►
From YouTube: 6/10/2022 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the sixth meeting of the 2021-2022 Interim. Please see the 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
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
sixth
meeting
of
the
legislative
commission
for
this
interim.
I
apologize
for
a
little
bit
of
a
delay
in
getting
started
on
this
friday
afternoon,
but
I
think
we
are
up
and
ready
to
go.
This
afternoon
we
have
nine
members
if
my
accounting
is
correct.
Nine
members
attending
here
at
the
grant
sawyer
building
in
las
vegas.
We
have
a
couple
members
who
are
attending
in
the
legislative
building
in
carson
city
and
then
one
member
who
I
believe
is
on
zoom
with
us.
D
G
C
I
J
A
I
am
here
so
it
looks
like
everyone
is
present.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
before
we
get
started
this
afternoon.
Just
a
couple
of
quick
housekeeping
items
to
go
over.
These
will
sound
familiar,
but
I
know
we
haven't
been
together
in
a
little
bit
of
time
here.
So
first,
anyone
who
testifies
today
would
you
please
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
before
you
testify?
A
If
anybody
would
like
to
receive
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
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
sign
written
comments
is
also
on
the
website
and
listed
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
A
So
with
that,
if
you'll
give
me
just
a
moment
to
find
my
own
agenda,
we
are
going
to
now
move
to
item
number
two,
which
is
public
comment.
We
will
be
accepting
public
comment
at
this
time
from
persons
present
here
in
las
vegas
at
the
grand
sawyer
building,
then
those
attending
the
meeting
at
the
legislative
building
in
carson
city
and
then
finally
from
persons
wishing
to
provide
public
comment
by
phone.
If
you
prefer
to
wait
to
speak
until
later,
we
will
have
a
second
period
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
today's
meeting.
A
Please
remember
that
public
comments
will
be
limited
to
no
more
than
two
minutes
per
person.
I
will
be
timing
and
if
you
get
close
to
that
two
minutes,
I
will
interject
and
ask
you
to
please
wrap
up
your
comments.
So,
let's
start
here
in
las
vegas.
If
there's
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment
at
this
time,
we
just
ask
you
to
come
forward
to
the
table.
I
think
we
have
two
open
seats
there
and
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
that
at
this
time.
A
E
E
E
There
are
dramatic
disparities
in
opportunities,
funding
and
leadership
opportunities
for
girls
and
women
in
the
us.
This
amendment
could
help
close
those
gaps.
Number
three.
We
would
recommend
moving
the
section
on
creed
in
the
four
section
to
the
bottom
of
the
argument.
We
think
it's
a
little
confusing
for
voters
number
four.
E
We
we
think
that
there
has
been
a
clear
emotional
appeal
presented
in
the
against
section,
but
is
lacking
in
the
argument,
for
we
think
it's
a
little
too
legalese
we
would
suggest
addressing
possible
opportunities
in
the
final
version
for
preventions
against
violence
against
women,
pay,
equity
and
or
age
and
pregnancy.
Discrimination
number
five
is.
We
also
agree
with
some
the
public
comments
that
the
aclu
has
submitted
and
will
submit
here
today
regarding
changes
to
the
scrutiny
section
in
the
digest.
A
B
E
Speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada,
women's
lobby,
the
nevada
women's
lobby
is
part
of
the
nevada
for
equal
rights
ballot
committee,
which
is
working
hard
to
pass
the
state
era
on
the
ballot
in
2022
to
reduce
redundancy.
I
won't
repeat
what
lindsay
said
that
we
do.
Second,
all
of
the
points
she
made
in
terms
of
wanting
to
amend
the
version
of
the
ballot
question
that
is
in
the
packet
today.
E
We
agree
that
the
second
version
is
better
than
the
first
version,
but
we
do
have
a
few
specific
things
that
we
would
like
to
be
addressed,
which
lindsay
stated
we'll
also
be
submitting
something
in
writing,
so
that
you
can
review
those
written
comments
and
get
some
of
the
specific
language
written
down.
That
said,
I
also
wanted
to
add
to
lindsay's
list.
E
One
additional
concern
is
that
in
the
argument
section,
the
third
paragraph
discusses
transgender
athletes
and
asserts
there
is
a-
and
I
quote,
a
threat
to
everyone's
personal
safety
and
privacy.
There's
no
evidence
that
passing
the
era
will
cause
a
threat
to
safety,
and
we
ask
that
this
language
be
removed
entirely.
E
I
also
agree
with
lindsay's
point
that
we
feel
the
arguments
against
section
is
a
more
emotional
appeal,
so
we
hope
that
we
can
bolster
the
arguments
for
section
to
be
stronger
in
that
sense,
certain
things
that
we
would
like
to
be
included
to
help
bolster
this
would
be
pay
equity,
protection
from
domestic
violence
and
protection
from
discrimination
as
a
whole.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today.
F
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
christine
saunders,
I'm
the
policy
director
with
progressive
leadership,
alliance
of
nevada
and
a
member
of
the
nevada
equal
rights
ballot
committee.
We
just
want
to
echo
the
two
comments
given
previously
and
the
changes
that
have
been
submitted
by
the
aclu.
Thank
you.
A
A
K
K
We
also
thank
the
committee
for
the
changes
in
the
second
version
and
and
preferred
that
draft
language,
I'm
here
to
support
the
additional
changes
that
the
aclu
and
lindsay
have
have
brought
up.
We
support
mentioning
guarantee
for
reproductive
rights
and
the
arguments
for
section,
adding,
protect
and
advanced
opportunities
for
women
and
girls,
including
those
who
are
transgender
to
participate
in
sports.
K
K
We're
proud
that
our
state
era
is
inclusive,
including
equality
for
all,
but
we
are
not
the
first
14
of
26
total
state
eras
have
protections
outside
of
gender
without
explicit,
explicit
constitutional
protection.
The
hard
fought
progresses
we've
made
for
equality
for
all
can
be
rolled
back,
whether
from
political
shifts
or
unexpected
calamities
like
the
pandemic,
and
we
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
E
D
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
janine
hanson
j,
a
n,
I
n
e
h,
a
n
s
e
n,
I'm
the
state
president
of
nevada
families
for
freedom.
Unfortunately,
I
do
not
have
the
second
copy
of
the
ballot
language,
so
I
will
be
addressing
the
first.
We
do
not
just
consider
question
one
to
be
redundant
and
unnecessary,
but
harmful
and
dangerous,
especially
to
girls,
women
and
parents.
D
Dangerous
consequences
of
the
language
in
the
amendment
include
sex,
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity
or
expression
and
age
could
allow
minor
children
to
receive
puberty,
brockers
and
surgery
for
gender
change
without
parental
consent.
One
of
the
most
dangerous
assertions
by
the
lcb
gives
the
appearance
that
religious
liberty
will
be
protected
under
the
state
era.
This
is
erroneous.
I
specifically
asked
the
sponsor
to
add
religious
liberty
to
her
list
of
rights
supposedly
protected
by
the
proposed
nevada
era.
D
She
refused
and
religious
liberty
was
specifically
left
out
of
the
proposed
amendment,
creating
the
legislative
intent
as
a
result
of
the
last
couple
of
years
under
covet.
We
see
that
government
can
eliminate
religious
liberty
at
their
whim,
because
the
proposed
amendment
does
not
protect
religious
liberty,
it
could
force
professionals
who
object
to
performing
abortions
and
prescribing
puberty
blockers
and
gender
change
surgery
for
children
to
perform
such
or
give
up
their
professions.
D
It
will
result
in
discrimination
of
individuals
and
organizations
with
traditional
views
on
marriage
and
gender
and
result
in
funding
cuts
to
social
service
organizations.
Even
privately
funded,
religious
schools
and
organizations
will
be
at
risk
as
under
the
state
era
in
mexico.
This
amendment
will
result
in
tax-funded
abortions.
It
will
allow
biological
males
to
compete
against
girls
in
sports
and
on
sports
teams
for
scholarships
harming
girls
and
women.
It
will
require
government-owned
facilities
like
schools
and
colleges
to
allow
biological
men
and
women's
bathrooms
showers,
locker
rooms,
endangering
girls
and
women.
D
A
D
In
person,
but
we're
monitoring
election
fights
today,
we
did
submit
some
proposed
changes
for
the
record.
We
agree
with
our
colleagues
from
the
nevadans
for
equal
rights
in
the
nevada,
women's
lobby
and
echo
those
comments,
and
I
just
want
to
explain
for
the
record
what
we
have
submitted
on
the
issue
of
scrutiny.
D
For
example,
in
new
mexico
they
apply
a
strict
scrutiny
standard
to
those
classifications.
We
have
a
few
other
items
that
we
would
like
to
see
change,
just
something
very
minor
to
add.
Instead
of
saying
the
children
born
out
of
wedlock
to
instead
say
to
those
who
have
been
born
to
unmarried
parents
just
to
make
that
language
a
little
less
problematic.
D
L
D
State
treasurer
of
the
independent
american
party,
this
is
about
arguments
against
ballot
question.
One
the
religious
liberties
are
at
risk.
Our
religious
schools,
doctors,
nurses
and
even
organizations
would
be
discriminated
against
with
no
protections
because
of
their
work.
Right
to
conscience
is
a
problem
for
many
occupations
now
and
could
be
expanded
in
the
future.
The
age
of
consent
is
not
mentioned
in
the
argument
against
ballot
question.
One
language
in
the
amendment
include
the
word
age.
We
need
to
point
out
that
the
argument
that
age
of
consent,
most
likely
will
be
gone.
D
That
leaves
the
door
open
to
all
sorts
of
dangers
for
our
children,
not
having
parents
be
a
part
of
the
decision-making
for
their
own
children,
including
such
decisions
as
gender
change,
surgery,
puberty
blockers,
therapies
of
all
sorts
abortion,
sexual
involvement
at
an
early
age,
sexual
involvement
at
an
early
age
with
an
adult,
are
problems.
I
also
believe
that
women's
shelters
should
be
included
in
the
ballot
question.
Many
of
the
women
in
the
shelters
are
there
to
be
protected
from
a
domestic
battery
situation.
D
Would
they
be
protected
or
will
the
person
doing
the
battery
be
able
to
be
in
the
same
shelter
or
will
the
battered
woman
be
easier
to
find
in
the
shelter,
since
the
doors
would
be
open
to
everyone?
Protection
for
women
and
children
should
be
a
high
priority
and
discussed
in
the
arguments
against
against
question
one
language,
please
include
it.
Thank
you.
E
Yes,
there
are
hold
on
just
one
second
and
if
you've
recently
joined
the
call
and
would
like
to
participate
in
public
karma,
please
press
star
nine
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
and
call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
zero
to
nine.
You
are
unmuted
and
we
begin
yes,
this
is
don
nelson
with
nevada
right
to
life.
E
This
is
because
there
are
many
leading
abortion
advocates
who
say:
era
will
be
used
and
is
needed
to
strike
down
abortion
laws.
Two
state
supreme
courts
in
new
mexico
and
connecticut
have
already
used
their
state
era.
Laws
to
strike
down
abortion
funding
bans,
abortion
groups
in
pennsylvania
are
trying
to
use
their
state
era
to
strike
down
abortion
funding,
prohibitions
and,
in
the
past,
pro-life
groups
have
asked
for
a
carve
out
for
abortion
to
the
federal
era
and
abortion
and
er
advocates
say
that
this
is
a
non-starter.
E
So
these
are
reasons
why
the
ballot
needs
to
strongly
state
that
one
of
the
effects
of
question
one
is
that
it
will
be
used
to
strike
down
abortion
laws
in
nevada
past
our
present
and
future.
That
will
be
used
to
strike
down
public
funding
bans
in
other
states
or
it
has
been,
and
it
needs
to
say
that
leading
abortion
and
era
advocates
say
that
this
is
an
important
reason
that
question
one
needs
to
become
law
and
they
will
use
it
such
laws
to
do
so.
Thank
you.
D
D
I
would
like
to
just
ask
the
commission
to
take
a
look
at
the
process
that
that
had
that
has
gotten
us
to
where
we
are
just
a
little
bit
of
history.
D
In
the
2019
session,
the
majority
leader
brought
this
up
as
an
emergency
measure.
Four
days
before
the
end
of
session,
there
was
not
a
chance
for
any
people
who
had
concerns
about
this
to
get
professional
and
stakeholders
to
the
meeting
to
the
hearing.
The
one
hearing
that
happened
at
three
o'clock
the
friday
before
the
legislature
ended
it
passed
with
very
little.
You
know
with
very
little
public
input,
and
then
it
was.
D
It
was
voted
on
behind
the
bar
of
the
senate,
and
then
we
spent
two
days
chasing
around
trying
to
find
where
the
next
hearing
was
going
to
happen
on
the
assembly
side.
Again,
we
weren't
able
to
get
any
professionals
to
come
in
and
then,
but
we
were
promised
that
well
by
golly
in
2021.
We
would
have
an
opportunity
to
have
12
hearings
again.
This
did
not
happen
because
it
was
coveted
and
it
was
rushed
through.
The
public
has
to
do
which
is
look
at
the
hearing.
D
D
It
will
have
serious
impacts
on
our
small
businesses
on
our
schools
on
our
kids
and
now
it's
just
gonna
go
to
the
ballads,
and
I
doubt
I
doubt
that
the
language
that
that
you
have
the
the
pro
and
con
we'll
give
it
give
those
people
the
adequate
information
and
and
ma'am
you're
at
your
two
minutes.
Please,
if
you
could.
D
Absolutely
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
the
two
minutes
plea
you
know.
