Nevada
system
of
higher
education,
self-supporting
and
Reserve
accounts.
This
audit
was
required
by
assembly
Bill
416
from
the
2021
legislative
session.
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
analyze
Financial
activity
related
to
self-supporting
funds
and
Reserve
accounts
for
fiscal
years
2018
to
2021..
Our
conclusions
were
that
minimal
system-wide
oversight
and
variations
in
internal
control
systems
and
operations
at
institutions
of
enchi
contribute
to
inappropriate
and
questionable
Financial
activity.
I
This
occurred
because
the
Board
of
Regents
has
provided
institutions
with
latitude
for
operations
at
the
institution
level,
but
policies
and
related
guidelines
are
often
vague
or
in
insufficient,
which
contributes
to
inconsistencies
and
variations
amongst
institutions.
Our
review
of
the
self-supporting
accounts
found
some
inappropriate
activity.
For
example,
institutions
moved
expenditures
to
State
supported
accounts
without
ensuring
consistency
in
the
type
of
activity.
I
In
addition,
some
State
funds
were
not
reverted
in
accordance
with
state
law.
In
this
audit
we
recognize
the
latitude
provided
to
and
by
the
Board
of
Regents
in
their
use
of
State
funds.
However,
in
light
of
some
of
these
findings,
we
do
state
in
the
report
that
the
legislature
may
wish
to
consider
whether
NC's
actions
to
move
expenditures
from
self-supporting
Accounts
at
or
near
your
end
to
utilize.
All
state
funds
first
meets
the
legislature's
intent
when
allocating
general
fund
dollars.
We
also
found
questionable
uses
of
student
fees
when
compared
to
board
policies.
I
Increased
oversight
of
Institutions
will
help,
ensure
funds
are
used
appropriately
and,
and
she
is
accountable
to
the
legislature,
its
students
and
to
the
public.
Additionally,
we
found
that
reserve
and
contingency
accounts
are
not
adequately
overseen
by
the
board
as
a
result.
There's
little
consistency
among
the
institutions
in
how
accounts
are
created,
structured
and
used.
For
instance,
some
institutions,
utilize
Reserve
accounts
for
routine
operational
expenditures
such
as
payroll.
We
also
found
some
self-supporting
programs
had
a
significant
amount
of
idle
funds.
I
Relative
to
Total
uses,
excess
reserves
can
indicate,
programs
are
overfunded
and
fees
should
be
reduced
or
funding
should
be
redirected
for
more
immediate
purposes.
We
made
13
recommendations
to
help
ensure
self-supporting
funds
are
utilized
appropriately
and
to
approve
accountability
of
NC
resources,
which
the
system
accepted
and
is
actively
implementing.
I
Turning
to
the
next
page
is
the
summary
for
the
audit
of
the
Nevada
system
of
higher
education,
Capital
construction
projects
also
required
by
ab416.
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
determine
if
UNLV
and
UNR
managed
Capital
construction
projects
in
accordance
with
state
laws,
policies
and
appropriate
management
standards.
I
We
found
and
she
needs
to
enhance
its
policies
and
procedures
to
ensure
institutions,
Capital
Construction,
Project
funding
and
management
practices,
comply
with
state
laws
and
chief
policies
and
contract
terms.
Funding
of
some
Capital
construction
projects
used
State,
appropriated
operating
funds,
not
appropriated
for
Capital,
Construction
and
institutions,
did
not
have
authority
to
manage
some
state-funded
projects.
In
addition,
change
order
documentation
was
not
always
adequate
to
ensure
contractors,
build
amounts
complied
with
contract
terms
and
some
unallowed
amounts
were
billed.
Furthermore,
better
project
planning
is
needed
to
limit
unnecessary
modifications
to
scopes
of
work
for
some
construction
contracts.
I
Next,
better
controls
over
project
solicitation
and
procurement
practices
are
needed
to
ensure
compliance
with
again
state
laws
and
energy
practices.
Specifically,
some
project
solicitations
did
not
comply
with
state
law
regarding
the
requiring
the
disclosure
of
selection
criteria
weights.
