►
From YouTube: 2/28/2022 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the fourth meeting of the 2021-2022 Interim. Please see the revised agenda for details.
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Thank
you
good
afternoon.
Everyone
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
this
fourth
meeting
of
the
legislative
commission
to
order.
I
want
to
welcome
all
of
you
joining
us
here
on
the
zoo
and
all
those
who
may
be
watching
on
the
internet
or
who
may
have
called
in
on
the
phone.
Madam
secretary,
would
you
please
call
the
role.
C
E
C
F
B
C
A
Thank
you
so
much
and
please
mark
senator
settlemyre
present
when
he
arrives.
I
expect
him
to
join
us
here
very
shortly.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum
just
a
couple
of
housekeeping
matters
to
go
over
first,
I
want
to
again
welcome
all
of
you.
It
seems
like
it's
been
quite
a
while,
since
we've
been
together
in
legislative
commission,
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
case,
but
it
sure
feels
like
it.
So
it's
good
to
see
all
of
you
here
on
the
zoom
today.
A
A
This
is
something
that
is
out
of
our
control,
but
we're
doing
the
best
we
can
to
deal
with
it.
When
this
happens,
broadcast
staff
will
alert
us
that
the
meeting
is
no
longer
live
and
then
we'll
take
a
short
recess
while
they
reconnect
us.
This
has
been
happening
about
every
30
minutes
today
and
it's
taken
about
a
minute
or
so
to
get
us
back
hooked
up.
A
If
anyone
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
your
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.
A
If
you
have
called
in-
and
you
would
like
to
speak
during
this
part
of
the
meeting,
you
will
be
notified
by
our
broadcast
and
production
services
staff
when
you
have
been
connected,
and
it
is
your
turn
to
speak,
please
remember
that
comments
will
be
limited
to
no
more
than
two
minutes
per
person.
I
will
be
timing
and
I'll.
Let
you
know
when
your
two
minutes
are
up.
You
are
welcome
to
submit
any
additional
comments
in
writing
and
they
will
be
added
to
the
record
for
this
meeting.
A
If
you
prefer
to
wait
to
speak
until
later,
there
will
be
a
second
period
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
today's
meeting.
I'm
now
going
to
turn
this
over
to
our
staff
at
broadcast
and
production
services
to
cue
up
anyone
calling
in
to
speak
and
just
remember,
a
member
of
the
staff
will
inform
you
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak.
C
C
C
S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
and
I'm
a
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
in
nevada
here
in
regards
to
regulation
r130-21
on
the
implementation
of
last
session's,
ab-495
mind
tax
in
the
exhibits.
You
will
find
a
letter
signed
by
many
of
our
coalition
partners,
but
I
wanted
to
highlight
a
few
top
lines,
while
the
originally
proposed
regulations
by
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
were
reasonable.
We
opposed
the
amendments
that
were
made
by
the
nevada
tax
commission.
C
We
believe
that
the
names
of
the
tax
should
remain
as
the
gold
and
silver
excise
tax,
as
titled
in
the
text
of
ab-495
to
be
in
line
with
the
naming
conventions
of
other
taxes
being
based
on
what
it's
being
taxed,
not
where
the
revenue
goes.
We
have
the
retail
cannabis
tax
and
the
wholesale
cannabis
tax,
not
the
cannabis
education
tax.
C
C
ab495
is
a
start
to
addressing
the
privileged
position.
Mining
is
held
in
nevada's
tax
code.
Until
now,
we
should
not
allow
what
was
voted
on
with
bipartisan
support,
in
full
view
of
the
public
to
be
manipulated
in
the
regulatory
process.
We
urge
that
you
do
not
accept
the
amended
version
before
you
and
return
the
draft
to
the
their
initial
form.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
sorry
about
that
hello
for
the
record,
alita
benson,
a-l-I-d-a,
b-e-n-s-o-n
political
director
for
the
nevada
republican
party.
Thank
you
to
the
members
of
the
legislative
commission
for
allowing
this
opportunity
to
speak
as
you
work
through
the
agenda
today
and
consider
item
six
potential
adoption
of
administrative
regulations.
G
As
you
are
aware,
meaningful
observation
of
the
regulatory
process
is
the
foundation
of
our
balanced
government,
the
public
craves
and
demands
transparency
and
by
law.
The
government
is
required
to
provide
it.
We
made
comments
and
recommendations
on
behalf
of
all
republicans
in
nevada
on
these
regulations.
Over
the
course
of
many
hours
and
hearings,
we
have
been
informed
that
there
have
been
changes
made
to
the
proposed
regulations
outside
of
the
public
hearings.
If
our
comments
and
recommendations
were
incorporated
into
the
regulations,
we
don't
know
because
these
changes
were
not
released.
G
The
version
of
these
election
regulations
you
are
looking
at
today
has
never
been
released
to
the
public
for
digestion.
Indeed,
the
public
has
no
idea
what
the
legislative
commission
is
about
to
vote
on,
because
they
have
never
been
given
the
opportunity
to
review
these
changes
as
a
part
of
the
standard
adoption
process.
G
As
the
champions
of
transparency
that
you
are,
we
ask
that
you
do
not
vote
on
something
that
the
public
has
never
seen.
These
regulations
should
be
tabled
until
the
public
has
been
given
the
opportunity
to
review
them.
This
concerns
regulations,
r,
zero,
eight,
zero,
three
zero,
eight
four,
as
well
as
r087
through
through
r
one
one,
twelve
one
one
two
thank
you.
G
G
These
regulations
will
create
clarity
and
guidance
for
our
election
officials
and
nevada's
election
system,
which
benefits
all
nevada
voters,
while
there's
still
more
work
to
do
in
communities
that
cross
this
state.
These
election
regulations
need
to
be
passed
to
create
a
fair
and
equitable
election
system.
Please
vote
yes
on
the
adopted
block
of
election
regulations.
That
is
on
the
agenda
today.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
G
If
passed,
we
know
this
will
be
a
help
to
us
during
this
school
year.
I
want
to
ensure
this
commission
that,
while
this
increase
in
the
pool
of
community
members
able
to
become
licensed
substitute
teachers,
there
is
still
a
hiring
process
in
place
internally
to
ensure
safety
and
screen
for
competencies,
while
providing
a
basic
level
of
training
to
our
guest
teachers,
as
we
call
them.
Recruitment
and
retention
of
educators
will
continue
to
be
a
priority
for
our
district
and
substitute
teachers
is
one
place
we
look
towards
finding
future
educators.
G
C
For
the
record,
my
name
is
matilda
guerrero,
that's
m-a-t-h-I-l-d-a
g-u-e-r-r-e-r-o,
and
I'm
calling
on
behalf
of
the
let
nevada's
vote
coalition,
while
states
across
the
nation.
Push
back
on
voting
rights.
Nevada
continue
to
protect
the
vote
by
passing
bills
that
expand
access
to
the
ballot
box,
such
as
rights,
restoration
and
mule
kava
ballots
to
be
used
by
voters
with
disabilities.
We
support
all
30
election
regulations
on
item
6
because
they
provide
blueprints
for
election
officials
to
administer
the
provisions
passed
by
this
body
while
providing
transparency
and
clarity
in
our
election
processes
to
your
constituents.
C
We
submitted
a
letter
but
wanted
to
highlight
that
all
30
elections
regulations
addresses
your
constituents
concerns
regarding
election
security,
integrity
in
the
voter
roll
also,
while
mail
ballots
are
still
relatively
new
nevada.
Voters
like
the
option
that
assembly
bill
321
provides,
which
is
evident
from
the
2021
boulder
city
municipal
election.
C
G
H
C
Director
here
in
nevada,
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
elita
benson's
comments
from
the
nevada
republican
party.