I
know
we're
at
a
strange
point
where:
how
do
you
stop
a
freight
train
that
nobody
ever
put
bricks
on,
but
please
do
what
you
can
so
that
the
public
knows
that
they
are
they're
voting
on
something
that's
going
to
be
very,
very
bad
for
our
state.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
bps
and,
as
a
reminder,
there
will
be
a
second
opportunity
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
But
at
this
time
we're
going
to
close
agenda
item
number
two
and
we're
going
to
move
to
agenda
item
number
three,
which
is
approval
of
the
minutes
committee
members
you'll
have
found
in
your
pack
at
the
drafts
of
the
april
8
2022
legislative
commission
meeting
minutes.
These
are
also
available
on
the
website
would
take
any
corrections
or,
if
not,
would
take
a
motion
to
approve.
A
A
I
don't
see
discussion
and
I
think
the
best
way
to
do
this
is
you
know,
we'll
just
do
voice
votes
and
senator
hammond
feel
free
to
either
do
a
voice
vote
or
if
you
want
to
raise
your
hand
as
well.
That
would
work
so
again.
The
motion
is
to
approve
the
minutes.
All
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
E
A
If
there
are
any
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
okay
looks
like
that
motion
passes
unanimously,
so
those
meeting
minutes
are
approved.
That
next
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
four,
which
is
our
fourth
court
mandated
status
report
regarding
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles,
technology
fee
refund
project.
I
think
we
have
mr
sean
sever
deputy
administrator
of
the
dmv
with
us
in
carson
city.
I
believe-
and
I
see
in
the
reflection
of
the
plexiglass
that
someone
is
coming
up
to
the
table,
so
I'm
assuming
that
you,
mr
sever,
and
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
It
is
me
sean
sever
from
the
dmv.
I
am
a
deputy
administrator
there
and
good
afternoon.
Mr
chair
committee,
commission
members.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
give
you
an
update
on
our
tech
fee
refund
project.
M
M
M
A
Thank
you,
commission
members.
As
you
know,
this
is
essentially
an
information
item.
It
does
not
require
any
action
on
our
part,
but
it
is
a
chance
for
you
to
ask
questions
regarding
the
project
so
we'll
start
down
here
in
las
vegas.
Are
there
any
questions
for
mr
sever.
A
K
M
Yes,
sean
serra
for
the
record
from
the
from
the
dmv,
so
county
offices,
you
do
have
to
go
into
a
dmv
office.
It's
not
available
at
assessors
offices,
unfortunately,
but
yeah
and
I'd
be
willing
to
work
with
you
offline.
What
was
the
other
question?
I'm
sorry.
M
M
Yes,
it
it
is
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year,
2023.
M
Yes,
sean
sever
from
the
dmv
for
the
record.
You
can
go
to
any
dmv
office
to
get
your
refund.
It
doesn't
matter
where
you
were
issued.
The
refund
any
state
office.
Any
state
dmv
office
will
work.
A
So
that'll
close
out
agenda
item
number
four
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
five,
which
is
administrative
regulations.
Chief
deputy
legislative
counsel,
asher
killing
is
with
us
in
carson
city
today
on
video
conference
to
assist
us
with
this
item.
We
have
two
types
of
proposed
approvals
for
regulations
under
agenda
item
number:
five.
Today
we're
going
to
start
with
agenda
item
5a,
which
is
a
request
pursuant
to
subsection
4
of
nrs233b.04,
to
continue
a
regulation
not
adopted
within
two
years
after
the
submission
to
the
legislative
council.
A
That
subsection
provides
that
if
the
agency
does
not
adopt
a
proposed
regulation
within
two
years
after
the
date
on
which
the
proposed
regulation
is
submitted
to
the
lcb,
the
executive
head
of
the
agency
shall
appear
before
the
legislative
commission
and
explain
why
the
proposed
regulation
has
not
been
adopted
within
the
two-year
period
and
requests
an
extension
of
the
time
to
allow
the
regulation
to
continue
through
the
process
to
become
a
permanent
regulation.
I
believe
we
have
mr
greg
lovato
and
it
looks
like
we
have.
A
Yes,
I
see
him
there
on
he's
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
environmental
protection.
I
believe
he's
on
the
video
conference,
so
he
is
here
to
provide
the
explanation
required
by
the
nevada,
revised
statute,
and
then
we
will
have
a
chance
to
ask
questions.
So
thank
you,
mr
lovato,
and
please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
N
N
This
has
included
a
series
of
webinars
technical
sessions
and
formal
workshops,
representatives
from
many
organizations,
including
the
truckee
meadows,
water
authority,
the
truckee
meadows,
water
reclamation
facility,
clark,
county
flood
control,
district,
the
nevada
conservation
league,
trout,
unlimited
nevada
farm
bureau,
the
humboldt
river
basin,
water
authority,
nevada,
the
humble
I'm
sorry,
nevada,
mining
association
and
other
conservation
groups,
including
western
resource
advocates,
and
the
pew
charitable
trusts
have
been
a
part
of
these
discussions.
Over
the
past
year
and
a
half.
N
N
The
regulations
themselves
would
give
the
state
environmental
commission
a
specific
role
in
designating
what
we
call
extraordinary
waters
of
extraordinary
ecological
or
aesthetic
value
and
we'd,
like
some
time
after
we've
received
all
this
input
from
the
stakeholders
to
present
some
ideas
before
the
state
environmental
commission.
We
have
that
scheduled
for
next
week
june
15th.
N
After
that,
we
expect
to
provide
revised
drafts
of
the
regulation
to
the
legislative
council
beer
for
a
bit
for
revision
and
then
conduct
another
set
of
formal
workshops
before
these
bringing
these
regulations
back
to
the
environmental
commission
in
october
of
this
year.
So
this
past
wednesday
june
7th,
we
did
update
all
the
stakeholders
I
mentioned
before
on
our
status
and
progress,
and
they
all
indicated
their
support
for
us
continuing
work
on
these
regulations.
A
A
J
J
Chairman
the
senator
settlement,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
to
me
this
concept
of
being
able
to
reclassify
certain
water
rights
as
ecological
or
aesthetic.
You
know,
since
it's
taken
so
long,
it
wouldn't
necessarily
hurt
it
to
go
back
through
the
legislative
process,
realizing.
Of
course,
I
won't
be
in
the
legislature,
which
I
know
you're
very
saddened
by
in
that
respect.
J
We
should
go
back
through
the
process
and
I
was
just
kind
of
curious
what
shavato
thought
about
that
concept
of
having
another
bite
at
the
legislative
process
just
to
have
a
hearing
on
it
or
what
bill
prompted
this
to
begin
with.
Is
this
just
a
regulation
that
never
came
from
a
bill.
N
Thank
you,
greg
lovato
for
the
record,
senator
sotomayer,
that's
an
excellent
question,
and-
and
that
is
one
of
the
exact
issues
that
we're
making
sure
that
is
addressed
completely,
so
that
this
this
process
has
been
set
up
in
a
number
of
states
across
the
west.
From
you
know,
idaho,
to
montana
new
mexico
and
others,
and
really
the
only
water
body.
N
Right
now
in
nevada,
that
has
a
higher
tier
protection,
is
lake
tahoe
there
are
other
waters
that
I
think
most
folks
would
agree,
would
deserve
a
higher
tier
protection,
but
it's
extremely
important
that
any
concerns
related
to
water
use
flows.
Water
rights
are
you
know
the
stakeholders
are
aware
that
that
process
is,
you
know
clear
in
terms
of
you
know,
understanding
those
and
that
those
will
not
be
affected
by
this
designation.
N
That
is
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
make
sure
would
be
addressed
and
that
we've
been
carefully
managing
and
carefully
addressing
throughout
all
these.
These
discussions,
the
the
thing
that's
I
think,
made
it
difficult
in
terms
of
the
timeline
is
that
our
typical
process
for
bringing
proposals
and
regulations
before
the
state
environmental
commission
is
those
come
from
the
agency.
N
N
What
type
of
information
they
need
to
bring
in
order
for
the
state
environmental
commission
to
even
consider
nominating
a
surface
water
are
the
exact
kind
of
discussions
we've
been
having
and
we've
actually
progressed
to
the
stage
where
we're
ready
to
bring
in
the
state
environmental
commission
numbers
themselves
on
on
addressing
those
exact
issues.
So
I
think
you
raise.
N
You
know
critical
important
points
that
that
we
are
addressing
and,
and
we'll
we'll
be
sure
to
address
this
as
a
part
of
the
process
before
we
bring
it
back
for
formal
rulemaking
before
both
the
state
environmental
commission
and
the
legislative
commission.
J
A
A
I
don't
see
additional
questions.
Of
course,
after
we
take
a
motion,
we'll
have
a
chance
for
discussion,
but
for
right
now,
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
continuation
of
r0119-20
pursuant
to
nrs233b.o4,
so
that
the
regulation
may
continue
through
the
statutory
adoption
process
and
be
presented
for
approval
by
this
commission
at
a
later
date.
Do
I
have
such
a
motion,
mr.
J
A
Thank
you
senator
sotomayor,
after
conferring
with
staff,
I
think
it's
more
appropriate
to
go
ahead
and
take
the
motion.
The
original
motion
today
realizing
you'd
like
some
more
time.
I
understand
that,
but
if
the
motion
does
pass,
would
ask
that
you
try
to
have
those
conversations
before
it
comes
back
before
the
legislative
commission
for
final
approval.
So
I
believe
senator
dennis
was
going
to
make
the
original
motion
is
that
right?
A
So
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
dennis
a
second
from
assemblywoman
how
to
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
the
motion,
because
it's
really
long,
but
essentially
it
gives
them
more
time
to
work
on
this
regulation
and
now
would
be
the
time
for
any
comments
before
we
take
the
motion.
Senator
dennis,
please
go
ahead.
G
Thank
you,
so
my
understanding
from
what
you
just
said
in
referring
to
staff
that
the
concerns
that
senator
salmeyer
has
could
still
be
addressed,
because
that
this
is
going
to
come
back.
This
is
just
basically
a
motion
to
allow
them
continue
to
develop
the
thing,
and
then
he
can
work
on
that.
Is
that
correct.
A
That's
correct,
senator
dennis
like
anything
else.
If
and
when
they
get
to
the
point
of
having
a
final
regulation,
it
would
come
back
before
this
commission
for
approval
or
disapproval
senator
hardy.
Please.
I
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
asher,
killian,
chief
deputy
legislative
council.
So
if,
if
the
agency
were
not
given
authority
to
continue
with
this
regulation,
the
the
agency
would
still
be
able
to
file
a
new
regulation
so
basically
begin
the
regulation
process
over
under
a
new
regulation
number
to
consider
the
same
subject
matter.
It
would
require
a
duplication
of
likely
some
of
the
efforts
the
agencies
already
made
on
this
regulation,
so
it
wouldn't
be
without
cost
to
the
agency,
but
the
agency
would
have
an
avenue
available
to
continue
to
pursue
the
same
subject
matter
if
necessary.
I
May
I
please
so
what
I
hear
you
saying
mr
kealian
is:
they
could
actually
reach
out
and
do
more
investigation
more
hearing
from
other
people
and
still
be
able
to
continue
their
work.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
asher,
killian,
chief
deputy
legislative
council.
Again.
Yes,
there
would
be
an
avenue
available
for
the
agency
to
do
that.
They
would
be
starting
the
regulation
process
all
over,
so
it
would
involve
a
brand
new
set
of
workshops,
hearings
notices,
so
so
it
would
not
be
without
cost
to
the
agency,
and
it
would
involve
a
duplication
of
some
work
they've
already
done,
but
it
would
be
another
avenue
for
them
to
pursue
the
same
subject
matter
if
necessary.
I
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
just
based
on
that
last
discussion.
It
was
my
understanding
that
they
still
could
do
that
if
they
want
to
do
some
more
hearings
and-
and
I
mean
there's
nothing
so
if
we
pass
this
measure,
they
could
continue
to
do
a
hearing
and
do
continue
to
take
comments
and
finish
the
thing
without
having
to
completely
start
over
right.
It
seems
like
it
would
be
able
to
do
to
take
the
time
to
still
get
it
done.
A
Yeah,
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
mr
killian,
but
I
think
that
is
that
is
correct,
and
you
know
the
the
downside
I
guess
is
starting
over
is
all
that
history
that
comes
with
the
regulation
number
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
would
be
lost.
So
essentially
all
those
workshops.
All
the
public
comment.
All
the
input
was
there
have
to
be
recreated
or
redone
or
re
re-heard.
I
guess
so
that
that
would
be
the
downside
of
of
not
allowing
more
time.
Is
it's
a
fresh
start
from
the
beginning?
A
And
mr
mr
killian
correct
me
if
I
got
that
wrong,
but
I
think
that's
close
to
what
you
said.
Thank.
A
I'll
take
that
as
a
rhetorical
question,
any
additional
comments
here
in
las
vegas,
seeing
none
how
about
up
in
carson
city,
senator
sotomayor
any
comments
on
this
one
or
assemblywoman
dickman.
Thank.
J
You,
mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
senator
settlemyer
the
concept
of
letting
the
state
environmental
commission
basically
create
water
law
by
basically
allowing
things
to
be
changed,
designation
to
aesthetic,
I
find
very
problematic,
looking
at
the
different
water
laws
that
are
out
there.
If
you
raise
the
temperature
of
water,
sometimes
10
degrees,
it's
considered
to
be
an
ecological
problem.
J
When
you
take
water
and
you
run
across
ag
land
to
grow
crops.
Sometimes
you
increase
water
temperatures
by
about
10
degrees,
and
then
that
becomes
a
problem
returning
it
to
the
river
flow,
even
when
they
have
water.
That
goes
off
the
field
and
they
say
well.