Furthermore,
institutions
use
some
non-traditional
procurement
methods
for
Capital
construction
projects
for
one
specific
project,
a
private
public
partnership
was
used,
but
it
is
unclear
whether
NG
has
a
statutory
authority
to
use
this
form
of
construction
as
it
is
defined
in
statute.
I
Turning
to
the
next
page
in
the
packet
is
the
summary
for
the
audit
of
the
Nevada
system
of
higher
education
institution
foundations.
This
is
the
LA,
the
last
of
three
audits
pursuant
to
ab416.
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
determine
if
privately
donated,
money
was
appropriately
recorded
and
spent
in
accordance
with
donors
intended
purposes.
I
To
be
brief,
we
found
they
did
our
testing
found
that
99
of
nearly
800
sample
donations
were
properly
recorded.
Our
testing
also
found
that
99
of
about
700
gift
expenditures
were
appropriately
spent
in
accordance
with
the
intended
purpose
of
the
gift.
While
we
did
identify
limited
exceptions,
they
were
exactly
that
limited.
I
We
had
three
recommendations
to
ensure
that
adequate
policies
are
in
place
related
to
documenting
the
acknowledgment,
letters
or
donation
receipts,
verifying
certain
key
controls
are
occurring
and
reviewing
of
inactive
gift
accounts,
which
the
system
did,
except
all
those
recommendations
on
the
next
page
is
the
summary
for
our
review
of
governmental
and
private
facilities
for
children
or
inspections.
During
dated
December
of
2022,
this
report
includes
the
results
of
19
children,
children's
facilities
that
we
inspected.
We
had
notable
findings
at
five
of
the
19
facilities.
I
Additionally,
in
the
report,
we
note
that
two
of
eight
correction
and
detention
facilities
we
had
identified
a
deficiency
in
their
implementation
of
the
prison,
rape,
elimination,
act,
intake
process
or
Priya.
In
short,
we
noticed
noted
that
a
screening
tool
being
used
did
not
meet
the
Prius
standards
and
we
recommend
that
they
Implement
one
that
does.
We
also
reviewed
more
than
600
complaints
during
the
year
submitted
To
Us
by
the
facilities
and
actively
utilized
that
information
and
helping
us
perform
risk
assessments
to
select
which
agencies
excuse
me,
which
facilities
to
inspect.
I
There
are
many
other
details
included
in
this
report,
which
is
included
on
our
website,
as
I
mentioned.
We
are
available
anytime
to
meet
and
discuss
any
of
these
reports
at
any
level
with
the
legislators
or
any
committee.
That
would
conclude
my
summary
of
the
reports
issued
on
January
12th
of
2023.
As
noted
on
the
cover
letter
chair
Jaeger,
the
audit
subcommittee
recommends
the
legislative
commission
except
these
six
reports.
Thank
you.
I
I
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
and
thank
you
so
much
actually
I
wanted
to
put
on
the
record
a
great
thank
you
to
the
Auditors
for
this
information.
I'm
I'm
new
to
the
commission.
To
be
honest,
my
mind
is
blown
by
some
of
the
audits
I,
thank
heavens
for
a
before
16.
the
one
with
capital
construction
projects
and
the
reserve
accounts,
in
particular
my
question,
because
there
were
things
like
that,
you
noted
of
concern
and
there
will
be
follow-up
just
to
help
me
understand
the
process.
I
D
Assembly,
woman
Hanson
for
the
record,
Dan
Crossman
legislative
auditor.
Yes,
you
are
correct.
We
do
have
a
a
well-defined
audit
follow-up
process
that
begins
with
a
60-day
plan
of
corrective
action
for
each
of
these
reports
that
we
presented
today,
short
of
the
children's
facility
reviews,
the.
J
Audited
agencies
are
required
to
submit
that
plan
to
us
and
those
are
due
on
April
10th.