The
rnc
submitted
numerous
amendments
and
recommendations
on
how
we
could
fix
some
of
these
election
election
regulations
that
are
on
agenda
item
six.
However,
we
also
have
no
idea
if
any
of
these
were
incorporated
into
the
final
copy
as
their
these
were
not
available
to
the
public.
We
recommend
also
that
you
table
this
vote
until
the
public
has
had
adequate
time
to
review
and
give
feedback
on
these
regulations.
Thank
you.
C
A
Thank
you,
bps
I'll,
go
ahead
and
close
agenda
item
2
public
comment
and
just
by
a
reminder
there
will
be
a
chance
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
agenda
on
agenda
item
number
12.,
so
that'll
take
us
now
to
agenda
item
3,
which
is
approval
of
the
minutes
committee
members
you'll
have
found
in
your
packet
the
draft
minutes
from
the
december
21st
2021
meeting,
so
it
was
a
while,
since
we've
been
together.
These
draft
minutes
are
also
available
on
the
website.
A
F
So
I
I
would
like
to
amend
on
page
34
under
my
comments
on
the
sixth
sentence.
Up
where
it
says
for
every
100
people
under
or
over
65
would
die.
There
are
1400
people
who
are
under
65
who
would
die,
and
I
think
that
statistic
is
challenged
and
so
I'd
like
to
just
strike
that
sentence.
A
Thank
you.
Senator
hardy,
we'll
go
ahead
and
strike
that
from
the
minutes
are
there
any
is
any
additional
discussion
on
the
minutes
before
we
take
a
motion
and
committee
members
I'll
tell
you
there's
obviously
a
lot
of
folks
on
the
zoo
with
us,
so
be
patient.
If
you
do
have
something,
if
you
could
raise
your
hand
on
your
screen,
that's
probably
the
best
way
for
me
to
see
you,
but
I
don't
see
okay,
assemblywoman
dickman
has
moved
to
approve.
Do
I
have
a
second
second.
A
J
Chair,
I
believe,
senator
settlemyer.
A
A
Fantastic,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
the
vote
and
I'll
just
have
you
raise
your
hand
in
front
of
your
screens.
I
think
that's
the
easiest
way
to
see,
and
I
don't
know
if
senator
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
that.
So
all
those
in
favor
please
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand,
and
I
think
senator
spearman
is
not
on
camera.
Yet
senator
spearman
did
you.
A
B
A
A
All
right
bear
with
me
here
for
just
a
second
there's,
a
lot
of
paper
in
front
of
me
trying
to
figure
out
where
we're
going
all
right
agenda.
Item
number
four
is
next
up
on
the
agenda,
and
for
that
we
have
a
presentation,
I
believe,
by
former
senators
woodhouse
in
parts
regarding
a
memorial
for
carol
delardo.
A
C
C
This
afternoon,
I'm
joined
by
former
senator
joyce
woodhouse
to
present
item
number
four,
which
requests
authorization
to
plant
a
tree
on
legislative
grounds
in
honor
of
long-time
former
lobbyist
carol,
ann
bellardo,
with
your
approval,
I'd
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
senator
woodhouse
at
this
time.
A
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
senator
parks
good
afternoon,
terry
yeager
vice
chair,
calzaro,
whoops,
okay
and
commission
members.
I
am
joyce
woodhouse
former
nevada
state
senator
from
district
five
in
clark,
county
senator
parks-
and
I
are
here
this
afternoon
to
present
agenda
item
number
four
regarding
the
planning
of
a
tree
on
the
legislative
grounds
in
carson
city,
nevada.
In
memory
and
remembrance
of
miss
carol
gallardo,
I
will
be
sharing
a
few
comments
as
to
the.
B
Why
and
senator
parks
will
follow
up
by
sharing
the
how
of
this
agenda
item
on
december
5th
2021
many
of
us,
including
past
and
present
legislators,
legislative
staff,
legislative
advocates
and
the
general
public
lost
a
true
friend
to
nevadans.
As
we
learned
of
the
passing
of
carol
gallardo,
often
known
as
the
tax
lady
and
the
hat
lady
carol
was
the
epitome
of
professionalism
in
her
work
with
the
nevada
taxpayers
association
and
as
the
consummate
citizen
lobbyist,
always
cognizant
of
tax
policy
and
the
consequences
of
such
legislation.
B
So
many
of
us
have
stories
and
reflections
of
our
experiences
and
work
with
ms
lardo
and
they
are
documented
in
news
stories
following
her
passing
a
few
months
ago.
I'm
sure
that
there
are
so
many
more
stories
to
tell
that
haven't
been
printed
or
spoken
yet,
and
I
would
like
to
share
one
of
mine
as
a
freshman
state
senator
in
2007
I
submitted
a
bill
draft
request
which
became
senate
bill
172,
and
it
had
been
requested
of
me
by
a
constituent.
B
This
bill
was
to
exempt
certain
mobility,
enhancing
equipment
from
sales
and
use
taxes.
I
soon
received
a
visit
from
miss
villardo
in
my
office,
who
said-
and
I
quote
I'll,
never
forget
this
senator.
I
understand
what
you
want
to
do
with
this
legislation
and
I
appreciate
it,
but
respectfully
I
do
not
believe
you
understand
the
unintended
consequences
of
this
legislation.
B
B
I
welcomed
all
meetings
and
conversations
with
her
over
the
years,
including
attending
several
of
her
nevada
tax
policy
seminars,
and
I
believe
many
of
us
did
that.
In
conclusion,
I
would
like
to
share
several
quotes
from
individuals
about
miss
carol,
villardo
and
what
she
meant
to
them
and
to
nevada
from
cindy
creighton
of
the
nevada
taxpayers
association.
B
She
was
a
careful,
creative
and
a
critical
thinker
who
read
broadly
and
thought
deeply
from
the
vegas
chamber.
She
was
a
trusted
voice
and
served
the
very
best
interests
of
our
state
billy,
the
siliotis
of
our
partners.
She
was
the
most
important
person
in
nevada
legislature
who
wasn't
elected
ever
sabre
newbie
of
unlv.
B
She
was
a
role
model
for
female
lobbyists,
intelligent,
hardworking,
tough,
classy,
no
nonsense
and
with
a
quick
wit,
I
could
share
many
more
rearrangement,
remembrances
from
legislators
and
others
of
miss
carol,
vilardo
on
the
impact
that
she
had
on
them
personally,
as
well
as
southern
state
of
nevada.
At
this
time,
I
would
like
to
pass
the
microphone
to
senator
parks
to
address
our
thoughts
on
how
we
can
all
show
our
respect
and
admiration
of
miss
carol.
Anne
delardo.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
senator
woodhouse,
as
you're
all
well
aware.
A
tree
planted
in
somebody's
memory
is
a
fitting
tre
memorial
tribute
that
benefits
both
the
present
and
the
future
senator
woodhouse,
and
I
propose
the
planting
of
a
tree
on
the
legislative
grounds
at
no
cost
to
either
the
legislature
or
the
state
cost
for
the
selection
and
planting
of
the
tree,
as
well
as
the
purchase
and
placement
of
a
memorial
player
would
come
from
the
acceptance
of
private
donations
since
anticipating.
C
Since
we
anticipate
monetary
contributions
from
numerous
individuals,
we
believe
the
request
requested
individual
contribution
will
be
modest,
senator
woodhouse
and
I
will
work
with
lcd
director,
erdos
and
building
and
grounds
to
select
an
appropriate
site
for
the
tree
upon
acquisition
of
the
tree.
We
will
coordinate
the
trees,
planting
and
placement
of
the
plaque.