It
has
sediment,
even
though
we've
had
times
where
we've
proven
that
the
water
is
now
cleaner,
leaving
the
field,
then
it
went
on
the
field
that
the
field
actually
took
out
some
of
the
problems
that
are
in
there
the
pollutants,
yet
it's
still
problematic
to
return.
J
A
You
are
welcome
and
I
just
will
note
that
the
motion
before
us
is
to
give
them
more
time
we're
not
actually
approving
or
disapproving
any
language
or
any
regulatory
language
at
this
point.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
for
the
record
that
that
would
still
come
in
front
of
this
commission
if
and
when
they
finish
their
work,
additional
comments
before
we
vote
all
right.
I
don't
see
additional
comments.
It's
been
a
while,
since
the
motion
and
the
second
were
made,
but
all
those
in
favor
of
giving
them
additional
time.
A
Please
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye
and
those
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
nay,
okay,
I
will
need
a
show
of
hands
for
the
nays.
If
I
could
so
we
have
nays
from
assemblywoman
tolls,
assemblyman
robert
senator
hardy
and
then
up
north.
It
looks
like
we
have
assemblywoman
dickman,
senator
settlemyer
and
senator
hammond.
So
if
my
math
is
correct,
that
would
be
6
6,
which
means
the
motion
fails.
A
A
These
regulations
are
all
contained
in
the
binder
provided
to
all
the
members
today
and
also
posted
on
the
nevada
legislature's
website
under
the
tab
for
this
meeting,
which
you
will
find
by
hitting
the
view,
events
button
in
the
upper
right
hand
corner
of
the
home
page,
as
is
our
usual
practice.
I'm
going
to
let
you
know
the
regulations,
I
have
been
asked
to
hold
for
questions
and
then
after
we
identify
those
I'll
ask
commission
members.
A
If
there
are
additional
regulations
you
would
like
held
for
further
discussion
once
we
pull
all
those
out,
we'll
take
a
motion
and
approve
the
remaining
regulations,
and
then
we
will
come
back
to
those
regulations
that
we
pulled
one
at
a
time
to
discuss
each
regulation
in
turn.
Now
let
me
get
back
to
the
regulations
that
have
been
identified
to
be
pulled
for
further
discussion
and
I'll
list
them
from
the
top.
A
Again,
that's
r064-21,
that
is
a
speech-language
pathology,
audiology
and
hearing
aid
dispensing
board
and
the
final
one
would
be
r
119
dash,
that's
r119-21,
and
that
also
is
a
state
board
of
pharmacy
regulations.
So
those
are
the
four
that
have
been
identified
before
this
meeting,
but
I
want
to
give
commission
members
a
chance
to
pull
any
other
regulations
for
individual
discussion,
so
we
can
start
here
in
las
vegas.
Anyone
like
any
additional
regulations,
pulled
for
discussion.
A
Okay,
so
I'll
just
give
it
one
more
a
couple
more
seconds
to
see
if
there's
any
additional
ones.
Just
let
me
know
if
someone
has
one
they
like
pulled.
We
can
do
that.
Otherwise,.
A
I
don't
hear
any
additional
ones
so
at
this
point
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
remaining
regulations
under
this
item
that
were
not
pulled
or
deferred
and
senator
settlemeyer.
If
you
don't
mind
making
that
motion,
I
know
you've
gotten
very
good
at
listing
the
regulations
we're
going
to
approve
very
quickly.
So
if
you
wouldn't
mind
doing
that,
I'd
appreciate
it.
J
J
A
That
looks
correct
with
what
I
have
thank
you,
senator
sutter
meyer
who'd,
like
to
second
the
motion.
We
have
a
second
from
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno
here
next
to
me
in
las
vegas.
Before
we
take
a
vote,
any
discussion
on
the
motion
don't
see
any
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
okay,
I
don't
hear
any
nays,
so
those
regulations
that
were
listed
were
approved
through
a
unanimous
vote,
and
that
takes
us
to
the
regulations
that
have
been
pulled
for
further
discussion
and
so
we'll
start
again
at
the
top
and
at
this
time
we'll
consider
r
007
dash
21.,
and
I
believe
we
have
there,
I
see
on
the
zoom,
we
have
the
state
board
of
pharmacy
with
us
and
just
let
me
know
members
I
I
can't
remember
who
wanted
to
pull
this.
I
think
perhaps
it
was
senator
settlemyre.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
that
I
understand
the
concept
of
the
concept
allowing
doctors
of
oncology
to
go
ahead
and
do
this
and
it's
a
very
important
thing,
but
in
the
same
respect
I'm
just
curious.
Are
this
group's
rules
going
to
be
the
same
as
a
community
pharmacy?
Are
they
more
abbreviated?
K
J
To
go
through
two
times
through
your
voting,
you
know
one
time
it
didn't
do
well,
but
then
you
guys
changed
it
around.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
The
changes
that
were
made
from
the
first
one
and
also
were
the
rules,
be
the
same
as
a
community
pharmacy
for
this
group,
or
are
they
more
like
a
dispensing
practitioner.
E
Thank
you,
senator
sander
meyer
for
the
record
dave
wiese
executive
secretary
of
the
board
of
pharmacy.
Under
current
law,
doctors
can
ask
for
and
receive
a
license
to
dispense
to
just
their
own
patients,
and
we
have
many
doctors
that
do
that.
In
this
particular
case,
we
had
a
group
of
licensees
on
colleges
asked
if
they
would
be
able
to
share
the
drugs,
because
they're
so
expensive
from
one
practitioner
in
the
same
group
to
another
one.
E
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
There's
no
real
other
further
questions.
I
have
it's
always
interesting
to
me.
You
know
we
always
have
these
bills
that
where
pharmacists
are
told
they
shouldn't
be
doing
what
doctors
do
and
then
other
times
we
have
bills.
You
know
doctors
saying
should
be
doing
what
pharmacists
do.
It's
always
interesting
the
the
lines
in
between,
even
though
I've
had
bills
that
are
blurring
those
lines
too.
So
I
can't
say
a
lot
about
that.
So
thank
you
for
the
question.
Mr
chairman.
A
You're
welcome
senator.
Are
there
additional
questions
on
this
particular
regulation.
K
Thank
you
chair.
I
was
just
wondering:
what
would
is
there
anything
that
would
prohibit
others
from
attaining
obtaining
this
type
of
license?
If
this
passes,
is
it
going
to
be
precedent
setting
or
is,
does
this
just
apply
to
the
large
oncology
groups
or.
E
Thank
you
for
your
question,
ms
dickman
dave
wheats
for
the
record.
There's
not
a
real
change
in
you've
already
said
the
legislatures
already
gave
them
the
ability
to
obtain
the
license.
That's
nothing,
that's
not
something
that
the
board
could
generate
so
you've
set
up
the
licensing
scheme
for
them.
What
we're
doing
only
the
oncologist
would
be
able
to
share.
E
I
don't
know
the
reason
why
they
originally
weren't
allowed
to
share
pharmacies
are
allowed
to
share
drugs
from
one
common
ownership
to
another,
but
this
is
something
so
it's
only
for
the
oncologist
and
that's
because
they
came
forward
and
asked
for
it.
So
only
oncologists
would
be
able
to
share
all
other
doctors
would
have
to
have
their
own
separate
inventory.
A
You're
welcome
any
additional
questions
from
commission
members,
seeing
no
additional
questions.
I'd
look
for
a
motion
to
approve
r007-21
move
to
approve.
We
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno.
We
have
a
second
from
senator
dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
What
about
here
in
las
vegas
any
discussion
seeing
none
carson
city
senator
hammond
any
discussion
before
we
vote
hearing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
regulation.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
A
A
This
is
a
division
of
financial
institutions
regulation
and
I
see
we
have
some
folks
coming
to
the
table
here
in
las
vegas.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
on
friday
afternoon
and
who
would
like
to
ask
a
question
on
this
one
I
see
assemblywoman
dickman,
I
believe,
has
her
hand
up
so
we'll
go
up
to
carson
city
for
the
first
question.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
was
just
there
was
a
lot
of
questions.
I
think
during
the
hearings
that
brought
up
conflicts
with
federal
law.
Could
you
address
that.
E
L
K
L
Mary
young
for
the
record
deputy
commissioner
for
the
financial
institutions
division
we
had
determined.
There
is
no
conflict
with
federal
law.
This
state
law
takes
place
prior
to
federal
law
coming
into
play,
so
this
this
state
law.
They
have
to
wait
the
60
days
and
then
federal
law
will
come
in
play.
That's
why
there's
no
conflict
in
the
federal
and
state
laws.
I
hope
that
provides
more
clarification.
K
So
so
am
I
hearing
correctly
that
this
will
extend
the
time
that
okay,
that's
a
problem,
because
people
have
already
doctors,
hospitals
have
been
waiting
an
awful
long
time
for
their
payment
and
now
we're
giving
them
people
even
more
time
to
not
pay
them.
L
Marianne
for
the
record
that
that
is
correct,
sb
248
is
the
bill
that
created
that
60-day
time
frame
in
our
regulations.
We
wrote
just
to
support
that
and
define
the
60
days
and
to
find
other
matters
that
supported
sb
248,
so
that
60-day
law
was
written
into
the
actual
law.
L
That
is
correct,
but
again
we
didn't
write
that
60
days,
sb248
created
the
60
days
and
then
of
course,
federal
law
is
already
in
play.
I
L
Mary
young
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
The
state
law
requires
60
days
for
the
collection
agencies
to
send
out
a
letter,
a
notification
of
the
debt
and
give
the
consumer
60
days
to
make
the
debt
right
or
get
their
insurance
to
pay
it
or
whatnot.
It
gives
them
just
60
days
the
federal
law,
the
fair
debt
collection
practices,
act
comes
into
play
after
that
60
days,
and
that
allows
30
days
under
federal
law
for
the
consumer
to
get
validation
of
the
debt
or
pay
the
debt
again.
A
D
L
Sorry,
mary
young,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
It
is
90
days
because
the
state
law
comes
into
place
before
that
federal
law
even
takes
place,
so
the
nevada
collection
agencies.
They
have
to
send
that
notification
out
and
in
that
notification
letter
it
has
to
say
you
have
60
days
and
there's
other
languages
and
proposed
in
the
break
but
60
days,
and
then
after
that
60
days,
then
the
collection
agencies
can
start
their
normal
collection
processes.
L
As
in
sending
the
30-day
initial
letter
under
the
federal
law,
which
is
the
30
days
so
they're,
they
don't
conflict
each
other
they're,
just
two
different
sets
of
laws,
state
and
federal,
and
I
hope
that
provide
clarification.
Sorry
I
I.
D
L
L
I
So
you
you've
said
something
about
or
get
your
insurance
to
pay
on
time.
Is
there
a
penalty
if
the
insurance
does
not
pay
on
time,
where
you
have
insurance,
but
they
choose
not
to
pay
the
bill.
Is
there
some
challenge
for
the
insurance
that
doesn't
do
that.
L
Mary
young,
for
the
record,
I
I'm
not
sure
about
the
insurance
division
laws
and
how
that
would
play
for
any
kind
of
additional
fines
or
or
whatnot,
but
the
consumer.
It
would
have
to
be
the
one
to
either.
If
their
insurance
didn't
pay,
they
would
have
to
be
the
ones
to
pay
or
go
through
their
insurance,
but
for
the
actual
fine
through
a
insurance
company.
I
don't
know
those
those
regulations
under
insurance
law.
I
J
L
Mary
young,
for
the
record,
I
I
don't
believe
we
could
because
then
that
that
may
cause
a
conflict,
because
again
this
this
bill
stands
alone
from
the
federal
law,
so
that
could
be
kind
of
convoluted
and
confusing
to
the
collection
agencies.
If
we
did
that,
I
don't
think
you
can
do
it
together.
No.
E
L
Marianne
for
the
record-
I
I
don't
believe
that's
what
this
this
bill,
or
this
regulation
does
it.
It
just
gives
the
nevada
consumer
medical
debtor
the
extra
60
days
to
contact
their
insurance
or
pay
it
their
own
way
or
to
confirm
and
validate
that
this
is
actually
true
medical
debt
and
it
didn't
just
get
accidentally
assigned
to
a
collection
agency,
so
it
doesn't
override
from
my
understanding,
because
I
don't
know
insurance
law
or
underwrite
anything
to
do
with
the
insurance.
It
just
gives
the
nevada
consumer
time
to
to
pay
the
extra
60
days.
I
L
The
bill
and
the
statute
doesn't
put
a
time
frame
on
when
the
insurance
has
to
pay.
It
just
has
the
time
frame
for
when
the
consumer,
doesn't
they
there's
no
negative
against
the
consumer
for
that
60
days,
like
there's
no
credit
reporting
until
they
have
that
60
days
to
pay
the
medical
debt,
so
it
just
gives
them
an
additional
60
days.
A
I
A
Was
were
you
going
to
make
a
motion
senator
hardy?
Okay,
just
wanted
to
check
who
would
like
to
make
the
motion
to
approve
r0555-21
senator
dennis
with
the
motion.
Do
I
have
a
second
assemblywoman
howdigy
okay
time
for
discussion
on
the
motion?
If
there
is
anything
left
to
be
said,
see
no
additional
discussion
or
no
discussion
beyond
what
we've
had
already
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
regulation.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed,
nay,
I
think
I
have
nays
from
senator
hardy
and
assemblywoman
dickman
senator
settlemeyer.
A
A
I'm
I'm
sorry,
oh
senator
hammond.
Sorry,
your
no
as
well
so
eight
to
four
would
be
the
vote
on
that
motion.
So
it
is
approved.
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
this
afternoon
and
answering
those
questions
and
we
hope
you
have
a
good
weekend.
A
A
Do
we
have
someone
either
here
or
in
carson
city
or
on
zoom?