That
60-day
plan
is
meant
to
encapsulate
their
plans
to
implement
those
recommendations
and
in
a
level
of
detail
that
they
feel
comfortable
sharing
at
that
time,
following
that
six
months
after
that
report
is
due,
as
you
indicated
in
October,
a
six-month
report
is
due
to
our
office,
and
that
is
the
responsibility
of
the
division
of
internal
audits
within
the
governor's
finance
office
to.
I
Go
out
to
the
entities
and
to
do
a
review
of
the
status
of
implementation
of
those
recommendations.
That
report
is
then
provided
to
us,
and
we
do
present
that
to
the
next
audit
subcommittee
meeting,
where
we
review
that
status
with
them.
We
have
the
authority
to
continue
to
work
with
agencies
to
understand
the
the
status
of
implementation.
I
Thank
you
so
much
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
we'll
continue
to
follow
up
I
appreciate
all
the
work,
any
other
questions
or
comments
from
Senator
Lang,
please
Mr
chair,
so
my
question
I.
Will
you
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong?
Did
you
say
that
the
follow-up
to
60-day
follow-up
included
all
of
them
except
the
governmental
private
facilities
for
children,
inspections.
I
Senator
length
for
the
record
Dan
Crossman.
Yes,
that
is
correct.
Those
are
not
considered
Audits
and
therefore
not
subject
to
the
formal
audit
follow-up
process.
However,
our
process
is
to
continue
to
follow
up
with
those
entities
on
our
own
as
we
go
through
and
make
selections
for
future
visits
we
do
have.
We
will
visit
some
facilities
multiple
times
when
we
to
go
back
in
and
ensure
that
implementation
of
of
the
or
corrective
actions
have
taken
place.
J
So
I'm
just
wondering
how
often
you're
going
to
go
out
to
these
facilities.
D
And
what's
the
process
for
someone?
That's
not
making
substantial
changes,
because
I
think
they
are
substantial
changes
that
need
to
be
made
Senator
lang,
dan
Crossman,
for
the
record,
the
frequency
with
which
we
visit
these
facilities.
It
really
depends
on
our
the
level
of
risk
we
associate
with
that
facility.
There
are
in
the
back
of
the
report.
D
D
Audits,
when
you
get
them,
definitely
take
a
look
at
them.
You
know
part
of
our
duty
as
the
legislature
and
a
separate
branch
of
government
is
to
oversee
executive
agencies
and
make
sure
that
they're
doing
things
right.
We
obviously
can't
do
that
because
we're
a
part-time
legislature
and
we're
here
every
other
year,
but
through
our
auditing
division.
Those
those
reviews
take
place
on
a
regular
basis
and
I
think
it
really
does
result
in
better
efficiency
out
of
these
agencies
and
then
being
able
to
fix
the
issues.
D
So
just
want
to
take
a
moment
to
thank
our
Auditors,
because
I
can't
imagine
how
hard
and
detailed
that
work
is,
but
you
guys
do
it
on
a
regular
basis,
and
do
it
very
very
well.
So
let
me
say
thank
you
for
that.
Mr
Crossman
into
your
entire
division
as
well
so
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
accept
the
audit
reports
that
were
presented
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
houtigi.
Do
we
have
a
second
from
Senator
Hansen?
Any
discussion
on
the
motion?
D
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay.
Okay,
that
motion
is
a
motion.
Carries
the
audit
reports
are
accepted
and
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
7B
and
assembly
woman,
Hanson
I
think
this
will
fit
nicely
with
one
of
your
questions
about
what
the
follow-up
is
for
different
audit
reports.
So
we'll
go
back
to
Mr
Crossman
to
talk
about
some
of
the
follow-up
that
was
done
on
a
couple
of
previous
audits,
Mr
Crossman,
please
thank
you
for
the
record.
D
Dan
Crossman
legislative
auditor
I
will
repeat
a
little
bit
of
what
I
just
mentioned,
but
by
way
of
review
six
months
after
the
audited
agencies
submit
that
corrective
action
plan.
The
division
of
internal
audit
works
with
those
agencies
to
report
on
the
status
of
the
recommendations.