I'd
like
to
close
by
repeating
the
quote
from
mr
billy
faciliatus
of
our
partners.
He
said
I
think
carol.
C
A
Thank
you.
Senators
appreciate
you
being
here
and
bringing
this
idea
in
front
of
us.
I'm
senator
woodhouse.
I
have
a
pretty
similar
experience
with
with
that
carol.
Valardo
and
you
know
I
I
kind
of
view
her
as
the
conscience
of
the
legislative
building
when
it
came
to
taxation
and
so
she's,
obviously
going
to
be
slowly
sorely
missed.
But
before
we
consider
the
motion,
I
wanted
to
ask
the
members
of
the
commission:
are
there
any
questions
or
any
discussions,
so
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
dickman
first.
K
A
H
Hey,
mr
chairman,
I
do
find
it
a
little
bit
ironic
in
the
conversations
I've
had
with
terrell
vlad
over
the
years
and
how
much
paper
this
building
wastes.
So
it's
replanted
free.
However,
we
probably
should
plan
it.
Thank
you
and
anytime
you're
willing
to
accept
a
motion.
I
think
all
of
us
would
love
to
make
it
at
the
same
time,
but
that's
my
opinion.
A
A
Thank
you
and
senator.
I
think
that
I
think
the
motion
would
be
to
to
ask
lcb
to
work
with
our
two
former
senators
here
to
come
up
with
a
plan
to
make
this
happen.
A
A
A
And
now
they
get
to
move
on
to
the
rest
of
their
day
and
we
still
have
a
little
bit
more
work
to
do
so.
That's
going
to
close
out
agenda
item
four
and
that
will
take
us
to
agenda
item
number
five,
which
is
our
second
court
mandated
status
report
regarding
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles,
technology
fee
refund
project.
A
G
G
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
update
and
commission
members
just
a
reminder
that
this
is
an
informational
item,
so
it
does
not
require
any
action
on
our
part.
But
today
is
your
chance
to
ask
any
questions
you
might
have
regarding
the
project.
So,
commission
members
any
questions
out
there
on
agenda
item
number
five:
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
raising
their
hand
so
miss
laney.
A
A
Just
as
a
reminder,
legislative
council,
brian
fernley,
is
with
us
on
the
zoom
today
to
assist
us
should
we
require
his
assistance
now
before
I
go
through
the
list.
I
wanted
to
just
make
one
announcement
and
I'll
say
this
I'll
try
to
go
through
this
slowly,
because
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
regulations
in
front
of
us.
So
commission
members,
members
of
the
public,
you
should
have
a
list.
A
A
A
If
there
are
additional
regulations,
you
would
like
to
be
held
for
further
discussion
once
we
pull
all
of
those
out
we'll
take
a
motion
and
approve
what
remains
and
that'll
allow
some
of
our
guests
with
us
on
the
zoo
to
get
along
with
their
day
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
the
regulations
that
we
pulled
one
at
a
time
to
discuss
those
and
take
a
vote
on
them
and
again.
Commission
members,
I
want
to
thank
you
a
number
of
you
reached
out
to.
Let
me
know
that
there
were
regulations
that
you
would
like
pulled.
A
That's
really
helpful
for
me
and
for
staff
to
know
some
of
that
ahead
of
time.
I
know
it's
not
always
possible,
but
just
want
to
say
thank
you
as
chair
for
doing
that,
work
on
the
front
end.
So
let
me
go
ahead
and
give
you
a
rundown
of
what
I
have
been
asked
to
pull
already
and
then,
after
that,
we'll
see
if
there's
anything
else
and
we'll
stop
fro
or
start
from
the
top
of
the
list
of
regulations.
So
the
first
one
I
have
you'll
find
on.
I
think
it's
page
two
of
the
regulations
r176.
A
A
A
From
the
employment
of
security
division
of
the
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation,
so
does
anyone
want
me
to
go
through
those
again
or
did
we
get
them
all?
Anyone
wants
me
to
go
through
them
again.
Just
raise
your
hand,
and
I
can
do
that
quickly.
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
And
then
the
last
one
we
have
is
r066-21,
I
feel
like
somebody
should
be
yelling
bingo
at
this
point,
but
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
give
commission
members.
I
know.
Sometimes
there
are
additional
regulations
that
you
you
identify
that
you
want
pulled.
So,
let's
see
I
have
assemblywoman
krasner.
Please
go
ahead.
L
Thank
you,
cherry
yeager,
some
additional
regulations
that
I
had
a
question
or
concern
on
were
regulation.
R093-21.
L
L
A
A
A
B
A
A
F
A
H
Oh,
mr
chairman,
if
you
want,
I
could
try
to
enter,
see
how
well
I
can
do
with
hitting
the
correct
bolt
bingo
lottery.
A
Now,
what
what
one
second
assembly?
Sorry
senator
hardy
has
his
hand
up.
So
I
wanted
to
see
if
he
had
additional
and
senator
hardy.
Please
go
ahead.
A
Standby
we
deferred
that
one
to
a
future
commission
agenda,
so
it
is
not
going
to
be
discussed
or
voted
on
today.
A
Okay,
so
senator
settlemeyer
have
every
ever
all
of
our
zoom
participants
and
guests,
take
a
deep
breath
to
hope
that
there
is
impulse
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
on
the
rest,
I
would.
I
would
take
that
out.
H
Our
102
20
one
has
been
pulled
so
that
we've
skipped
into
approving
our
103
21
r105
21
r107
21
r108
21
r109
21
r110,
21,
1121,
r112,
21,
r123,
21.
A
A
A
A
H
A
F
Ahead,
my
compliments
to
the
secretary
of
state.
We
could
have
just
voted
basically
on
the
bill
itself
again,
but
defining
these
out
by
regulation
allows
us
to
look
individually
and
as
well
as
collectively
at
the
things
that
would
make
us
more
secure
in
our
elections,
and
I
appreciate
the
secretary
of
state
for
doing
it.
The
way
they
have
done
it.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
further
discussion.
I
just
did
want
to
say
you
know
we
take
this
giant
motion
and
a
lot
of
the
folks
with
us
on
zoom
then
drop
off
the
zoom
and
we
don't
get
a
chance
to
talk
with
them,
but
wanted
to
say
thank
you
to
all
of
those
who
were
here
today
and
have
worked
hard
on
the
regulations
that
we're
going
to
approve.
We
appreciate
your
work
on
it
and
appreciate
you
being
here
in
the
case
that
anyone
had
any
questions,
so
we
just
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity
to
tell
you.
A
A
So
that
took
care
of
a
lot
of
the
regulations
that
we
had
on
our
agenda
and
we're
going
to
come
back
to
the
regulations
that
were
pulled
for
discussion.
What
I
wanted
to,
let
the
members
and
those
on
zoom
know,
though,
is
we're
going
to
go
slightly
out
of
order.
As
you
all
know,
we
have
a
lot
from
the
secretary
of
state,
so
we're
going
to
make
sure
we
do
the
other
regulations
that
are
not
the
secretary
of
state
regulations
first,
so
folks
can
get
along
with
their
day.
A
So
that's
how
we'll
do
it
and
with
apologies
to
mr
walashan,
I
know
you're
going
to
be
with
us
for
quite
a
long
time
this
afternoon,
but
we
appreciate
your
patience
and
you
being
here,
so
we
are
going
to
go
first
to
the
consideration
discussion
of
regulation,
r176-20,
that's
the
board
of
wildlife
commissioners
and
I'm
under
the
belief
we
have
somebody
here
who
can
talk
to
us
about
that
regulation
and
answer
any
questions.
So
let's
go
ahead
and
get
that
person
queued
up.
Please.
A
Okay,
thank
you
thank
you
for
being
here
and
who
had
questions
on
this
regulation.