Let's
see
it
looks
like
we
have
someone
maybe
being
pulled
up
on
zoom,
okay,
we
do
have
a
representative
here
and
I'm
not
sure
who
asked
that
this
one
be
pulled.
So
if
someone
could
just
indicate
that
they
have
a
question
that
would
be
helpful.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
was
just
getting
a
little
concerned
with
all
these
different
boards
that
we
have
that
were
kind
of
micromanaging
them.
You
know
is
this
something
that
is
necessary
within
the
field.
That's
been
determined
that
would
be
in
the
best
entrance
of
the
consumers
and
the
constituents
are
looking
for,
or
is
this
something
that
the
legislative
body
is
brought
forth
and
indicated
that
we
want
to
see
done?
I
was
just
kind
of
curious
if
I
could
get
feedback
on
that.
E
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
senator
chair
and
members,
and
my
name
is
jennifer
pierce
for
the
record.
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
speech,
language,
pathology,
audiology
and
hearing
aid
dispensing
board.
E
And
so
originally,
we
looked
at
reducing
the
number
of
hours
to
10,
to
include
one
hour
of
ethics
and
were,
during
our
workshop
in
january,
were
notified
and
had
public
comment
that
the
american
speech
hearing
association,
which
certifies
many
of
our
most
of
our
licensees
as
speech-language
pathologists,
was
requiring
the
inclusion
of
the
cultural
diversity,
inclusion,
equity
and
cultural
competence
piece
to
their
new
requirements
coming
out
in
well,
currently
one
hour
out
of
30
ending
in
2022
and
then
two
out
of
30
hours.
I
A
Thank
you.
Senator
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
hardy
and
and
I'll
note
too
senator
hardy
has
indicated.
It
looks
like
the
actual
numbers
of
hours
that
are
being
required
are
being
lessened
from
15
to
10,
so
that
should
make
it
easier
for
folks
to
maintain
their
license
status
with
the
state.
So
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
hardy.
Do
we
have
a
second
senator
dennis
it's?
You
can
tell
it's
friday,
everyone
everyone's
ready
to
go,
so
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
hardy,
a
second
from
senator
dennis.
I
A
A
She
had
indicated
to
me
today
that
she
had
some
concerns
with
the
regulation
and
I
think
she
had
a
conversation
with
the
board
of
pharmacy
and
I
think
they
are
probably
I
hope,
on
the
same
page,
to
make
some
additional
changes
so
I'll
give
a
chance
for
that
to
be
explained.
But
of
course
we
can't
do
that
today.
So
when
we
do
get
to
taking
a
motion,
I
am
actually
going
to
ask
for
a
motion
that
we
disapprove
the
regulation
with
some
additional
guidance
to
the
board
of
pharmacy.
A
E
E
There
was
some
comment
regarding
if
you
couldn't
fit
a
label
onto
the
bottle,
which
is
section
two
of
the
section,
one
subsection
two
of
the
bill,
and
if
you
provide
the
direction
that
you
would
want
it
to
more
align
with
the
the
bill
and
the
statute,
I
think
the
board
will
take
that,
and
hopefully
we
can
see
it
at
our
next
july
meeting
I
will
put
for
the
record.
We
do
not
need
to
start.
The
law
does
not
require
us
to
restart
the
process.
A
Thank
you
for
those
comments,
and
you
know
I
neglected
to
mention
in
my
comments
to
the
commission
that
that
was
the
concern
that
was
raised
by
the
bill.
Sponsor
was
whether
the
label
was
going
to
be
affixed
to
the
prescription
bottle
or
whether
there
would
be
an
insert
or
information
provided
and
that
specifically
subsection
section
1
subsection
2
of
the
bill.
A
So
my
request:
let's
wait
a
second
I'll
give
anyone
else
a
chance
to
ask
the
board
of
pharmacy
any
questions
before
we
take
a
motion
and
vote
or
you
could
ask
me
questions
as
well,
so
anyone
have
any
additional
questions
on
this
particular
regulation.
Before
I
look
for
a
motion,
okay,
I
don't
hear
any
so
again.
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
disapprove
the
regulation
with
guidance
to
continue
working
on
section,
one
subsection
two
to
try
to
align
that
more
closely
with
the
bill's
intent.
A
G
Real
quick,
so
just
this
more
procedural!
So
if
we,
if
we
so,
if
we
approve
this,
they
basically
have
to
start,
I
mean
if
we
disapprove
it,
they
have
to
start
over.
Is
that
right.
A
I'm
going
to
hand
that
over
to
mr
killian,
I
think
just
to
make
sure
that
and
the
reason
I.
A
A
E
It
then
gets
sent
back
to
the
agency
and
the
agency
gets
a
60-day
period
to
revise
the
reg
to
conform
to
the
changes
requested
by
the
legislative
commission,
then
resubmit.
So
if
the
commission
does
object
today,
the
comments
that
the
chair
made
would
probably
be
reflected
in
that
objection
that
sent
back
to
the
agency.
The
agency
would
then
need
to
have
a
public
meeting
to
adopt
to
the
regulation
with
the
revisions
requested
by
the
legislative
commission,
and
then
it
would
come
back
to
the
commission
for
review
again.
I
A
All
right,
so
I
think
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
we've
had
some
comments
and
questions,
any
additional
comments
or
questions
from
commission
members
all
right,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
to
disapprove
with
guidance.
Please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed,
nay,
I
didn't
hear
any
nays,
so
that
motion
is
approved.
The
emotion
to
disapprove
is
approved
unanimously.
A
Thank
you
to
the
state
board
of
pharmacy
for
being
here
today
and
for
being
willing
to
work
with
the
bill.
Sponsor,
certainly
appreciate
that
and
hope
you
have
a
great
weekend.
Thank
you,
sir
appreciate
you
too
all
right.
A
I
think
that
takes
us
through
all
of
our
regulations,
so
that
will
take
us
through
agenda
item
number
five
and
that
now
moves
us
to
agenda
item
number
six,
which
is
the
approval
of
this
commission
of
the
language
to
be
included
on
the
ballot
for
the
2022
general
election
for
ballot
questions
one
and
two
pursuant
to
nrs
218
d
dash.
Excuse
me
d
.1810.
A
H
H
The
provisions
of
article
16,
section
1
of
the
nevada
constitution
and
nrs
218
d
800
require
that
these
joint
resolutions
must
be
submitted
to
voters
as
ballot
questions
at
the
next
general
election
for
purposes
of
this
agenda
item.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
legislative
commission
is
not
being
asked
to
approve
or
disapprove
the
legislature's
passage
of
these
joint
resolutions
or
to
approve
or
disapprove
the
constitutional
language
or
policy
being
proposed
by
these
ballot
questions,
because
that
will
be
decided
by
the
voters.
H
Instead,
the
legislative
commission
is
being
asked
to
review
the
language
in
the
battle
materials
to
ensure
that
it
will
assist
the
voters
in
making
an
informed
choice.
To
that
end,
the
nevada
supreme
court
has
held
that
ballot.
Materials
must
fairly
represent
the
issues
to
be
decided
and
must
not
be
false
or
misleading.
H
The
statute
provides
that
the
ballot
materials
must
be
of
reasonable
length
and
written
in
easily
understood
language.
The
statute
also
provides
that
the
digest
must
include
a
concise
and
clear
summary
of
any
existing
laws
directly
relating
to
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
and
a
summary
of
how
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
adds
to
changes
or
appeals
such
existing
laws.
H
Now
after
the
lcb
prepares
the
ballot
materials,
the
legislative
commission
is
required
by
nrs218d
0.810
to
review
the
battle
materials,
revise
them
if
necessary
and
approve
them
for
delivery
to
the
secretary
of
state,
on
or
before
july
1st
of
the
year
in
which
the
general
election
is
to
be
held
during
the
2022
election
cycle.
The
lcb
followed
the
same
process
for
these
two
battle:
questions
that
has
consistently
used
in
past
election
cycles
to
prepare
the
ballot
materials.
H
C
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
just
to
be
clear.
This
is
questions
only
about
the
process,
not
the
actual
materials
ballot
materials
correct.
C
Yes,
okay,
you
mentioned
something
about
this:
the
standard
that
you
used
in
in
crafting
the
language
for
and
against,
and
specifically
referenced,
avoiding
inflammatory
language,
I
think,
to
create
an
emotional
response.
Do
you
mind
just
repeating
that,
for
me.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chef.
Yes,
our
drafting
standards
were
to
prepare
the
ballot
materials
to
ensure
that
they
are
legally
and
factually
accurate
and
verifiable
are
fair
and
balanced
and
include
reasonable
arguments
to
assist
the
voters
in
making
an
informed
choice
without
using
inflammatory
language
or
any
scare
tactics
to
incite
the
motions
of
the
the
emotions
of
the
voters.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
voted
for
sjr8
back
in
the
day
and.
I
I
Some
people
may
have
described
some
of
those
comments
as
not
compatible
with
what
you've
just
described.
How
the
arguments
should
be
phrased
is:
is
there
a
standard
that
someone
who
knows
everything
takes
up
those
comments
and
puts
them
in
because
I
heard
all
sorts
of
words
that
weren't
in
the
actual
bill
that
we
passed.
H
Those
comments
were
considered
by
the
ballot
team
and
then
the
battle
team
attempted
to
incorporate
those
comments
into
the
arguments
against
passage
in
the
revised
draft,
but
in
a
manner
that
avoided
some
of
the
inflammatory
language
or
potential
scare
tactics
that
were
attempting
to
appeal
to
the
emotions
of
the
voters.
However,
the
comments
by
ms
hanson
miss
clement
and
and
some
of
the
others
and
they're
included
in
the
written
comments
in
your
meeting
packet
as
well.
H
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair
yeah,
quick
questions
powers.
If
you
could,
this
is
on
page
five
of
the
language
ballot
question
number
one
it
actually
mentions
in
there
medically
necessary.
H
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
please
give
us
or
illuminate
us
on
a
little
bit
of
and
what
medical
necessary
is,
and
if
you
could
point
to
it
in
do
we
have
it
in
statutes
somewhere,
so
that
we
can
refer
back
to
it
and
understand
where
that
language
is
coming
from
or
what
it's
trying
to
project
to
people
when
they're
looking
at
it,
because
as
you're
reading
it
as
a
voter
and
it
says
medically
necessary
who
determines
what
is
medically
necessary,
is
there
some
reference
that
they
can
go
back
to
in
statute?
H
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
since
that
goes
to
the
substance
of
the
ballot
question
materials.
I
will
first
finish
what
I
was
going
to
present
to
the
committee
before
we
got
there
and
then
I
will
address
senator
hammond's
question
right
after
that.
Immediately
after
that,
so
thank
you,
mr
chair.
Now.
Turning
to
your
meeting
packets,
there
are
four
tabs
under
each
ballot
question
that
correspond
to
the
sequence
of
the
drafting
process
under
the
first
tab.
Is
the
joint
resolution
proposing
the
state
constitutional
amendment
under
the
second
tab?
H
Is
the
lcb's
initial
draft
that
was
submitted
for
public
comment
under
the
third
tab?
Is
the
public
comments
received
by
the
lcb
in
response
to
the
initial
draft
and
under
the
fourth
tab,
is
the
lcb's
revised
draft
that
is
before
the
commission
for
review
and
approval
under
this
agenda
item
the
lcb's
revised
drafts
follow
our
typical
drafting
conventions.
H
After
the
legislative
commission
approves
the
final
versions
of
the
ballot
materials,
the
lcb
will
format
the
battle
materials
into
normal
fonts
and
text
colors,
adding
and
removing
language
according
to
the
revised
draft
and
then
deliver
the
finalized
ballot
materials
to
the
secretary
of
state.
So
that
brings
us
then,
to
the
revised
draft
for
battle
question
one
and
we
have
a
question
from
senator
hammond.
So
if
you
would
turn
to
the
fourth
tab
for
ballot
question
one
and
that
is
marked
as
bq1-d.
H
It's
a
case
from
1998
new
mexico
right
to
choose
versus
johnson,
and
in
there
the
mexico
supreme
court
was
being
asked,
whether
their
state,
equal
rights,
amendment
protected
a
woman's
right
under
medicaid
to
have
the
state's
medicaid
program
pay
for
a
medically
necessary
abortion
and
under
the
regulation
being
reviewed
at
that
time,
a
medically
necessary
abortion
was
any
pregnancy.
That
quote,
aggravates
a
pre-existing
condition,
makes
treatment
of
a
condition
impossible,
interferes
with
or
hampers
a
diagnosis,
or
has
a
profound
negative
impact
upon
the
physical
or
mental
health
of
an
individual.
H
The
point
of
that
argument
is
some
of
the
public
comments
receipt
we
received
from
miss
jeanine
hansen
and
miss
melissa,
clement
and
others
was
that
they
believe
that
if
this
constitutional
amendment
is
passed,
then
proponents
will
use
the
language
of
this
constitutional
amendment
to
demand
taxpayer
funding
of
abortions
in
nevada.
However,
the
argument
is
that
proponents
will
do
that.
The
argument
isn't
that
the
courts
will
agree
with
the
proponents
arguments.
The
courts
ultimately
will
make
their
own
decision.
H
A
And
mr
powers,
if
I
could
just
ask,
I
just
wanted
to
get
the
lay
of
the
land
in
terms
of
the
presentation.
We've
talked
quite
a
bit
about
the
process
and
we've
sort
of
gone
into
the
substance.
But
do
you
have
additional
comments
to
make
on
ballot
question
one
and
its
substance
before
we
would
get
to
the
point
of
taking
a
motion
or
is
this?
Is
it
your
intent
to
just
sort
of
take
questions
now
and
then
get
to
that
point
of
the
agenda.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
It
was
my
attempt
to
just
take
questions
and
get
to
that
point
of
the
agenda.