We
do
review
that
assessment.
D
The
letter
shows
the
Implement
State
implementation
status
of
the
recommendations
for
33
recommendations
made
on
those
audits.
Those
three
audits
were
the
Department
of
Corrections
use
of
force,
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
Division
of
Child
and
Family
Services
management
of
maltreatment
reports
and
child
health
and
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
Division
of
healthcare
financing
and
policy
information
security.
D
15
recommendations
were
fully
implemented
at
the
time
of
this
report.
13
partial
and
five
had
no
action.
We
will
continue
to
track
the
status
of
these
recommendations
with
these
agencies,
as
they
move
forward
with
their
corrective
action
plans,
and
they
may,
as
I
mentioned
return
to
Future
subcommittee
meetings,
to
provide
additional
information
to
the
subcommittee
and
I'll
just
mention
too
I
the
the
work
that
we
do
does
take
cooperation
of
the
agencies,
and
it
is
our
intent
to
work
with
the
agencies
throughout
these
processes.
D
There's
times
when
we
just
agree
on
things
and
have
to
agree
to
disagree,
but
I
would
say
by
and
large
most
of
the
agencies
do
cooperate
with
us
and
work
with
us
well
to
to
make
sure
that
we
can
complete
our
work
and
provide
a
good
product
to
you
and
to
the
public
through
our
auditing
process.
With
that,
chair
I
will
conclude
my
remarks
and
just
mention
that
this
letter
does
indicate
that
the
subcommittee
recommends
the
legislative
commission,
except
these
three
six-month
reports
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you.
Mr
Crossman,
do
we
have
questions
or
further
discussion
on
these
three,
these
three
six-month
status
reports
I,
don't
see
any
so
I'll
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
accept
the
three
of
these
reports.
D
Motion
from
assembly
woman
howdy
do
I
have
a
second
second
from
Senator
canizarro,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
any
opposed,
nay,
the
motion
carries
they
are.
They
are
accepted
and
before
I
go
to
the
next
agenda
item
did
want
to
take
a
chance
to
thank
assemblywoman
houdegi,
who
chaired
the
audit
subcommittee.
It's
a
lot
of
extra
work.
D
That
comes
with
legislative
commission,
but
for
those
of
you
who
are
new
to
this
commission,
if
you
are
on
the
commission
next
interim
and
you
would
like
to
serve
on
that
subcommittee-
that's
where
a
lot
of
the
real
work
is
done
in
analyzing
those
reports
as
they
come
out
so
I,
always
to
the
extent
that
I'm
on
this
commission
next
next
session.
Please
let
me
know
if
you'd
be
interested
in
serving
on
the
audit
subcommittee,
because
we're
always
looking
for
volunteers
and
people
who
want
to
dive
into
that
work.
But
thank
you,
assembly,
woman.
D
How
to
get
for
sharing.
Okay!
That
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number.
Seven
we
are
on
to
agenda
item
number
eight
reports
of
certain
2021
2022
interim
committees.
We
have
Mr
Nick
Anthony
with
us.
All
of
you
know
him
I
believe
he's
division,
Chief
and
director
of
the
research
division,
he's
going
to
be
presenting
this
item
today
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
questions
and
we'll
take
a
motion
to
approve
Mr
Anthony.
Please
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
Nick
Anthony
research,
director
of
the
research
division
for
the
record
before
the
commission
this
evening.
D
Our
summary
abstracts
and
recommendations
from
14
various
committees
from
this
past
interim
11,
standing
committees
and
three
interim
studies.
These
reports
in
your
folder
represent
just
a
summary.
The
full
reports
are
available
online
and
through
the
research
Division,
if
you
should
so
choose.
But
again,
these
reports
are
presented
every
interim
to
the
legislative
commission
for
your
approval
and
a
majority
of
the
recommendations
will
be
coming
through
the
various
committees
in
the
form
of
legislation.
So
you'll
see
those
also
this
session.
If
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
pleased
to
answer
the
same.