Senator
hammond,
that's
that
was
my
recollection.
Please
go
ahead.
I
Thank
you
and
I'm
not
sure
who
I
guess
I
better
do
the
wide
review
and
find
out
who
said
they're
here
who
wasn't
that
there
okay,
this
muso
is
it
is
it
I
gotta
pronounce
the
writer
so
I'll
get
in
trouble.
Is
it
musto.
D
Yes,
it's
kaylee
musso
for
the
record
and
I'm
the
management
analyst
in
the
director's
office
for
the
nevada
department
of
wildlife,
but
we
also
have
our
deputy
director
on
as
well
in
case
a
question
needs
to
be
answered
by
him
and
then
I
also
have
captain
jake
kramer
sitting
next
to
me
in
case.
He
is
needed
as
well.
I
I
It
talks
about
the
location
where
the
mountain
lion
was
killed
to
my
recollection
and,
as
I've
talked
to
others
around
the
state.
I
don't
know
of
any
other
animal
that
we
harvest
where
an
animal
is
harvested,
and
then
the
information
given
includes
the
actual
land,
the
longitude
and
latitude
of
where
the
animal
was
taken.
I
Is
this
the
only
indication?
Is
this
the
only
place
in
any
kind
of
regulation
where
you're
actually
asking
for
that
particular
information,
exactly
where
the
animal
was
harvested,
and
in
so
doing
I
mean
somebody
would
have
to
have
a
gps
on
them,
and
so,
if
one
is
it,
the
only
the
only
place
that
I
can
find
where
an
animal
is?
Actually
you
need
that
information
about
where
they
were
harvested
and
two,
can
you
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
why
you
wanted
the
exact
location.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hammond.
I
do
believe
we
ask
for
the
bylaw
or
the
location
for
every
big
game
species
that
we
have
tags
for.
It's
just
more
specific
for
the
mountain
lion,
but
when
you
do
a
check-in
for
your
other
big
game
species
or
you
submit
a
harvest
questionnaire,
you
are
asked
where
you
where
you
took
that
animal
as
well.
D
We
do
have
it
a
little
bit
more
specific
for
the
mountain
for
biological
reasons,
but
you'll
see
that
we
also
collect
more
from
a
mountain
lion
than
we
do
for
other
species
as
well.
We
collected
teeth
for
biolog
the
teeth
for
biological
reasons,
as
well
as
some
other
hair
from
the
pelts
as
well.
I
D
No,
we
ask,
for
that
is
correct.
Senator
we
ask
for
the
unit
for
other
big
game
animals,
but
but
mountain
lion
can
be
hunted
all
across
the
state,
and
so
it's
not
so
specific
to
units
for
mountain
lions.
I
Okay,
yeah,
I
I
I
saw
that,
and
so
that
was
the
the
reason.
I
asked
that,
because
I've
never
seen
it
asked
about
latitude
and
longitude
and
it
it's
not
an
easy
thing.
I
I
I
know
that
it
costs
money
now
you're
sending
folks
out
there
in
the
in
the
wild,
then
they've
got
to
have
an
exact
location
with
the
instruments
that
are
necessary,
so
it
is
actually
a
netted
expense,
and
so
I
didn't
know
if
you
got
any
feedback
from
from
stakeholders
across
the
state
when
you
propose
this,
and
if
so,
I
didn't
see
any
information
on
here
where
you
may
have
gotten
some
information
back
from
people
and
and
how
they
felt
about
it.
I
But
that
was
the
only
out
of
the
three
regulations
that
you
guys
proposed.
That
was
the
only
thing
that
I
I
kind
of
called
in
question
in
my
nice
when
I
read
it
so
I
I
I'm
okay
with
this,
I'm
just
a
little
I'm
taken
aback,
but
I
know
that
senator
settlemeyer
may
have
another
question
as
well.
D
D
This
particular
regulation
did
go
through
an
extensive
amount
of
public
scoping
because
it
went
through
a
commission
committee
and
then
through
multiple
commission
meetings,
and
then
I
also
did
want
to
add
that
I
recently
did
witness
a
few
mountain
lion
check-ins
and
if
the
hunter
did
not
specifically
have
the
latitude
and
longitude,
then
our
biologists
worked
with
them
on
a
map
to
where
they
could
point
out
a
location,
and
they
just
give
it
their
best.
D
Guess
at
that
point,
but
our
biologists
do
work
with
them
when
they
come
bring
them
out
in
line
to
be
checked
in,
and
so
I
actually
personally
got
to
witness
that
a
couple
of
times
recently.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
miss
mso.
I
appreciate
your
background
drawing
there
of
lovely
douglas
county,
because
that's
kind
of
where
the
question
comes
about
is
this
bill
only
pertaining
to
individuals
who
got
a
tag,
or
is
this
also
deal
with
anyone
who
has
a
deprivation
permit
and
also
individuals
who
are
literally
just
protecting
their
animals
from
mountain
lions?.
D
Thank
you
senator
settlemeyer,
for
the
question
I
also
am
from
douglas
county.
So
I
do
love
that
place,
and
this
particular
section
in
the
regulation
is
specific
to
just
people
that
draw
a
tag.
The
depredation
permits
would
be
a
whole
different
process.
H
Okay,
and
so
in
that
respect,
I
appreciate
the
language
that
was
done
here
to
take
it
from
72
hours
to
five
days,
but
then
it's
interesting
by
saying
unfrozen,
now
someone's
going
to
potentially
have
a
jaw
popped,
open
and
an
unfrozen
pelt
in
their
possession
for
five
days,
which
isn't
a
really
pleasant
thought
to
have.
So
I'm
curious
on
all
that
in
the
gps
coordinates.
H
It
just
seems
a
little
bit
onerous
overall,
and
I
appreciate,
though
this
doesn't
apply
to
deprivation
permits
for
someone
just
protecting
their
own
property
because,
as
you
know,
in
fellows
county
mountain
lions,
mainly
dealing
with
sheep,
that
we've
had
to
have
protection
done
I'll,
just
leave
it
at
that.
So
I
appreciate
it.
I
am
concerned
about
the
details
of
the
gps
seems
like
we're
getting
pretty
owners.
Thank
you.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman.
How
do
you
do?
I
have
a
second
looks
like
assemblywoman.
Dickman
has
her
hand
up
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
give
her
the
second
on
that
one.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion:
okay,
seeing
no
discussion
all
those
in
favor
of
approving
the
regulation.
Please
signify
I,
by
raising
your
hand
right,
I
think
I
have
12
members
12
hands
up,
so
that
motion
carries
unanimously.
The
regulation
is
approved.
A
A
I
see
the
department
of
education
is
on
video,
so
please
go
ahead
and
just
identify
yourself
for
the
record
and
any
opening
remarks
before
we
have
questions.
Please
thank
you,
chair
jeff,
briske,
b-r-I-s-k-e,.
A
Mike
will
for
questions
thanks.
Thank
you
so
much
and
senator
hammond
did
you
have
a
question
on
this
one
as
well.
I
Yes,
I
did
have
a
question,
and
actually
I
had
the
department
reach
out
to
me
chair.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this,
and
they
did
call
me
this
afternoon
because
I
did
have
a
question
about
this
and
it's
mostly
because
of
the
emails
that
I'm
getting
where
folks
are
very
concerned
about
lowering
the
standard
and
so
for
more
than
anything.
I
just
want
to
get
on
the
record
as
we
go
to
vote
for
this.
I
want
to
make
sure
people
understand
where
I
stand.
I
It
is
not
easy
in
this
world
right
now
to
staff
schools,
especially
during
the
pandemic,
where
you've
had
so
many
people,
so
many
teachers
and
staff
members
out
when
that
they
were
taken
ill.