If
the
chair
would
like
me
to,
I
could
walk
through
the
revised
draft
and
point
to
the
proposed
changes
and
explain
from
where,
in
the
public
comments
those
prose
changes
were
derived.
I
could
do
that
if
the
chair
of
the
committee
would
like
me
to,
but
otherwise
I
was
just
going
to
answer
questions
as
posed
by
members
of
the
commission
before
the
commission
made
their
determination
on
voting
on
the
proposed
revised
draft.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
powers,
that
that
does
help.
So
at
this
point,
we'll
continue
on
with
any
questions.
Are
there
additional
questions
on
a
ballot
question
number
one,
and
I
guess
well,
you
can
ask
any
questions
you'd,
like
about
the
four
different
tabs
beginning
with
the
resolution
and
then
the
first
draft,
the
public
comments
and
the
draft
that's
in
front
of
us
for
potential
approval.
Are
there
additional
questions
from
commission
members
and
we'll
start
here
in
las
vegas.
A
Well,
I
I
think
assemblywoman
told
us
it's
going
to
be
first.
This
is
your
punishment
for
coming
down
to
las
vegas
for
the
meeting.
C
Oh
thank
you
for
that
chair.
I
appreciate
it
well
first,
let
me
just
I
have
probably
a
few
different
questions.
I
just
want
to
clarify
back
to
process,
so
I
know
that
we're
under
a
deadline
of
july
1st,
to
be
able
to
provide
this
language,
and
so
my
understanding
is
what
we're
voting
on
is
not
the
actual
language,
that's
being
changed
in
the
constitution.
That
was
already
settled
during
the
81st
session.
C
What
we're
voting
on
today
is
the
latest
version
and
tab.
Let's
see
bq1-d,
and
that
includes
the
latest
explanations
of
the
arguments
for
and
against
and
for
purpose
of
process.
We
do
have
the
ability
to
make
suggestions
at
its
changes
before
we
finalize
our
vote,
because
I
do
have
some
concerns
with
the
latest
language.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
the
record
kevin
powers,
general
counsel,
lcb
legal,
that
is
correct.
The
commission
can
direct
lcb
legal
to
make
additional
revisions
to
the
ballot
materials
as
part
of
the
motion
to
approve
the
ballot
materials,
the
division,
I'm
sorry,
the
commission
would
direct
lcb
legal
to
make
those
changes
and
lcb
legal
would
then
make
those
changes
after
the
vote
to
carry
out
the
directions
of
the
legislative
commission.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
C
Okay,
so
this
is
fun.
C
Because
nobody
has
any
feelings
about
this
question,
so
the
this
question
has
brought
up
a
number
of
other
questions,
as
we
see
reflected
in
the
debate
between
the
arguments
for
and
the
arguments
against,
and
I
we
are
not
relitigating
the
validity
of
the
original
question.
C
C
And
so,
as
I
read
the
first
version
versus
this
latest
version,
I
have
a
concern
that
there
are
arguments
that
are
made
by
one
side
that,
in
this
latest
revision
have
not
been,
I
think,
adequately
matched
and
met
with
the
other
side.
And
so
I
think
that
will
lead
to
some
confusion
about
the
intent
and
the
application
of
this
constitutional
amendment
that
don't
reflect
the
clarity
that
we
received
in
the
legislative
process,
and
so
I'd
like
to
go
back.
C
We
heard
that
the
the
vast
majority
of
the
concerns
tend
to
repeat
themselves
around
taxpayer-funded
abortion,
creed
versus
religious
liberty,
impacts
on
child
safety
and
sports
and
age
of
consent
or
age-related
laws,
and-
and
so
I
appreciate
that
those
concerns
have
been
raised,
and
I
think
it's
important
that
it's
clear
in
the
arguments
if,
if
those
are
valid
or
not
so
I'd
like
to,
if
I
can
go
back
to
what
we
have
as
legislative
intent
in
the
hearings
and
in
the
minutes,
and
so
this
question
was
asked,
if
I
may,
I
know
I'm
I'm
a
fill-in
for
alleged,
so
I
know
that
I
I
may
be
breaking
the
rules
here,
but
I
think
our
sponsor
would
appreciate
that
as
well,
because
this
was
already
settled
in
in
the
legislative
attempt
intent
in
the
session.
C
So
senator
siversgansart
asked
this
bill
reads:
equality.
Your
bill
does
not
go
beyond
just
equality.
Many
of
the
different
classes
or
language
are
already
in
statute.
Is
that
accurate
and
senator
canozzaro
addressed
this
very
clearly?
I
think
more
clearly
than
the
arguments
for
reflect
in
what
we
see
here.
Yes,
you
are
correct.
The
language
does
not
mention
any
of
the
enumerated
things.
The
opposition
stated
title
ix
is
federal
law
designed
to
ensure
there
is
no
gender
discrimination
in
our
education
and
women's
sports
teams.
C
The
equal
protection
clause
under
the
united
states
constitution
and
our
state
constitution
is
in
the
law
between
the
two.
They
do
not
deny
having
girls
sports
were
offered
because
of
a
historical
set
of
gender
discrimination
policies
they
allow
for
the
creation
of
women's
sports.
That
would
typically
be
for
boys.
The
laws
are
designed
to
ensure
women
have
equal
access
and
opportunities
to
play.
Sports
where
historically,
they
have
been
denied
law
exists
to
ensure
equal
access
in
place
at
some
colleges.
C
This
would
do
nothing
to
change
that.
It
would
not
affect
the
ability
for
girls
to
continue
to
play
sports
or
participate
in
co-ed
sports.
This
is
not
affected
by
that.
This
amendment
strengthens
that
with
respect
to
the
belief
that
this
will
fund
abortions
or
other
opposition
arguments
related
to
that
topic,
the
language
does
not
provide
for
that.
C
In
addition
to
the
due
process,
clause
of
the
14th
amendment
of
the
u.s
constitution
and
the
supreme
court's
decision
in
roe
v
wade,
the
finding
of
a
fundamental
right
to
privacy
is
a
long-standing
law
both
federally
and
in
nevada.
Nevada
has
a
number
of
laws
which
deal
with
that
specific
issue.
This
does
nothing
to
add
to
that
and
that
language
is
not
in
this
bill.
C
Four,
because
the
arguments
against
are
making
what
could
be
construed
as
language
that
will
scare
voters
when
they
say
things
like
when
the
arguments
against
the
passage
state
that
it's
harmful
and
dangerous
and
that
it
will
be
used
is
making
a
claim
and
it's
used.
At
least
I
circled
it
three
times
that
this
will
happen
and
that's
telling
voters
that
something
will
happen
that
is
directly
in
opposition
to
what
was
stated
in
the
intense
legislative
attempt
during
the
hearings.
C
So
I
obviously
have
been
supportive
of
this
constitutional
amendment
all
three
times
that
came
before
this
body,
because
those
were
questions
that
were
important
to
me
as
well,
and
I
appreciated
the
sponsored
efforts
to
clarify
and
that
that
is
not
what
this
is
about.
And
I
think
that
I'd
like
to
see
it
be
more
clear
so
that
the
voters
also
understand
and
are
not
going
to
make
a
decision
based
on
claims
that
certain
things
will
happen,
which
can
be
scary.
C
And
if
that's,
what
they
think
is
going
to
happen.
I
I
fear
that
it's
not
as
clear
as
the
legislative
intent,
and
I
fear
that
it
does
indeed
fail
the
test
of
using
inflammatory
language
that
can
lead
to
scare
tactic
tactics
to
influence
the
voters.
And
so
I
would
like
very
much
for
this
to
move
forward
by
our
july
1st
deadline.
But
I'd
like
to
see
us
have
a
discussion
about
making
sure
that
those
those
points
are
more
clear.
H
H
They
do
not
create
law,
they
are
not
language
that
binds
anyone
as
to
the
meaning
purpose
or
intent
of
the
constitutional
amendment
proposed
in
sjr
eight,
it's
the
language
of
the
constitutional
amendment
and
the
legislative
history
from
the
committee
minutes
that
courts
will
examine
in
determining
the
meaning
purpose.
Intent
of
the
constitutional
amendment
proposed
by
sjr8.
H
The
point
of
the
arguments
for
and
against
is
to
capture
those
arguments
of
the
opponents
and
proponents
and
present
them
to
the
voters,
because
the
voters
will
not
only
see
those
in
the
sample
ballot,
but
they
will
hear
them
in
advertisements
and
other
ways
that
the
opponents
and
proponents
will
communicate
the
arguments
to
the
public.
So
the
arguments
in
the
sample
ballot
should
encapsulate
reasonable
arguments
that
have
a
basis
in
law
and
fact
that
are
supported
by
situations
that
have
occurred
in
other
states.
H
For
example,
turning
back
to
the
paragraph
that
we
dealt
with
with
senator
hammond,
it
provides
in
the
arguments
against
passage
question.
One
will
also
be
used
by
proponents
to
support
access
to
abortion.
That
is
a
reasonable
argument
that
the
opponents
are
made
are
making.
They
believe
the
proponents
will
attempt
to
use
question
one
to
argue
in
court
to
support
access
to
abortion.
H
Well,
in
our
some
of
the
comments
that
were
submitted
by
liz
lindsey
harmon
today,
the
proponents
want
to
include
language
in
the
arguments,
for
that
this
measure
would
also
provide
the
strongest
legal
protection
against
future
legislative
attempts
to
roll
back
equality
rights
in
the
state,
including
access
to
abortion
and
reproductive
health
care.
So
the
proponents
believe
that
they
will
try
to
use
the
language
in
this
question,
the
actual
constitutional
amendment
to
argue
the
courts
to
protect
access
to
abortion.
H
H
The
ballot
team
was
able
to
take
the
substance
of
what
they
were
trying
to
achieve
and
communicated
in
these
ballot
materials
in
a
manner.
That
was
a
reasonable
argument
that
was
supposed
to
inform
the
voters
what
the
opponents
and
proponents
believe
without
using
inflammatory
language
or
scare
scare
tactics,
keep
in
mind.
H
The
fact
that
you
may
disagree
with
the
policy
arguments
made
by
the
opponents
or
the
proponents
doesn't
mean
that
those
policy
arguments
aren't
genuine
and
reasonable
and
held
sincerely
by
the
opponents
and
proponents,
and
that's
what
we're
communicating
to
the
voter,
those
reasonable
and
sincerely
held
arguments
of
the
proponents
and
opponents
as
long
as
there's
some
legal
or
factual
basis
to
it
and
the
battle
question
team
made
there
is
some
made
sure
that
there
was
a
reasonable
legal
or
factual
basis
for
all
of
the
arguments
included
in
the
ballot
materials.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
C
I
do
thank
you
chair
so
when
the
courts
are
looking
to,
if
there
are
cases
that
come
before
the
courts,
are
they
looking
to
the
legislative
intent
or
are
they
looking
to
these
ballot
materials
that
include
arguments
for
or
against?
I
apologize.
If
you
said
that,
and
I
missed
it,.
H
H
If
that
plain
language
has
clear
meaning,
then
the
courts
interpret
that
clear,
meaning
if
the
plane,
if
the
constitutional
provision
or
statute
does
not
have
a
plain
meaning
courts,
then
try
to
resolve
any
ambiguities
by
looking
to
sources
of
legislative
intent.
Those
sources
of
legislative
intent
generally
consist
of
the
minutes
of
legislative
proceedings
and
the
overall
goal
and
intent
of
the
legislature
in
proposing
the
constitutional
amendment
or
statute.
H
Would,
under
certain
circumstances,
turn
to
the
ballot
materials,
but
it's
rare
because
usually
the
language
itself
and
the
legislative
proceedings
provide
the
necessary
information
to
the
court.
However,
in
the
absence
of
a
legislative
record,
the
courts
have
turned
to
the
bout
materials
when
there
was
no
other
source
of
information
as
to
what
was
intended
by
the
provision
that
occurred
generally
prior
to
the
1990s,
when
in
nevada
legislative
minutes
minutes
weren't
kept.
H
So
when
legislative
minutes
were
kept
and
the
legislature
put
a
constitutional
amendment
on
the
ballot
courts
didn't
have
minutes
to
turn
to,
and
then
they
then
turned
to
the
ballot
materials
presented
to
the
voters,
but
now
that
we
have
comprehensive
legislative
minutes
for
all
of
our
proceedings,
it's
more
likely
that
the
court
would
turn
to
just
the
plain
language
and
the
legislative
hearings
to
determine
the
intent
of
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment.
That
is
the
typical
approach
for
courts.
H
I
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
not
going
to
ask
what
would
happen
if
we
don't
vote
on
this,
but
I
will
ask
legislative
intent
is
made
by
the
legislators,
not
the
proponents
or
opponents
to
a
given
bill.
The
intent
is
because
of
what
a
legislator
says,
either
in
committee
or
on
the
floor
of
the
senate
or
the
assembly.
Is
that
correct.
H
However,
when
those
statements
by
the
legislators
don't
provide
the
illumination
necessary,
it
is
possible
for
the
courts,
then
to
turn
to
the
testimony
of
opponents
and
proponents
to
understand
the
problem
that
was
being
being
presented
to
the
legislature
and
how
the
legislature
determined
to
solve
that
problem
by
providing
for
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
or
statutory
provision.
So
again,
there's
going
to
be
a
hierarchy.
H
The
courts
are
going
to
turn
first
to
the
statements
of
legislators
and
committee
and
on
the
floor,
and
if
those
statements
don't
provide
the
necessary
illumination
on
legislative
intent,
then
it
is
possible
for
courts
to
turn
to
the
committee
minutes
that
have
the
statements
of
opponents
and
proponents.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Okay,
we'll
stay
down
here
for
the
moment,
any
questions,
additional
questions
in
las
vegas
and
mr
powers.