D
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
thank
you
Mr
Anthony
and,
as
noted
members,
you
do
have
quite
a
bit
of
information
about
what
those
those
interim
committees
did
and
as
you're
all
aware,
those
bills
are
coming
through
your
committees.
The
bdrs
are
being
approved
through
the
Committees
on
a
rolling
basis,
but
does
anyone
have
questions
for
Mr
Anthony
about
that
report?
D
D
Seeing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay,
motion
carries.
The
report
is
approved.
That
takes
us
next
to
agenda.
Item
number
nine
approval
of
session
hires
for
the
ongoing
2023
legislative
session.
We
have
Miss
Erdos
here
to
present
this
item
and
answer
any
questions.
Miss
Erdos.
Is
there
anything
to
present?
D
No
okay.
We
have
a
motion
to
approve,
so
we
have
motion
approved
from
assemblyman
hafen.
Do
I
have
a
second
second
from
Senator
go
kachia
all
right.
Any
discussion
on
that
motion
see
no
discussion.
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
motion
carries.
The
item
is
approved.
D
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
for
the
record,
Kevin
Powers
general
counsel,
LCB
legal
Division
I
have
four
cases
to
report
to
the
commission
this
evening.
First
case
is
Nevada
policy.
Research
Institute
versus
Miller
in
this
case
mpri
claims
that
state
legislators
are
prohibited
by
the
separation
of
powers,
provision
in
the
Nevada
constitution,
from
holding
any
positions
of
public
employment
with
the
state
executive
branch
or
with
local
governments.
D
As
a
reminder,
LCB
legal
is
not
representing
the
individual
legislative
defendants
in
this
lawsuit,
but
LCB
legal
is
representing
the
legislature
as
an
intervener
defendant
in
order
to
protect
the
official
interests
of
the
legislature
as
an
organizational
client.
Now
this
case
is
before
the
United
Supreme
Court
on
appeal.
For
a
second
time
after
the
first
appeal,
The
Pedestrian
Court
returned
the
case
to
the
district
court
in
a
published
opinion
reported
at
138
Nevada
Advance
opinion
number
28.
in
that
first
appeal.
D
The
District
Court
also
determined
that,
with
regard
to
the
name,
the
legislator,
defendants,
there
is
no
common
law
incompatibility
for
an
individual
to
be
employed
as
a
County,
Public,
School
teacher,
a
County
public
defender
or
a
professor
at
a
state
college
and
simultaneously
serve
as
a
state
legislator.
Therefore,
the
district
court
denied
mpri's
complaint
in
whole
and
rejected
its
separation
of
powers.
Claims
on
January,
6,
2023
mpri
filed
an
appeal
within
the
advisory
in
court.
That
peel
number
is
case.
D
The
legislative
defendants
filed
a
counter
motion
for
a
legislative
continuance
under
NRS
1.310,
which
would
continue
the
appeal
until
after
the
2023
legislative
session
on
February
9
2023,
the
Nevada
Supreme
Court
denied
mpi's
motion
to
expedite
the
appeal,
the
court
granted
the
counter
motion
for
the
requested
legislative
continuance
and
the
court
ordered
mpri
to
file
its
opening
brief
on
June
12
2023.,
once
mpri
files,
its
opening
brief
on
June,
12
2023,
then
the
time
for
the
legislative
defendants
and
the
legislature
to
file
their
responsive
brief
will
begin
the
run
from
that
date.
June
12,
2023.
D
The
petitioners
challenge
the
validity
of
the
regulation
and
the
annual
use
fees
on
October
19th,
2021,
The,
District
Court
upheld
the
regulation
and
the
annual
use
fees.
The
petitioners
filed
an
appeals
and
register
in
court.
The
parties
have
completed
their
briefing
on
appeal
and
the
management
Court
will
now
determine
whether
it
will
hear
oral
arguments
in
the
appeal
or
whether
it
will
decide
the
appeal
on
the
briefs
without
oral
arguments.