And
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
on
the
record,
we
clarify
that
this
particular
regulation
only
involves
finding
student,
finding
staff,
members
and
teachers
substitute
teachers
to
fill
in
with
with
the
standards
that
you've
given
in
the
regulation,
meaning
they
have
to
have
a
high
school
diploma
and
a
couple
other
things.
I
But
that
only
applies
when
there
is
a
state
of
emergency.
So
we're
not
talking
about
putting
folks
in
in
normal
circumstances,
it's
just
when
we
want
to
make
sure
we
can
staff
and
put
people
into
a
school
into
a
classroom,
and
so
we
can
try
to
get
through
as
normally
as
possible.
Is
that
is
that
a
fair
statement
to
make.
I
And
so
if
the
state
of
emergency
is
lifted,
can
how
long
will
you
be
able
to
keep
that
person
in
the
classroom?
For
example,
the
state
of
emergency
is
lifted
in
on
march
1st,
and
you
have
somebody
with
that
license
or
with
that
substitute
license
in
the
classroom.
E
I
Okay
until
that
june
date,
so
it's
it's
basically
during
a
time
of
emergency,
we're
having
a
hard
time
finding
anybody
to
be
in
the
classroom,
it's
not
indefinite,
and
that
then,
then
the
regulation
goes
away
and
the
staff
member
it
also
goes
away
at
the
end
of
the
year.
I'm
okay
with
that.
Thank
you
so
much
for
answering
my
questions.
A
Thank
you,
senator
hammond,
any
other
questions
on
this
particular
regulation.
Senator
dennis
please.
N
I
just
want
to
make
sure
on
the
that
we
get
on
the
record
when
it
when
it
comes
to
the
the
that
it's
an
emergency
regulation,
in
that
this
is
optional
for
the
school
district
right.
This
is
not
saying
you
have
to
do
this,
but
they're,
saying
in
an
emergency
situation.
If
you
choose
to
do
this,
you
can
do
this.
Is
that
correct.
N
A
Great,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
from
senator
hammond.
Second
from
senator
dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Don't
see
discussion
so
all
those
in
favor
please
signify
by
raising
your
hand,
okay,
I
think
we
have
12
members.
I
see
12
hands
up,
so
the
motion
carries
unanimously.
That
means
our
28-21
is
approved.
Thank
you,
mr
briske,
for
being
here
and
have
a
good
rest
of
the
day.
A
Okay,
so
commission
members,
as
I
noted,
we're
gonna,
go
slightly
out
of
order
everything
else
we
have
left,
with
the
exception
of
one.
A
I
believe
we
have
representatives
from
dieter
here.
We
also
have
mr
fernley
lcd's
legal
counsel,
who
is
available
to
answer
any
questions
so
and
mr
killian,
it
looks
like
as
well.
A
I
see
that
he
just
turned
his
camera
on,
so
he
may
be
the
designated
person
for
this
regulation,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
for
any
questions
that
folks
might
have,
and
just
so
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
everyone's
on
the
hollywood
squares
version,
but
we
have
the
deter
conference
room
with
some
folks
there
and
we
have
mr
killian
from
lcd
who
is
here
to
answer
questions
as
well.
So
who'd
like
to
start
with
questions
senator
suttlemaier,
please.
H
Mr
chairman,
I
appreciate
that
in
that
respect
there
are
some
questions.
This
is
a
holdover
from
last
legislative
commission
meeting
and
I've
still
yet
to
get
some
of
the
answers
from
the
last
time.
I
do
recognize
that
the
other
day
I
was
unavailable
to
answer
a
phone
call
from
the
division
was
trying
to
get
a
hold
of
me.
H
Unfortunately,
I
had
already
planned
on
another
thing
going
on
that
day
all
day,
but
the
two
questions
that
I
have
if
someone
could
answer-
and
I
was
told
that
david
schmidt
might
actually
be
able
to
help-
explain
it,
because
sometimes
it's
difficult
to
explain
things
to
me,
mr
yeager,
as
you
well
know,
that
being
said,
this
does
not
create
a
windfall
for
the
state
of
nevada
overall,
and
that
was
a
question
we
had
asked
last
time.
We
asked
them
specifically
what
type
of
more
or
less
or
revenue
does
this
generate
versus
the
regulation?
H
That's
currently,
in
effect,
do
you
have
any
knowledge,
I'm
not
trying
to
pin
down
an
exact
number,
but
I
just
want
to
be
able
to
get
my
arms
around
the
idea
that
this
is
only
a
slight
increase
or
a
slight
decrease
or
something
of
that
nature.
And
if
you
could
answer
that,
I'd
be
appreciative.
And
then
I
have
a
second
question.
Also
good.
C
Afternoon
for
the
record
chris
sewell,
deputy
director
of
dieter,
I
believe
I
just
saw
dave
schmidt
come
up
on
the
camera,
so
I
will
let
him
answer
that
question.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you
very
much,
senator
david
schmidt,
chief
economist
for
the
research
and
analysis
bureau
in
dieter
and
to
answer
your
question.
I
know
this
does
not
create
a
windfall.
This
is
the
same
average
rate
average
tax
rate
overall
that
has
been
in
effect
in
2021,
as
well
as
in
2020,
so
it's
maintaining
the
same
average
rate
for
all
employers,
just
keeping
everything
flat.
H
So
then,
in
essence,
certain
individuals,
due
to
good
practices,
will
be
able
to
prevail
on
a
lower
rate
than
those
individual
bad
actors,
as
I
call
them.
Individuals
that
have
a
very
high
unemployment
rate
during
the
pandemic
even
may
not
have
been
necessarily
the
fault
of
their
own,
but
we
do
know
certain
businesses
that
shut
down
and
still
kept
their
employees
employed
because
they
felt
it
was
the
right
thing.
H
So
in
essence,
no
new
amount
of
money
based
upon
the
rate,
the
rates,
what
it
is
and
what
it
was
in
that
respect,
though,
if
I'm
right
on
that
one
I'll
go
to
the
next
question,
what
percentage
of
the
businesses
out
there
or
a
number
or
something
will
be
able
to
avail
themselves
of
this
lower
rate?
If
we
pass
it
today,
because
I'm
also
told
if
we
do
not
pass
it
that
everyone
will
be
left
at
the
higher
rate.
H
N
A
A
I
think
that
the
question
that
was
answered,
which
was
if
we,
if
we
don't
pass
this
regulation,
this
proposed
regulation
in
front
of
us
today
that
every
employer
defaults
to
the
statutory
rate
which
will
on
whole
the
for
most
employers,
will
result
in
an
increase
in
contributions,
and
so
that's
sort
of
the
choice
before
us
either
either
we
pass
the
regulation
that
has
experience
based
ratings
or
we
do
nothing
and
then
the
statutory
default
rate
would
go
into
play
and
we
wouldn't
really
take
into
account
anyone's
history
as
an
employer.
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
usher,
killian
chief,
deputy
legislative
counsel
that
that's
generally
correct.
There
is
a
statutory
default
rate
of
2.95
for
unemployment
insurance
contributions
that
is
set
separately,
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
employment.
I'm
sorry
excuse
me:
employment,
security,
division
annually,
categorizes
employers
based
on
their
unemployment
experience
into
a
set
of
18
different
rates,
ranging
from
0.25
up
to
5.4
percent,
based
on
their
unemployment
experience.
E
Most
employers
fall
at
a
rate
below
2.95
as
a
result
of
their
unemployment
experience,
but
since
the
administrator
is
required
to
adopt
that
regulation
annually,
if
no
regulation
is
adopted
for
calendar
year
2022
then
employer
unemployment
experience
is
not
taken
into
account
and
all
employers
would
default
to
the
2.95
rate.