I
guess
I
should
ask:
we've
just
been
talking
about
a
ballot
question
number
one,
or
are
we
going
to
have
quest?
Are
there
going
to
be
a
you
would
like
a
separate
time
for
questions
on
ballot.
Question
number
two:
if
there
are
questions.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
correct.
We
will
be
dressing
battle,
question
number
two
separately
and
I
will
answer
and
that's
after
the
committee
commission
determines
what
to
do
about
question
one.
We
will
address
battle
question
two
separately
and
then
I
will
answer
any
questions.
The
commission
members
have
on
valid
question
two.
Thank
you.
A
A
K
A
K
K
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I've,
been,
I
think
in
my
head,
trying
to
sort
through
some
of
the
things
that
that
we've
heard,
because
I
know
that
I've
had
some
concerns
about
the
the
language
that
exists
in
the
arguments,
foreign
and
against
passage
and
and
what
shouldn't
and
shouldn't
be
included
in
there
based
upon
a
whole
host
of
things,
including
a
lot
of
the
debate
that
has
occurred
on
this
measure
during
the
legislative
process.
F
And
so
I
guess
my
question
is
maybe
more
of
a
a
process
question
because
I
don't
think
it's
it's
probably
practical
to
rewrite
any
of
this
in
this
very
moment.
So
if
we
wanted
to,
I
guess
what
would
the
mechanism,
the
appropriate
mechanism
be
if
we
wanted
to
maybe
change
or
soften
up
some
of
this
language,
so
folks
feel
a
little
more
comfortable
like
I,
I
know,
assemblywoman
tolls
mentioned
where
it
says
they
will
use
this
if
it.
F
If
we're
talking
about
maybe
some
change
to
the
language
where
it
says,
maybe
they
could
try
or
we
could
take
out
some
of
these
things
or
add
in
some
other
pieces
like,
is
that
a
motion
that
this
commission
could
make
and
and
then
sort
of
pass
this
with
the
understanding
that
we're
going
to
work
on
some
of
the
language
or
how
would
that
that's
more
of
a
process
question
I
don't
know
if
mr
powers
you're
the
right
person
to
ask,
or
if
ms
erdos
is
the
person
who
might
have
the
answer
on
what
what
sort
of
an
option
we
might
have
if
we
wanted
to
change
some
of
this
language,
but
don't
know
exactly
what
those
those
words
and
language
would
be
today,.
H
One
option
would
be
for
the
legislative
commission
today
to
create
a
subcommittee
and
to
direct
that
subcommittee
to
hold
hearings
and
work
on
developing
the
language
in
those
hearings
and
like
a
committee
or
subcommittee,
would
do
during
the
legislative
session
and
and
come
back
to
the
full
legislative
commission
with
a
revised
product,
and
you
know
with
the
recommendation
of
the
subcommittee
and
then
the
legislative
commission
could
vote
on
that.
Of
course,
we
have
the
july
1st
deadline
to
keep
in
mind,
but
that
is
a
potential
process
for
the
legislative
commission
to
use.
H
At
this
point,
the
ballot
question
team
is
made
up
of
nonpartisan
legislative
officers
and
employees.
We've
reviewed
the
public
comments.
We've
tried
to
encapsulate
those
public
comments
in
the
manner
I've
described
further.
Revisions
left
to
the
battle
question
team
would
need
further
guidance
from
members
of
the
legislative
commission.
So
that's
why
I'm
recommending
if
the
legislative
commission
is
not
going
to
take
action
on
this
today,
you
create
a
subcommittee,
and
that
subcommittee
holds
proceedings
to
achieve
a
final
result.
That
is
more
palatable
to
members
of
the
commission
than
the
lcb
revised
draft.
H
Because,
again,
I
believe
the
ballot
team
has
done
the
best
they
can
as
non-partisan
legislative
officers
and
employees.
Now
it
comes
down
to
the
final
refinements
that
I
believe
members
of
this
commission
have
to
be
involved
in
in
coming
up
with
with
additional,
probably
comments
from
the
public.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
senator
hardy,
I'm
not
quite
ready
to
accept
that
motion
just
yet,
but
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
make
it
and
and
mr
powers,
I
guess
I
just
had
a
follow-up
based
on
what
senator
canozzaro
asked.
So
if
this
commission
wanted
to
approve
this
today
and,
of
course,
we're
under
a
pretty
tight
deadline
of
july
1st,
so
I
appreciate
the
suggestion
of
a
subcommittee.
I
just
don't
think
it's
practical
given
where
we
are
right
now.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
That
is
correct,
with
concrete
guidance
as
to
what
the
revisions
are
going
to
be,
then
lcb
legal
will
be
able
to
take
that
concrete
guidance
with
the
approval
of
the
question
by
the
legislative
commission
and
then
incorporate
that
into
the
ballot
materials
in
the
typical
way,
where
lcb
legal
will
take
the
revisions
and
only
adjust
grammar,
formatting
and
style,
but
won't
change
the
meaning
or
intent
of
the
revisions
approved
by
the
legislative
commission.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and,
as
I
read
this,
I
think
what
might
provide
more
clarity
would
be
a
couple
different
options
under
the
arguments
for
passage
in
tab.
Bq1D.
C
Keeping
the
proposed
changes,
with
the
exception
of
under
lines
38
through
43
those
directly
address
many
of
the
arguments
that
are
against
passage
that
are
currently
struck
out
in
red,
putting
those
back
in
but
to
stay
more
grammatically
cohesive.
I
would
recommend
that
that
would
come
after
the
statement.
C
Their
arguments
consist
of
unfounded
speculation,
intended
to
distract
from
the
clear
goal
of
this
ballot
measure,
which
is
to
ensure
equality
and
then
to
go
into
the
arguments
enumerated
that
are
mentioned
against
the
passage
and
then,
as
we
transition
over
to
arguments
against
the
passage
changing
the
language
to
a
question
under
line
26
and
below
or
sorry
yes
under,
I
would
strike
sorry
in
line
18..
C
Let's
see,
I
don't
know
how
you
change,
how
harmful
and
dangerous
but
fail
to
acknowledge
how
question
one
will
affect
individual
liberties
and
safety
and
then
under
lines
26
and
33
and
35,
where
it
states
it
question.
One
will
be
used,
perhaps
to
say,
may
be
used
to
still
keep
that
a
reasonable
argument
that
reflects
the
opposition
without
changing
the
intent
of
the
arguments,
because
I
do
believe
that
it's
an
important
debate
to
have,
but
without
using
anything
that
could
be
perceived
as
scaring
voters
into
what
will
definitively
happen.
C
So,
in
summary,
in
the
changes
of
the
arguments
for
passage,
replace
the
struck
out
language
in
lines
38
through
43,
so
that
there
is
a
counter
to
the
arguments
in
the
argument
against
passage
and
change,
harmful
and
dangerous
to
how
question
one
will
affect
or
impact
individual
liberties
and
safety
and
then
may
be
used
in
terms
of
how
question
one
may
be
used,
as
opposed
to
will
be
used.
A
So
if
I
could
weigh
in
for
a
second
so
I
hear,
I
hear
the
potential
formation
of
emotion
and
I'm
not
saying
that
you're
making
one,
but
I
just
want
to
get
for
clarification's
sake.
Assemblywoman
told
us,
ask
you
a
couple
questions,
so
the
first
thing
you
mentioned
was
restoring
the
language
in
lines
38
through
43,
but
of
course,
having
to
reorganize
that.
So
it
makes
a
little
bit
more
sense
structurally.
A
But
I'd
want
to
ask
you
on
the
very
next
page,
there's
also
language
that
was
stricken
out,
and
so
I
wanted
to
ask
your
thoughts
on
keeping
that
language
in
in
some
way
or
if
you
would
like
it
to
be
stricken
as
it
is
currently
now
stricken
in
bq1-d.
C
Thank
you,
chair
I've.
That
was
a
good
catch,
so,
yes,
also
the
language
that
was
struck
out
in
one
two
and
lines,
four
and
five,
which
you
know
argue
they
directly
rebut.
The
arguments
against
would
be
put
back
in.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
and
then
I
think
in
terms
of
your
second
set
of
suggestions,
I'm
certainly
tracking
changing
the
word
will
into
may
on
line
26,
33
and
35,
but
I
wanted
a
little
bit
of
additional
clarification
on
line
18
because
I
think
you
indicated
maybe
striking
out
harmful
and
dangerous,
but
then
I
do
think
we
have
a
sentence
that
perhaps
doesn't
read
correctly.
So
I'm
wondering
whether
there
would
be
some
replacement
there
or
as
an
alternative.
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
may
would
certainly
keep
it
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
arguments,
and
probably
the
proponents
against
would
still
want
to
keep
harmful
and
dangerous.
So
I
could
be
amenable
to
that,
but
I
I
I
still
would
prefer
proponents
fail
to
acknowledge
the
impact
question
one
will
have
on
individual
liberties
and
safety,
because
that
removes
what
might
be
considered
inflammatory
language,
so
I'm
open
to
discussion,
but
that
would
be
my
preference
I'm
using
the
standard
of
not
using
inflammatory
language
that
it
would
be.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
that
that
helps,
and
yet
we
don't
yet
have
a
motion,
but
we're
still
kind
of
on
some
general
discussion,
with,
with
apologies
to
mr
powers,
who's
sitting
through
the
thought
process
of
the
committee
right
now,
but
wanted
to
open
it
up
for
any
additional
comments
or
suggestions.
Thoughts
before
we
look
at
taking
a
motion,
anyone
else
in
las
vegas
would
like
to
comment
or
if
there's
any
comments
in
carson
city
or
on
zoom.
Again
just
don't
meet
yourself
and
let
me
know.
H
Mr
chair,
this
is
I
kind
of
liked
earlier
when
senator
hardy
was
ready
to
take
a
motion,
so
I'm
I'm
right
there
with
him
whenever
you
want
to
get
to
that
point.
I'd
second,
that
motion.
A
A
Given
the
discussion,
I
would
be
open
to
taking
a
motion
along
the
lines
that
assemblywoman
tolls
and
I
believe,
senator
canazzaro
discussed,
and
I
could
state
that
motion.
I
don't
think
I
can
make
the
motion,
but
if
someone
wants
to
make
that
and
try
to
state
it
and
get
it
correct,
I'd
appreciate
it
so
moved
so
so
so
let
me
just
let
me
just
say
this:
for
clarity,
for
clarity
for
mr
powers
and
for
the
legislative
record
so
and
senator
harris.
A
You
can
confirm
after
I
state
this
that
this
is
indeed
your
motion,
but
I
think
the
intent
of
the
those
in
favor
of
making
changes
would
be
the
following
in
the
arguments
for
passage
which
are
on
page
four
of
the
packet
in
tab
bq1-d
lines,
the
language
stricken
out
in
lines
38
to
43
would
be
restored,
but
that
language
would
be
moved
that
paragraph
would
be
moved
until
this.
A
The
next
sentence
after
so
the
sentence
that
ends
in
ensure
equality,
then
that
language
would
pick
up
that
was
above
it
and
then
on
the
very
next
page,
page,
five,
the
red
language
in
lines,
one
and
two,
as
well
as
four
and
five
would
be
restored.
Also
on
that
page,
five
in
arguments
against
passage
line.
A
18
would
read
as
follows:
proponents
fail
to
acknowledge
the
impact
question
one
will
have
on
individual
liberties
and
safety,
so
that
would
be
the
change
there
and
then
in
line
26
the
word
will
would
be
changed
to
may
in
line
33.
The
word
will
would
be
changed
to
may
and
in
line
35
the
word
will
would
be
changed
to
may
and
before
I
confirm
that
I'll
go
back
to
his
assemblywoman
told
us,
because
I
might
have
missed
something.
C
No,
I
think
you
captured
it
all,
but
hearing
you
reread
it.
I
I
think
that
keeping
the
language
consistent
on
line
18
to
prevent
proponents
fail
to
acknowledge
the
impact
question
one
may
have
on
individual
liberties
and
safety
would
be
consistent.
A
Great,
so
that
additional
change
to
what
I
said
previously
would
just
be
the
changing
of
will
to
may
online
18
as
well
senator
harris.
Would
you
be
willing
to
make
that
very
long
motion?
Thank
you.
H
Mr
chair,
mr
chair,
this
is
kevin
powers
again
just
just
for
consistency
and,
what's
going
to
happen,
we're
going
to
look
at
this
in
drafting
so
online
29.
The
word
will
is
used
and
online
30.
The
word
will
is
used
as
well
on
page
five.
A
Thank
you
so
much
mr
powers.
I
can
always
count
on
you
to
be
very
detail
oriented.
So
yes,
those
two
changes
should
be
included
in
the
motion,
for
consistency's
sake,
just
to
indicate
that
proponents
may
try
to
use
this
ballot
measure
to
do
those
things
and
I'll
give
everyone
just
a
second
to
make
sure
we
didn't
miss
any
other
wills
in
the
arguments
against
passage,
but
I
think
that's
all
of
them.
I
The
may
is
kind
of
a
may,
whereas
the
will
is
a
stronger
argument
against
passage.
So
the
people
who
came
up
with
the
arguments
against
passage
are
probably
wanting
to
have
an
argument
against
passage
as
opposed
to
it
may
happen
or
it
may
not.
I
mean
so.
I
think,
to
be
consistent
with
the
concept
of
the
argument
for
passage,
and
the
arguments
against
will
is
actually
a
better
word
than
me.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
guess
I
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
consternation
with
the
word
may
because
will
is
almost
guaranteeing
these
partic.
Very,
very
particular.
Things
will
happen
when
I
think
that
is
very.
First
of
all,
that
is
very
speculative.