D
The
parties
have
completed
their
briefing
on
appeal
and
the
national
Court
will
now
determine
whether
it
will
hear
oral
arguments
in
the
appeal
or
whether
it
will
decide
the
appeal
on
the
briefs
without
oral
arguments
no
case
to
report
on
is
a
new
case
that
hasn't
been
reported
on
before
before
the
legislative
commission.
So
I'll
take
some
time
to
go
into
the
details
of
this
case.
This
case
also
is
related
to
a
piece
of
legislation
that
was
passed
this
session,
SB
124
and
recently
approved
by
the
government
this
week.
D
The
case
is
the
Eureka
County
School
District
versus
the
state
of
Nevada.
It's
currently
pending
in
the
First
Judicial
District
Court
in
Carson
City.
This
case
involves
the
state's
funding
of
Nevada's
public
schools
for
K-12
education
during
the
2019
and
2021
regular
sessions.
The
legislature
enacted
several
bills
that
were
intended
to
replace
the
prior
Nevada
plan
for
funding
the
operation
of
K-12
public
schools.
D
The
department
also
informed
the
school
district
that
was
required
to
repay
the
excess
amount
to
the
State
education
fund
on
September,
2nd
2022,
the
school
district
filed
and
served
an
amended
complaint
for
declaratory,
injunctive
relief
against
the
Department
of
Education
and
the
Department
of
Taxation
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
certain
provisions
of
the
pupil-centered
funding
plan.
The
school
district
also
filed
a
motion
for
preliminary
injunction
to
enjoin
the
Department
of
Education
from
taking
any
further
action
to
enforce
repayment.
D
Now
the
school
district's
constitutional
claims
involve
provisions
of
article
10,
Section
5
of
thematic
Constitution,
which
governs
the
tax
on
the
net
proceeds
of
mining
operations.
Those
constitutional
Provisions
require
the
legislature
to
appropriate
certain
amounts
collected
from
the
net
proceed
tax
to
each
County,
where
the
mining
operations
are
located.
The
county
is
then
required
to
apportion
the
appropriated
money
to
the
county,
school
district
and
other
local
governmental
entities
within
the
county,
based
on
the
property
tax
levy
by
the
school
district
and
those
other
entities
within
the
taxing
district,
where
the
mining
operations
are
located.
D
At
the
hearing
before
the
district
court,
The
District
Court
determined
that
the
school
district
had
failed
to
exhaust
its
administrative
remedies
before
the
State
Department
of
Education,
in
order
to
determine
whether,
in
fact,
the
school
district
had
to
repay
that
money.
As
a
result,
the
department
sent
it
back
to
the
administrative
proceeding
and
the
State
Department
of
Education
will
be
conduct,
conducting
an
administrative
proceeding
to
determine
the
factual
basis
for
the
county
school
district
claim
that
the
repayment
of
money
would
impact
their
net
proceeds
revenues
received
under
the
Nevada
constitution.
D
As
a
result,
the
argument
was
made
that
their
claims
were
not
right
for
adjudication,
because
the
Eureka
County
School
District
that
was
not
harmed
in
any
way
because
no
transfers
had
occurred.
This
District
Court
did
not
get
to
that
issue
during
the
hearing,
because
the
district
court
remanded
the
proceedings
to
the
State
Board
of
Education
for
having
its
administrative
hearing
on
the
matter.
So
the
district
court
did
not
rule
on
the
merits
of
that
constitutional
issue.
D
In
the
meantime,
in
order
to
clarify
the
legislation
that
was
passed
during
the
2019
and
2021
legislative
sessions,
the
legislature
passed
SB
124
this
legislative
session
Governor
sign
SB
124
into
law
this
week.
Lcb
legal
believes
that
the
provisions
of
sb-124
make
clear
that
any
transfer
or
sweep
from
a
County
School
District
fund
to
the
education
stabilization
account
will
not
touch
any
money
that
the
county
received
through
the
net
proceeds
tax.
D
So
is
the
view
of
LCB
legal
that,
when
this
case
returns
to
the
district
court
after
the
administrative
proceeding
that
there
will
no
longer
be
a
issue
with
regard
to
transfers
to
the
education
stabilization
account.