So,
as
a
result,
most
employers
in
the
state
would
see
their
rate
increased
to
the
2.95
rate,
because
their
unemployment
experience
would
not
be
taken
into
account.
If
this
regulation
is
not
approved.
A
N
E
Mr
chair
asher,
killian,
chief
deputy
legislative
council,
that
is
correct.
This
regulation
would
apply
for
the
entirety
of
calendar
year
2022.
My
understanding,
based
on
representations
from
dieter,
is
that
the
first
tax
bill
for
calendar
year
2022
has
not
gone
out
yet,
so
nobody
has
paid
an
increase
incorrect
rate
yet,
and
this
would
go
into
effect
before
those
bills
go
out,
so
it
would
apply
for
the
entirety
of
the
calendar
year.
Great.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
K
N
N
The
second
is
the
total
benefit
charges
that
have
been
applied
to
their
account
for
benefits
that
are
paid
out
to
their
former
workers.
You
take
taxes,
paid
minus
benefits
charged
and
then
that's
divided
by
the
average
taxable
payroll
for
the
last
three
calendar
years
to
sort
of
put
all
employers
on
an
even
footing
without
regard
to
how
large
or
small
they
are,
and
so
that
percentage
is
used
to
compare
employers
and
put
them
into
these
different
buckets.
K
Okay,
so
if
I
could
ask
another
question
as
an
example,
I
have
a
constituent
who,
since
2003
has
been
at
the
lowest
rate
of
0.25
percent
in
the
last
10
years,
they
have
not
had
a
legitimate
unemployment
claim.
They
have
had
fraudulent
claims
and
with
this
change
in
the
rates
based
on
the
reserve
ratio,
their
unemployment
for
this
year
will
triple
to
0.85
percent.
Now
what
would
cause
that
with
no
claims.
N
N
If
you're
at
that
0.25
rate,
you
are
paying
a
very
low
annual
rate
in
taxes,
and
so
I
I
don't
know
the
specifics
of
this
case,
but
my
guess
would
be
that
it's
just
a
matter
of
that
tax
number,
the
positive
that
they
get
in
the
top
of
the
fraction
being
really
small
because
of
that
very
low
rate
and
then
depending
on
changes
in
their
taxable
payroll.
N
If
they've
had
more
or
fewer
workers
over
time
relative
to
other
employers
who
maybe
have
paid
even
more
in
taxes
but
might
have
a
slightly
smaller
relative
payroll,
they
might
have
a
slightly
better
reserve
ratio.
And
so
part
of
this
process
is
the
comparison
of
employers
overall
and
all
of
those
reserve
ratios
and
then
using
that
distribution
of
employers
to
assign
the
different
tax
rates.
And
so
I
would
think-
that's
probably
not
necessarily
this
regulation
itself,
but
rather
those
other
factors
in
their
reserve
ratio
that
are
having
that
big
change.
K
Okay
and
then
my
last
question
is
just
for
2021
to
be
paying
the
lowest
rate.
You
had
to
have
a
reserve
ratio
of
14.6
and
in
for
this
year
and
that
jumps
to
15.95
percent,
and
I
went
back
seven
years
and
looked
at
what,
where
we'd
have
to
be
to
be
paying
that
lowest
point
two
five
percent
rate-
and
this
is
the
biggest
jump.
That's
happened
in
seven
years.
So
can
you
just
maybe
explain
that
a
little
bit.
N
David
schmidt,
again
through
the
record-
I
I
would
guess
that
that
is
in
part
due
to
the
non-charging
of
benefits
during
the
pandemic.
You
may
be
aware
that
most
of
the
last
two
years
of
benefit
charges
were
not
charged
to
employers
accounts
in
a
typical
year.
You
have,
in
those
reserve
ratios
lots
of
pluses
as
employers
pay
taxes
and
lots
of
minuses,
as
benefits
are
being
charged
because
there
are
no
minuses
at
all.
N
Essentially,
employers
are
getting
credit
for
the
taxes
they've
paid,
but
nobody,
nobody
is
being
charged
for
benefits,
and
I
would
guess
that
the
overall
impact
of
that
would
be
to
essentially
shift
all
employers
in
a
more
positive
direction,
but
to
keep
the
average
tax
rate
at
1.65
percent.
That
means
that
the
distribution
of
reserve
ratios
also
has
to
shift
as
well.
K
And
so,
as
I
understand
it,
the
the
employers
who
had
fraudulent
claims
and
the
ones
who
had
to
lay
people
off
because
they
were
forced
to
close
their
businesses,
those
are
not
included
in
their
calculations.
Will
they
ever
be.
N
David
schmidt
again
for
record
no
part
of
the
the
changes
that
were
put
out
over
the
last
year
and
not
I'll.
Let
troy
jordan
employment,
security
division.
Legal
counsel
weigh
in
if
I
get
this
wrong,
but
I
believe
that
there
were
some
statutory
changes
that
were
made
to
ensure
that
those
charges
would
never
hit
employers
accounts.
A
Thank
you
appreciate
it,
and
I
saw
our
folks
at
the
dieter
conference
room
had
unmuted.
So
did
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that
last
response.
C
Troy,
jordan,
employment,
security
division,
legal
counsel.
Just
for
the
record,
I
I
had
unmuted
to
make
sure
in
case
I
needed
to
speak.
We
were
unmuted,
but
mr
schmidt
articulated
it
correctly.
A
A
A
A
I
don't
see
any
discussion.
Let
me
just
say
thank
you
to
the
commission
members
for
asking
good
questions
on
this
and
getting
to
the
bottom
of
this
regulation.
You
know
when
it
came
out
the
first
time
last
year.
I
think
we
were
all
a
little
bit
confused,
but
I
think
with
the
answers
that
were
given
today
and
knowing
that,
if
we
don't
approve
this
people's
rates
will
be
indiscriminately
increased.
It
gives
me
comfort
to
improve
this
regulation.
A
So
with
that
being
said,
all
those
in
favor
please
signify
by
raising
your
hand,
okay,
I
have
12
members
I
see
12
hands
raised.
I
believe
so
that
motion
carries
unanimously.
The
regulation
r066-21
is
approved.
Thank
you
to
our
friends
at
dieter
and
to
mr
killian
for
being
here
to
answer
those
questions.
A
Okay,
commission
members,
that
takes
us
to
the
bulk
of
our
work
today,
which
is
the
secretary
of
state
regulations
that
have
been
pulled
for
further
discussion.
Mr
walashin
is
here
with
us.
I
know
many
of
you
have
had
discussions
with
him
about
these
regulations
and
before
we
get
started,
I
just
did
want
to.
Thank
you,
sir,
for
your
work
on
this.
I
know
you
had
a
lot
of
workshops.
A
lot
of
dialogue
certainly
appreciate
that.
A
So
I
think
what
we'll
do
is
just
kind
of
take
it
from
the
top
and
we'll
start
with
the
first
one
that
was
pulled
and
we'll
dispense
with
that
and
then
we'll
go
on
to
the
next
one.
So
the
first
one
I
have
on
my
list
that
we
pulled,
and
please
someone
correct
me
if
I
get
this
wrong,
but
I
think
the
first
one
was
r081-21.
A
Which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
requirements
to
use
the
system
of
electronic
transmission?
So
mr
velashan
welcome.
I'm
not
sure
if
you
wanted
to
say
anything
before
we
started
questions
or
if
you
just
wanted
to
jump
into
questions
so
I'll,
give
you
the
the
discretion
to
make
any
comments
you
might
want
to
make
before
we
get
started.