That's
like
saying.
F
If
we,
you
know,
that's
guaranteeing
that
something
will
happen,
and
I
think
that
may
more
accurately
reflects
the
concerns
that
were
posed
for
those
who
are
against
passage
and
also
more
accurately
reflects
that
the
in
the
intent
of
the
equal
rights
amendment
is
to
ensure
that
that
nevada
law
has
equal
rights.
How
that
may
or
may
not
be
challenged
in
a
court
is
something
that
is
very
speculative
with
whether
somebody
would
ever
potentially
bring
that
action
be
able
to
bring
that
action.
F
Whether
a
court
would
entertain
that
action,
and
I
think
that
may
more
accurately
reflects
what
the
folks
who
are
against
passage
are
trying
to
say
could
happen
versus
ensuring
that
that
would
happen
when
that
was
that's
sort
of
not
the
the
basis
of
this
from
the
outset.
So
I
I'm
I'm
more
comfortable
with
me.
I
think
assemblyman
assembly
woman,
excuse
me
tolls.
F
A
A
K
So
my
change,
then,
in
the
on
page
4
line
38
in
the
arguments
for
passage.
I
would
like
to
see
us
take
out
opponents.
Not
the
word.
Opponents
take
out
the
words
exaggerated
and
incorrect.
A
A
Assembly
assemblywoman
dickman,
thank
you
for
the
suggestion
and
I
think
I'll.
Let
senator
harris
speak
for
herself,
but
I
think
that
striking
that
that
language
will
be
included
in
the
motion,
I
believe
so
senator
harris.
Would
you
like
to
go
ahead.
D
A
Okay,
we
have
a
motion.
Do
we
have
a
second
second
is
going
to
come
from
assemblywoman
tolls.
Now
before
we
take
a
vote,
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion,
but
it
would
be
time
for
discussion
on
this
particular
motion
and
want
to
start
down
here
in
las
vegas.
Would
anyone
like
to
provide
discussion
on
the
motion
senator
hardy?
Please.
A
A
I
don't
hear
anything
so
again,
it's
a
very
long
motion,
but
it
is,
as
stated
and
as
reflected
in
the
record,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed,
nay
and.
J
A
A
senator
senator
hardy
as
a
nay,
I
believe,
senator
hammond,
was
in
a
and
I
think
senator
settlemyre
has
his
hand
up
any
other
nades
that
I
missed
other
than
those
three
okay.
So
I
think
the
motion
passes
nine
to
three.
Thank
you
committee
for
working
through
that
really
really
appreciate
it,
and
we
will
now
move
on
to
the
second
ballot
question.
A
Mr
powers,
would
you
like
to
go
over
ballot
question
number
two.
Please.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
about
question
number
two
involves
assembly
joint
resolution
number
10
and
that
proposes
to
amend
the
nevada
constitution
to
prospectively
increase
the
required
minimum
wage
paid
to
employees,
as
we
described
before,
the
four
tabs
follow
the
same
sequence.
We
did
not
receive
many
public
comments
on
about
question
number
two.
We
did
make
one
change,
that's
repeated
throughout
in
the
revised
draft
based
on
those
public
comments,
so
I
will
just
direct
you
to
page
one
of
the
revised
draft
behind
tab
b
q,
2
d.
H
If
the
legislature
were
to
pass
legislation
to
do
so,
so
this
language
just
clarifies
that
the
12
rate
in
the
constitution
would
be
subject
to
any
applicable
increases,
above
that
12
rate,
provided
by
federal
law
or
enacted
by
the
legislature,
that
one
change
is
made
throughout
the
ballot
question
and
there's
just
one
technical
other
change
on
page
two
and
three
referring
to
the
2006
amendment
to
the
minimum
wage
provision,
so
that
it's
consistently
referred
to
as
the
2006
amendment.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
I
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
again
for
the
record
kevin
powers,
general
counsel,
lcb
legal,
to
answer
the
senator's
question.
The
proposed
constitutional
amendment
would
establish
the
minimum
wage
at
twelve
dollars
per
hour,
beginning
on
july.
First,
twenty
twenty
four.
However,
there
are
exceptions
for
employees
that
are
listed
in
the
existing
constitutional
provision
and
those
exceptions
will
remain.
H
One
of
those
exceptions
is
for
an
employee
who
is
under
18
years
of
age,
so
it
won't
affect
those
employees,
because
right
now,
they're
not
subject
to
the
existing
constitutional
minimum
wage
provision
and
then
to
answer
the
senator's
other
question.
The
proposed
constitutional
amendment
would
remove
the
distinction
between
whether
the
employer
offered
certain
health
benefits,
benefits
or
didn't
offer
certain
health
benefits.
So
in
summation,
then
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
would
set
the
minimum
wage
at
twelve
dollars
per
hour
beginning
on
july.
H
First,
twenty
twenty
four:
it
would
not
apply
to
the
exceptions
that
exist
under
the
existing
constitutional
provision
and
those
exemptions
include
employees
who
under
18
years
of
age,
and
it
would
eliminate
the
distinction
between
providing
or
not
providing
health
benefits,
but
it
would
leave
in
place
the
legislature's
existing
authority
to
increase
the
minimum
wage
above
the
twelve
thousand
twelve
dollar
constitutional
rate.
Thank
you.
A
A
C
You're
never
going
to
invite
me
back.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
So
just
again
this
is
not
a
vote
on
the
actual
language
going
into
the
constitution,
whether
we
agree
or
disagree.
It's
just
the
explanation
digest
and
the
arguments
for
passage
and
against
passage,
in
other
words
the
ballot
materials
that
will
be
included.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
correct,
but
we'll
let
mr
powers
alpine,
since
he
is
the
legal
authority.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
sorry
thank
you,
mr
chair
you're
right.
It
is
late
and
I
still
have
a
litigation
report
to
do
that
aside.
So
the
answer
to
the
assemblywoman's
question
that
is
correct,
you're,
not
voting
on
the
constitutional
language
or
the
policy
of
the
joint
resolution
proposing
the
constitutional
amendment
you're
just
voting
to
approve
the
ballot
materials
that
provide
information
to
the
voters.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
So
we
are
now
through
agenda
item
number
six,
which
commission,
I
think
the
bulk
of
our
work
is
behind
us,
but
we
still
do
have
a
few
items
to
get
through
this
evening.
I
guess,
as
we
approach
six
o'clock
so
we'll
go
to
agenda
item
number
seven,
which
includes
two
audit
reports
to
be
presented
to
the
legislative
commission
today
pursuant
to
nrs218g.240..
A
B
B
We
answered
questions
of
the
subcommittee
members
and
representatives
from
the
agencies
provided
remarks
and
answered
questions
as
well
today,
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'll
briefly
go
over
some
of
the
key
findings
from
those
reports.
I
would
like
to
note
that
our
full
reports
are
available
on
our
website.
As
you
all
know
where
there
is
more
details
and
additional
information
on
our
findings
and
recommendations.
B
Additionally,
if
any
of
the
members
of
the
commission
desire
to
discuss
in
greater
detail
any
of
these
reports,
we
would
be
happy
to
meet
with
you
at
any
time.
We
are
also
available
to
present
these
reports
to
any
of
the
interim
committees
and
any
committees
during
the
upcoming
legislative
session,
if
desired.
B
The
purpose
of
our
performance
audit
was
to
evaluate
the
board's
processes
for
licensing
physicians
and
investigating
complaints
and
the
board's
purchase
of
an
office
building.
We
found
better
monitoring
and
oversight
of
the
investigative
and
disciplinary
processes
can
help
the
board
provide
more
timely
resolution
of
complaints
and
other
issues.
B
B
Additionally,
enhancing
controls
over
the
administration
of
fines
and
disciplinary
matters
will
ensure
they
are
assessed
consistently
and
fair,
while
the
board
has
discretion
in
levying
discipline
in
various
forms,
such
as
fines,
education,
public
reprimands,
suspensions
and
revocation
of
licenses
establishing
disciplinary
guidelines
or
schedules
recommending
penalties
could
enhance
their
process
further.
Ensuring
adequate
support
is
maintained
for
investigative
costs
will
help
support
its
cost
recovery
efforts
and
provide
equitable
treatment
of
licensees.
B
B
B
The
board
informed
the
legislature
and
office
of
the
attorney
general.
Regarding
its
plans,
the
ag's
office
also
advised
the
board
to
have
the
nevada
division
of
state
lands,
negotiate
the
purchase
of
the
building
on
its
behalf,
which
they
did
for
this
audit.
We
made
10
recommendations
for
which
the
board
accepted
and
is
actively
implementing.
B
We
also
evaluated
controls
over
certain
payments,
supporting
children
and
youth
to
ensure
payments
were
accurate
and
appropriate,
while
overall
we
found
the
division
generally
complied
with
requirements
associated
with
child
placements.
Some
improvements
can
be
made.
Health
safety
and
regulatory
standards
were
not
always
followed
for
some
providers
that
care
for
children
in
state
custody.
B
B
For
this
audit,
we
made
10
recommendations
for
which
the
division
accepted
and
is
actively
implementing.
So,
as
a
reminder,
we
are
available
anytime
to
meet
and
discuss
any
of
these
audits
in
more
detail
if
needed.
That
concludes
my
summary
of
the
auto
reports
issued
on
may
4th
of
this
year.
As
noted
in
the
cover
letter,
the
audit
subcommittee
recommends
the
legislative
commission
accept
these
two
reports.
A
I
B
I
B
Chair
through
you,
this
is
tammy
goetz
audit
supervisor,
yes,
the
reserves.
Actually,
in
our
report
we
have
a
chart
where
we
show
the
reserve
balances
over
the
last
10
years
and
you'll
see
in
2018.
The
reserves
dropped
substantially
that
3.8
million
dollar
purchase,
but
now
the
reserves
are
almost
up
to
at
least
a
million
right
now
so
they're
starting
to
recoup
those
funds.
I
A
A
Thank
you
for
your
service
to
that
committee
and
for
sharing
it,
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
ms
getz.
Okay.
So
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
seven,
we'll
next
go
to
agenda
item
number.
Eight
assignment
of
the
interim
study
relating
to
the
establishment
of
crisis
call
centers,
and
we
have
ms
erdos
with
us,
who,
I
think
is
going
to
speak
briefly
to
this
issue.
So
please
go
ahead.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
have
to
apologize
here.
If
you
look
in
your
packet
under
tab,
8
you'll
find
that
there
was
an
interim
study
that
we
missed
when
we
were
bringing
the
assignments
to
the
commission.
The
last
time,
and
so
in.
K
Looking
at
your
your
packet
you'll,
see
section
22
of
sb
236
calls
for
a
interim
study
and
because
of
the
on
the
next
page,
section
52
of
ab443
that
wasn't
done
as
a
study
and
pursuant
to
subsection
2
of
section
52
should
be
assigned
to
a
joint
interim
standing
committee.
K
The
recommendation,
based
on
all
the
facts
and
complying
with
these
statutes,
would
be
that
the
that
this
study
be
assigned
to
the
judiciary
committee
inter
interim
standing
industry
committee,
which
does
appear
to
have
a
couple
more
meetings
approved,
but
it
is
not
possible
for
us
to
tell
whether
that
would
be
an
adequate
budget.
So
it
could
be
that
it
would
come
back
at
the
next
legislative
commission
meeting
to
make
sure
that
they
could
cover
the
meetings
for
that.
A
A
We
have
a
motion
from
senator
harris.
We
have
a
second
second
from
assemblywoman
houdigi.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Don't
see
any
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay,
motion
carries.
The
item
is
assigned
to
the
joint
interim
judiciary
committee.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
This
item
would
simply
extend
the
number
of
hearings
that
the
community
on
education
could
hold
beyond
the
eighth
that
they
were
approved
for
by
three.
It
would
also
extend
the
deadline
for
a
meeting
until
the
august
31st
deadline
to
know
later
than
october,
31st
and
authorize
them
to
submit
one
bill
draft
after
the
september
1st
deadline
up
until
october
31st
2022,
and
there
is
a
excellent
letter
from
senator
dennis
as
chair
of
that
committee,
explaining
all
of
the
requests
that
they
are
making
there.
G
In
the
letter
explains
it
all,
but
I
think
the
biggest
thing
is
that
we
were
the
interim
education
committee
meetings
already
go
all
day
and
and
as
part
of
that,
we
were
tasked
to
do
a
study
that
that's
taken
some
extra
meetings,
and
so
we
couldn't
add
on
to
the
16
months
and
then
the
the
reason
for
the
october
thing
had
to
do
with
another
bill
that
was
passed
on
holocaust
education
and
because
that
information
will
not
be
available
until
october.
G
A
Don't
see
questions
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
and
we
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
howdy
do
I
have
a
second
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno
with
a
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
A
Okay,
don't
see
discussion
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay.
Motion
carries
next
up
on
the
agenda.
Is
agenda
item
number
10..
This
is
appointment
of
members
to
the
commission
on
minority
affairs
and
ms
erdos
is
going
to
take
us
through
this
item
as
well.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
If
you're
looking
under
tab
tan
in
your
packet
you'll
see
that
there
is
a
list
of
proposed
members
to
be
appointed
to
the
commission
on
minority
affairs,
there
is
one
and
if
you
look
at
the
letter,
that's
just
following
that.
You'll
see
that
there
is
one
mem
that
will
leave
one
vacancy
on
this
commission
that
they
would
like
to
wait
until
they
get
a
new
head
to
suggest
someone
to
be
appointed
to
that.
E
E
G
E
G
E
The
community
that
is
correct,
we
cannot
have
more
than
four
commissioners
of
the
same
race
and
we
are
consistent
with
that.
Okay,.
E
F
A
A
A
I
don't
see
any
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
hi,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay.