However,
the
district
court
will
still
be
dealing
with
the
repayment
issue
from
the
2021-2022
fiscal
year.
The
SB
124
that
legislation
didn't
affect
that
other
issue.
That
will
be
preceded
before
the
administrative
proceeding
for
the
State
Board
of
Education
and
most
likely
will
return
to
the
district
court.
D
After
that
administrative
proceeding
that
covers
the
four
cases
that
I
have
to
report
in
the
litigation
report.
Mr
chairman
I'm
certainly
open
to
any
questions.
Thank
you
so
much
Mr
Powers
and
commission
members.
This
is
an
informational
item
only
there
is
no
approval
needed,
but
it
is
a
chance
to
ask
questions
or
have
discussion
on
any
of
the
items.
So
I
will
open
it
up
for
questions
or
discussion.
Senator
Hansen,
please.
D
It
is
kind
of
a
thanks,
chair,
it's
kind
of
interesting
to
actually
because
they're
competing
parties
right
here
on
this
on
this
panel
a
certain
extent
Kevin,
quick
question
on
the
npri
lawsuit
you
kind
of
I
I
as
I
understood
it.
The
judge
said
that
while
you
could
be
a
County
public
defender,
you
could
not
be
a
member
of
the
of
the
District
Attorney's
Office
in
in
the
county.
Is
that
accurate.
D
Thank
you
Mr
chairman.
That
is
accurate.
It
must
be
noted,
however,
that
at
the
time
the
district
court
made
its
decision.
None
of
the
individual
legislative
defendants
who
remained
in
the
lawsuit
were
actually
employed
by
the
county
as
Prosecuting
attorneys.
So
the
essence
of
the
district
course
decision
dealing
with
County
Prosecuting
attorneys,
what's
is
what's
known
as
dictum
a
decision,
that's
unnecessary
to
the
actual
merits
of
the
case,
because
no
defendants
were
actually
County,
Prosecuting
Attorneys.
D
D
D
It
did
find,
however,
a
violation
of
the
common
law
doctrine
of
incompatibility
for
a
County
Prosecuting
Attorney
to
also
serve
as
a
legislator.
The
common
law
doctrine
of
incompatibility
is
different
from
the
separation
of
powers
provision.
It
also
must
be
noted
that
none
of
the
parties
raised
the
common
law
doctrine
of
big
compatibility
in
their
arguments
or
their
pleadings
and
brief,
including
mpri.
The
district
court
suispande
on
its
own,
addressed
the
common
law
doctrine
of
incompatibility
and
applied
it
to
County
Prosecuting
attorneys.
D
D
We
could
we
have
a
lot
of
fun
with
that
one,
but
I
want
to
exhaust
the
evening.
Thank
you,
Kevin
I'm,
going
to
get
our
continuing
legal
education
credit
here
on
this
committee
tonight
the
doctrine
of
incompatibility.
It's
been
a
while,
since
I've
heard
that
one
thank
you
for
that
response.
Mr
Powers!
Are
there
additional
questions
or
discussion
from
commission
members.
D
D
D
Would
the
one
person
in
the
audience
like
to
give
public
comment
this
evening,
two
two
people
in
the
audience:
okay,
oh
yes,
okay,
no
one's
coming
forward!
So
no
public
comment
here
how
about
in
Las
Vegas
I,
don't
know
if
anyone's
there,
but
if
there
is
someone
they
would
like
to
give
public
comment.
Please
come
forward
to
the
table.
D
D
Public
line
is
open
and
working.
There
are
no
callers
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
As
usual,
BPS
commission
members
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
agenda.
I
did
want
to
correct
something.
I
said
there
likely
will
be
another
legislative
commission
meeting
during
session,
but
it
will
be
at
the
end
of
session
when
the
legislative
commission
gets
reconstituted
by
the
Senate
and
the
assembly
and
that'll
be
to
choose
the
chair
and
vice
chair
of
the
commission,
but
I.