M
Thank
you,
chair
mark
velasco,
deputy
secretary
of
state
for
elections
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
you
inviting
me
here
today
to
discuss
these
regulations.
As
you
had
mentioned,
we've
had
an
opportunity
to
discuss
them
from
before
a
little
bit
of
background
before
we
jump
into
them,
and
I
will
be
brief
recognizing
we
have
the
the
12
to
discuss
today.
We
started
this
review
about
14
months
ago
in
january
of
2021.
M
M
Really
we're
focused
one
on
making
sure
that
we
provided
increased
clarity
to
the
the
regulations
relating
to
the
requirements
for
the
clerks
not
only
for
them,
but
so
that
the
public
is
aware
of
these,
these
various
regulations
and
how
they
work,
what
they,
what
their
expectations
are
and
then
the
third
part
is
really
to
improve
public
transparency
as
much
as
possible.
M
Some
of
the
regulations
again
had
provided
opportunities
for
increasing
public
everything
from
observation
to
you
know
their
involvement
in
this
important
process,
and
so
it
was
through
those
lenses
that
we
conducted
this
regulatory
review
and
we
did
break
them
down
into
to
approximately
30,
as
mentioned
again
specifically,
to
incite
more
discussion
and
certainly
got
significant
feedback
from
the
public
relating
to
them.
But
that
being
said,
sir,
I
am
here
and
available
for
your
questions.
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
so
I
did
have
some
questions
and
concerns
on
this.
Currently,
a
person
with
a
disability
is
able
to
vote
by
absentee
ballot
or
mail-in
ballot.
Is
that
correct.
L
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
mark
lawson
for
the
record
to
clarify
that
this
bill
or
I'm
sorry.
M
This
regulation
is
proposed
specifically
to
address
and
provide
additional
clarity
following
the
passage
of
assembly
bill
121
during
the
the
2021
legislative
session
that
bill
that
passed
put
into
law
the
ability
for
members
of
the
disabled
community
to
use
our
ease
system
that
is
open
to
military
and
overseas
citizens,
and
this
regulation
simply
provides
additional
clarity
to
the
expectations
procedures
and
some
of
the
other
requirements
to
make
sure
that
that
implementation
is
done
in
an
orderly
manner.
L
M
Yes,
ma'am
mark
lesson
for
the
record
and
again
to
clarify
the
e's
system.
While
it
involves
email,
it
is
not
considered
email
voting
in
part
because
of
the
the
required
extra
step
that
is
taken.
M
The
the
document
that
arrives
to
the
clerk's
offices
has
to
be
manually
transcribed
printed
out
with
a
typically
a
bipartisan
group,
if
not
the
clerk
him
or
herself,
actually
transcribing
that
onto
an
actual
ballot
to
ensure
that
the
paper
trail
is
still
there
and
again
man.
The
assembly
bill,
121
codified,
the
the
ability
for
this
system
to
be
used.
This
merely
provides
clarity
to
the
process.
A
I'm
sorry,
I
got
kicked
off
the
zoom
there
for
a
second.
So
my
apologies-
hopefully
you
guys
can
hear
me.
A
Can
you
guys
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
hear
you
sure.
Okay,
I'm
sorry,
I
got
kicked
out
of
the
zoom
for
a
second.
So
let
me
just
say:
if
that
happens
again,
you
know
we'll
go
ahead
and
designate.
I
think
assemblywoman
moreno
is
the
the
actic
vice
chair.
So
it's
it's
after
school
hours,
which
means
all
the
kids
in
my
neighborhood
are
streaming
things
which
makes
my
internet
a
bit
challenging
over
here
in
the
summerlin
area.
So
I
apologize
for
that.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
address
the
question
regarding
opportunities
to
begin
to
process
the
voting
process
via
email
as
a
former
service
member
and
someone
who
was
stationed
overseas
quite
frequently,
and
also
sometimes
you
will
get
orders
to
go
one
place
and
in
the
middle
of
movement
you
can
get
orders
to
go
somewhere
else,
and
so
sometimes
you
don't
have
an
opportunity
to
double
back
and
pick
up
whatever
the
absentee
ballot
was
or
whatever
it
was
that
that
was
at
the
other
station.
B
And
so,
unless
we
take
every
effort
make
every
effort
that
we
can
make
sure
that
our
service
members
have
an
opportunity
to
exercise
the
right
that
they're
willing
to
lay
down
their
lives.
For
then
I
think
that
it's
very
disingenuous
and
and
to
a
great
extent,
it
really
smacks
of
of
I
don't
want
to
use
the
word
abominable,
but
but
but
but
it
really
means
that
we're
not
we're
not
talking
we're,
not
walking
our
talk.
Either.
B
People
are
going
to
have
an
opportunity
to
vote,
which
is
something
that
people
in
the
service
fight
for
democracy
anyway
or
they're
not
going
to
be
and
and
missing
a
document,
because
your
orders
were
changed
in
the
middle
of
movement
is
something
that
happens
quite
frequently,
and
although
we
we
hope
that
it
doesn't
get
to
that.
I
think
the
recent
conflict
in
ukraine
probably
punctuates
that
a
great
deal
for
the
people
who
happened
to
be
in
europe
at
that
time.
At
this
time,.
F
M
Senator
thank
you
for
your
question.
That
is
something
that
we
are
keenly
aware
of.
We're
going
to
be
keeping
a
close
eye
on
one
of
the
great
things
about
our
e-system
is
that
it
collects
a
great
number
of
metrics
it's
about
six
pages,
long
websites
that
you
kind
of
navigate
through
as
you're
going
through
the
process.
We
have
the
ability
to
see
what
page
people
stopped
on.
M
We
had
the
ability
to
see
what
information
they
started
to
fill
out
and
then
stopped
going
forward
in
following
the
passage
of
assembly
bill
121,
as
we
anticipate
an
increased
use
of
the
e's
system.
A
lot
of
the
metrics
that
we're
going
to
receive
and
review
do
relate
to
the
specific
locations.
Again.
If
there
are
anomalies,
if
there's
one
nursing
home,
perhaps
that
maybe
a
100
percent
of
the
the
individuals
voted
again,
it
doesn't
necessarily
point
to
anything
nefarious.
M
It
could
be
that
they
again
are
very,
very
active
and
eager
to
execute
their
their
right,
but
but
it
is
something
that
we're
aware
of
and
we're
planning
on,
keeping
a
close
eye
on
it.
As
we,
we
gauge
the
effectiveness
of
not
only
the
build
with
this
regulation
as
well
to
see
going
into
future
regulatory
review
cycles
if
we
need
to
modify
it
or
somehow
increase
security
relating
to
it.
F
M
Yes,
sir,
we
do
and
there
is
a
required
field
so
that
if
an
individual
assists
a
voter
again,
we
are
able
to
capture
their
their
information
as
well
and
again,
we'll
look
closely
at
that
too.
F
M
Potentially
sir
mark
washington
again
for
the
record
again
well,
I
believe
that
all
forms
of
voting
that
we
have
here
at
the
state
again
are
are
secure.
This
one
certainly
does
not
lack
any
security
measures
that
exist
in
other
forms
as
well.
A
K
Okay,
you
went
away
thank
you
chair,
so
my
concern
with
this.
I
know
that
electronic
voting
has
been
used
for
the
military
for
some
time
and
is
probably
working
well,
but
since
we
passed
the
bill
that
allows
this
for
people
with
dis
disabilities,
I'm
concerned
that
there
aren't
more
specific
requirements
to
show
that
you
have
a
need.
For
this
I
mean
one
of
the
things
is
is
regarded
as
having
an
impairment.
K
M
Ma'am
mark
lawson
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
again
between
the
the
statute,
the
bill
itself.