Motion
carries
thank
you
again
for
being
here,
so
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
eleven,
just
just
a
couple
more
to
go.
Commission
members,
so
this
is
approval
of
early
session
hires
for
the
2023
legislative
session,
and
this
is
a
pretty
standard
agenda
item
for
the
legislative
commission
at
this
time
of
the
interim.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
As
you
said,
this
is
a
pretty
standard.
A
I
don't
see
any
questions.
How
about
a
motion?
Do
I
have
a
motion
down
there?
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
from
assemblywoman
houdiki.
Do
I
have
a
second
a
second
from
assemblywoman
mineral
moreno?
Any
discussion
on
the
motion
don't
see
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay
motion
carries
the
early
session.
Hires
are
approved.
It
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
12..
A
We
have
an
encore
presentation
from
general
counsel,
mr
kevin
powers
regarding
litigation,
as
you
remember,
he
is
here
with
us
today
on
zoom,
mr
powers,
would
you
please
like
to
proceed
with
your
presentation
and
then
we'll
see
if
there's
any
questions.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
again
for
the
record
kevin
powers,
general
counsel,
lcb
legal
division.
I
will
obviously
try
to
move
as
quickly
as
I
can.
The
first
group
of
cases
to
report
on
involves
several
recent
decisions
by
the
nevada
supreme
court
relating
to
the
issue
of
whether
state
legislators
are
prohibited
by
the
separation
of
powers,
provision
in
the
nevada
constitution,
from
holding
positions
of
public
employment,
with
the
state
executive
branch
or
with
local
governments.
H
Now,
in
these
consolidated
cases,
the
district
court
held
that
a
state
legislator
was
employed
as
a
deputy
district
attorney
was
prohibited
by
the
separation
of
powers.
Provision
from
prosecuting
criminal
cases
on
may
19
2022
the
invasion
court
issued
an
unpublished
order.
Resolving
the
consolidated
cases
supreme
court
held
that
the
defendants
in
the
underlying
criminal
cases
forfeited
their
separation
of
powers
claims
by
not
raising
them
properly
in
their
trials
in
the
justice
court.
H
In
particular,
the
supreme
court
determined
that
the
defendants
did
not
identify
any
actual
prejudice
that
resulted
from
the
deputy
district
attorney's
prosecution
of
the
cases,
while
also
holding
the
office
of
the
state
legislator
and
the
defendants
did
not
establish
that
the
deputy
district
attorney's
dual
service
caused
a
miscarriage
of
justice
or
a
grossly
unfair
outcome
at
trial.
Therefore,
the
supreme
court
vacated
the
district
court's
orders
that
had
reversed
the
convictions
based
on
the
alleged
separation
of
powers
violation.
H
However,
the
supreme
court
stated
that
it
was
not
expressing
any
opinion
on
the
merits
of
the
issue
of
whether
the
separation
of
powers
provision
actually
prohibited
state
legislators
from
holding
those
positions
of
public
employment.
Instead,
the
supreme
court
explained
that
reaching
the
merits
of
the
separation
of
powers
issue
would
be
troubling
because
there
had
not
been
an
opportunity
for
a
full
hearing
in
the
district
court
where
the
parties
could
develop
the
facts
and
the
challenged
public
employees
could
defend
themselves
in
the
proceedings.
H
H
I
am
reporting
on
this
case
because
it
is
related
to
the
supreme
court's
recent
decision
in
the
cases
just
discussed,
plumlee
and
molin,
and
is
also
related
to
the
court's
recent
decision
in
nevada
policy
research
institute
versus
canazarro,
which
I
will
discuss
after
this
case.
So
in
the
caruso
case,
the
district
court
denied
the
defendant's
motion
to
dismiss
the
pending
criminal
charges
against
him,
based
on
an
alleged
separation
of
powers,
violation
resulting
from
the
deputy
district
attorney's
prosecution
of
the
case,
while
also
holding
the
office
of
state
legislator.
H
On
me
on
may
18
2022,
the
nevada
supreme
court
issued
an
unpublished
order,
resolving
the
case.
The
supreme
court
held
that
the
defendant
was
not
entitled
to
any
relief,
because
the
defendant
failed
to
demonstrate
that
dismissal
of
the
pending
criminal
charges
would
be
the
correct
remedy
for
the
alleged
separation
of
powers
violation.
H
Finally,
it
should
be
noted
that
two
dissenting
justices
silver
and
pickering
expressed
their
opinion
that
state
legislators
are
barred
from
acting
as
criminal
prosecutors
by
the
separation
of
powers
provision.
However,
because
this
was
a
dissenting
opinion,
it
does
not
create
any
binding
authority
or
precedent.
H
The
final
case
in
this
group
of
cases
is
nevada
policy.
Research
institute
versus
canazarro
case
number,
eight,
two,
three
four
one
before
the
nvastrian
court.
H
H
The
supreme
court
acknowledged
that
mpri
did
not
meet
the
traditional
standing
requirements,
which
usually
require
the
plaintiff
to
show
some
type
of
personal
injury
or
harm
in
order
to
bring
the
lawsuit.
Instead
of
alleging
that
the
plaintiff
has
some
general
interest
in
constitutional
government
that
is
common
to
all
members
of
the
public,
the
supreme
court
also
noted
that,
under
its
prior
cases,
mpri
did
not
qualify
for
the
public
importance
exception.
The
standing
because
mpri
separation
of
powers
claims
did
not
involve
a
constitutional
challenge
to
a
legislative
expenditure
or
appropriation.
H
Nevertheless,
the
supreme
court
took
the
opportunity
to
expand
the
public
importance
exception.
Standing
the
supreme
court
held
that
the
exception
can
be
applied
in
cases
where
the
plaintiff
seeks
to
enforce
a
public
official's
compliance
with
a
public
duty
under
the
separation
of
power's
provision,
but
only
where
an
appropriate
party
seeks
enforcement
of
that
provision.
The
constitutional
issue
is
likely
to
recur
and
the
constitutional
issue
requires
judicial
resolution
for
future
guidance.
H
The
supreme
court
also
noted
that
this
case
is
an
appropriate
proceeding
to
resolve
the
dual
service
issue,
because
it
will
allow
the
parties
to
develop
a
full
record
in
the
district
court.
Regarding
the
nature
and
scope
of
the
employment
duties
of
the
challenged
public
employees
in
their
positions
with
the
state
executive
branch
and
with
local
governments.
H
Consequently,
this
case
has
been
returned
to
the
clark
county
district
court.
On
june
9
2022,
the
district
court
held
a
status
hearing
with
the
parties.
After
hearing
the
district
court
approved
a
schedule
under
which
the
individual
defendants
and
the
legislature
have
until
june
30th
to
2022
to
file
appropriate,
responsive,
pleadings
or
motions
in
the
district
court.
Under
that
schedule,
lcb
legal
will
be
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
npr's
claims
based
on
several
grounds,
including
without
limitation,
lack
of
subject
matter,
jurisdiction
and
failure
to
join
all
necessary
party
defendants.
H
Finally,
it
should
be
noted
that
several
legislators
who
are
originally
named
as
defendants
in
this
case
no
longer
hold
any
positions
of
public
employment
with
the
state
executive
branch
or
with
local
governments.
Therefore,
the
parties
have
agreed
to
dismiss
those
legislators
from
this
case
as
a
result
of
those
dismissals.
H
The
caption
and
name
of
this
case
will
change
in
future
litigation
reports,
so
it
will
no
longer
be
nevada
policy.
Research
institute
versus
canazarro,
because
senator
canozzaro
is
no
longer
holding
a
position
of
public
employment
that
covers
those
three
cases
dealing
with
the
separation
of
powers
issue
moving
on
to
the
next
case:
killer,
brew
versus
state
of
nevada,
that's
nevada's,
room
court
83830.
H
Under
the
authority
of
sb
512,
the
state
land
register
promulgated
annual
use
fees
by
regulation
and
the
legislative
commission
approved
that
regulation
petitioners
challenged
the
regulation
in
district
court
relating
to
the
annual
use
fees.
The
district
court
upheld
the
regulation
on
october
19
2021,
and
it
said
the
regulation
and
the
annual
use
fees
fell
within
the
state
landlord
registrar's
statutory
authority.
H
The
pistoners
filed
an
appeal
with
the
master
in
court.
They
received
several
extensions
to
file
their
opening
brief,
which
is
due
today
on
june
10th
2022
pursuant
to
its
authorization.
In
this
case,
lcb
legal
will
be
filing
an
amicus
brief
on
appeal.
On
behalf
of
the
legislative
commission,
arguing
in
favor
of
affirmance
of
the
district
court's
decision
next
case
is
nevada
hospital
association
for
state
of
nevada
in
the
first
judicial
district
court,
carson
city.
H
On
march
10th
2022,
the
district
court
entered
an
order
and
final
judgment
that
upheld
the
challenge:
provisions
of
sb
329
and
granted
the
state
defendants
and
the
legislature's
motions
to
dismiss.
On
april
26
2022,
the
plaintiffs
filed
a
motion
asking
the
district
court
to
alter
or
amend
the
final
judgment.
The
party's
completed
briefing
on
the
motion
and
they're
awaiting
a
decision
by
the
district
court.
It
should
be
noted
that
by
filing
the
motion,
the
plaintiffs
stayed
or
suspended
the
time
period
in
which
they
may
file
a
notice
of
appeal
with
the
supreme
court.
H
As
a
result,
if
the
district
court
denies
their
motion
to
alter
or
amend
the
final
judgment,
it
is
likely
that
the
plaintiffs
will
file
an
appeal
with
the
madison
court.
The
next
case
is
konig
versus
state
of
nevada.
In
this
case
the
plaintiffs
challenge.
The
constitutionality
of
sb-1
of
the
33rd
special
session
held
in
november
2021.
H
After
entering
into
the
contract,
the
outside
legal
council
filed
a
motion
intervene
which
was
granted
on
behalf
of
the
legislature
and
the
district
court
also
considered
the
substance
of
the
claims.
In
a
motion
for
preliminary
injunction
march,
24
2022,
the
district
court
denied
the
plaintiff's
motion
for
preliminary
injunction.
H
The
final
case,
the
report
on
is
a
new
case
macintosh
versus
city
of
north
las
vegas,
and
that's
in
the
united
states
district
court
for
the
district
of
nevada.
In
this
case
the
legislature
and
its
members,
officers
and
employees
are
not
parties
to
this
litigation.
Instead.
This
case
involves
several
subpoenas
issued
by
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
to
senator
neil
as
a
non-party
demanding
that
senator
neil
produced
documents
and
testify
at
a
deposition.
H
Lcb
legal
also
served
the
city
with
a
privileged
log,
describing
documents
being
withheld
under
a
claim
that
they
are
protected
by
one
or
more
privileges,
recognized
by
federal
law
or
state
law,
or
both
on
june
1st
2022,
the
city
serves
senator
neil
with
a
subpoena
to
appear
and
testify
at
a
deposition
on
june
6
2022,
the
city
serves
senator
neal,
with
a
second
subpoena
to
produce
documents.
Lcb
legal
is
taking
appropriate
actions
to
respond
to
these
additional
subpoenas
on
behalf
of
senator
neal
in
her
official
capacity.
H
A
A
I
don't
see
any
questions,
so
thank
you,
mr
powers,
for
your
litigation
update.
We
appreciate
that
and
that
will
close
out
agenda
item
number
12
which
takes
us
to.
I
think
the
last
agenda
item.
Excuse
me.
Yes,
agenda,
item
13,
which
is
public
comment.
So
much
like
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
We
have
public
comment
here
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
We'll
do
that
in
person
and
on
the
phone
you'll
have
two
minutes.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
las
vegas?
A
A
E
We
cannot
hear
you
if
you
can
hear
us.
Please
check
yeah
yeah.
D
So
I
wanted
to
give
the
people
that
all
along
have
claimed
to
be
for
women's
rights,
for
religious
freedom,
for
the
life
and
considered
themselves,
pro-life
the
benefit
of
the
deaf
during
the
whole
time.
This
was
going
through
the
legislature,
but
after
hearing
today
it's
clear
they
really
aren't
those
things.
They
were
advocating
for
the
same
language
that
the
aclu
and
planned
parenthood
wanted
the
proponents
language,
it's
clear
that
they've
known
all
along
what
this
bill
will
do
and
they
are
not
for
religious
freedom,
women's
rights
and
they're.
Definitely
not
pro-life.
D
What
happened
here
today.
Instead
of
the
nonpartisan
legislative
bureau
team,
making
the
arguments
or
or
helping
craft
them
the
proponents
of
sjr8,
they
got
to
write
the
ballot
arguments
in
support
of
it
and
in
opposition,
not
the
opposition
that
opposed
it.
So
I
want
to
leave
you
with
my
favorite
quote
william
wilberforce,
and
this
is
for
you
assemblywoman
toll.
You
may
choose
to
look
the
other
way,
but
you
can
never
say
that
again
that
you
did
not
know.
You
have
been
told.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much.
We
will
close
public
comment
before
we
adjourn
just
want
to
thank
commission
members.
I
know
it's
been
a
long
day
and
not
longer
for
than
anyone
than
senator
harris
who's
been
here
all
day.
So
thank
you
for
your
service
and
thank
you
always
to
our
staff
and
to
bps
for
doing
this
with
us
getting
us
through
this
meeting.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
do
want
to
remind
anyone
who
might
be
listening,
which
is
probably
nobody
to
make
sure
that
you
vote.
A
We
have
an
election
coming
up
a
primary
election
on
a
tuesday
and
it's
important
that
your
voice
is
heard.
So
please
make
sure
to
do
that.
I
hope
everyone
has
a
really
great
weekend
and
we'll
see
you
all
soon.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.