Along
with
these
regulations,
it
does
further
refine
what
what
it
means
to
have
a
disability
and
clarify
exactly
who
those
individuals
relate
to
a
broken
finger.
I
believe,
arguably,
would
not
apply
given
the
the
guidance
in
both
the
statute
and
the
regulation,
but
but
yes,
ma'am
again.
N
M
Yes,
sir,
absolutely
senator
mark
velasco
for
the
record
so
to
be
clear,
a
little
quick
review
of
the
timeline
in
regards
to
these
the
regulatory
workshops.
First
and
foremost,
we
noticed
the
workshops
on
december
22nd
of
2021.
The
statute
requires
15
days.
Prior
to
a
workshop.
We
gave
30.
the
idea
being
that
december
22nd.
M
You
know
we
didn't
want
people
to
miss
the
the
opportunity
to
provide
public
comment
over
the
holidays,
so
we
extended
it
out
30
days
so
that
the
workshops
that
came
up
in
mid-january
again
were
30
days
approximately
out
from
the
initial
notice.
We
also
split
the
regulations
into
three
different
groups
so
that
each
day
we
talk
between
eight
and
twelve
regulations,
again
the
idea
being
that
I
think
grand
total
was
somewhere
about
260
pages.
That's
a
lot
to
digest.
M
I
didn't
want
to
try
to
force
individuals
to
either
hurry
their
comment
or
be
unable
to
provide
feedback
on
these
regulations,
so
we
had
them
over
a
series
of
three
days.
The
notices
for
the
adoption
hearings
went
out
on
december
30th
again,
and
that
was
for
for
early
february
and
then
late
february.
M
For
the
last
adoption
hearing
following
those
adoption
hearings
and
they
were
conducted
in
accordance
with
open
meeting
law,
but
we
had
extensive
discussions
prior
to
those
with
the
office
of
the
attorney
general
to
make
sure
that
we
were
in
compliance.
We
read
into
the
record
those
exact
changes
when
we
provided
the
the
information
over
to
lcb,
they
did
post
it
on
a
the
website,
as
required.
I'm
not
exactly
certain
about
the
specific
date.
N
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
asher,
killian
chief
deputy
legislative
council.
Looking
at
the
register
on
the
legislative
website,
it
looks
like
the
adopted
version
of
this
regulation
was
posted
on
february
22nd,
which
would
have
been
last
tuesday,
which
I
believe
aligns
with
what
mr
mr
walashian
mentioned.
N
Hey
thank
you,
so
I
didn't
hear
in
any
of
that
that
that
anything
was
changed
from
the
time
that
it
was
approved
and
sent
to
us.
Is
that
correct.
M
Yes,
senator
mark
washington
for
the
record.
Nothing
changed
following
the
adoption
hearings
until
today.
That's
correct
great.
H
H
Elcb
then
puts
them
together
and
then
puts
them
up
as
approved
regulations
for
the
general
public
to
review.
Am
I
not
correct,
and
this
is
just
a
common
process
for
all
departments,
not
just
the
secretary
of
state
but
whether
it's
epa,
whether
it's
the
board
of
wildlife
and
frankly,
there
is
some
discussion
that
maybe
in
the
future,
we
need
to
figure
a
way
to
get
these
changes
out
to
the
general
public
to
be
able
to
review
even
legislators
a
little
center
review,
not
saying
that
I'll.
H
E
Mr
chair
usher,
killian
chief
debbie
legislative
counsel.
That
is
correct
for
all
regulations.
The
legislative
council
is
required
by
law
to
post
them
to
the
register,
basically
as
soon
as
we
receive
them.
So
this
is
a
common
process
for
all
regs
that
they
get
posted
publicly
on
the
lcd
website.
H
Thank
you
with
that.
I
had
a
question
on
the
regulation
if
allowed.
Mr
chairman,
please
my
question
that
comes
is
when
we're
talking
about
the
electronic
system.
This
would
expand
because,
currently
right
now,
the
electronic
system
is
really
limited
to
those
individuals
and
spouses
that
are
serving
overseas
or
in
very
unique
circumstances
where
these
individuals
have
been
asked
to
be
put
in
harm's
way
to
defend
our
freedoms,
and
I
believe
that
is
really
the
limitation
within
that
electronic
system.
But
this
would
correct
this
would
expand
it
to.
Basically
anybody
who
could
meet
that
criteria.
M
Yes,
senator
mark
watson
for
the
record
that
is
correct.
Assembly
bill
121
did
expand
the
the
usage
of
ease
from
our
service
members
and
overseas
citizens,
which
number
approximately
between
10
and
12
000,
to
a
significant
number
more
when
including
members
of
the
disabled
community.
M
Senator
they
they're
required
to
sign
an
affidavit
swearing
under
penalty
of
perjury
that
this
system
does
apply
to
them
and
they
do
meet
the
requirements,
but
but
there's
no
expectation
that
we
are
going
to
receive
or
act
as
a
gatekeeper.
Certainly
we
don't
have
the
statutory
authority
to
act
as
a
gatekeeper
for
individuals.
Otherwise,
that
is
correct.
I.
H
F
So
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
the
concept
usually
is
we
get
the
regulation
after
the
agency
has
had
a
public
meeting,
but
we're
we're
told
that
that
may
not
be
the
case,
and
so
we
get
the
regulation
first,
we
say:
that's
good
goes
back
the
agency,
they
say
it's
okay
and
then
it
becomes
effective
immediately.
So
there
there's
two
ways:
we
get
the
regulation,
one
is
after
the
agency
and
one
is
before
the
agency.
E
E
The
initial
step
is
that
the
agency
submits
their
proposed
language
to
the
legislative
council.
We
then
review
and
revise
it
as
necessary
within
30
days
and
send
it
back
to
the
agency
as
a
proposed
version
of
the
regulation.
After
the
agency
receives
the
proposed
version
of
the
regulation.
The
normal
process
is,
they
then
hold
their
their
workshop
in
public
hearing,
adopt
the
regulation
and
then
inform
the
legislative
council
that
the
regulation
has
been
adopted
and
send
us
back
the
adopted
version.
E
We
make
any
final
revisions
necessary
for
technical
reasons,
and
it's
then
submitted
to
the
legislative
commission
or
the
subcommittee
to
review
regs
for
approval.
E
There
is
one
twist
to
that
process,
which
is
that
an
agency
can
submit
a
regulation
to
the
legislative
commission
for
early
review,
in
which
case
the
first
steps
are
the
same.
The
agency
submits
the
initial
version
of
the
legislative
council.
We
revise
and
send
it
back
as
a
proposed
version,
but
instead
of
the
agency
adopting
first
and
then
coming
to
the
legislative
commission
for
approval,
the
legislative
committee
version
of
it
first
and
if
slated
commissioner
approved
the
agency,
then
adopts
it
in
identical
form.
It
becomes
effective
immediately.
Adoption,
that's
unusual.
E
A
You
mentioned
that
this
regulation
comes
out
of
assembly,
bill
121,
and
I
had
a
chance
to
go
back
and
look
at
that
assembly
bill
and
that
assembly
bill
does
indeed
tell
the
secretary
of
state
that
a
person
with
a
disability
shall
be
authorized
to
use
this
electronic
transmission
system
that
was
established
pursuant
to
nrs,
293
d-200,
and
you
know
I'll
just
this
is
michael
also
note
for
the
record
that
this
was
a
bill
that
was
supported
in
a
bipartisan
fashion,
including
21-0
in
the
senate
side.
So
I
just
wanted
to
get
confirmation
like
this.
A
Wasn't
the
secretary
of
state
saying
we
think
folks
with
disabilities
should
be
able
to
use
the
system.
This
was
the
dually
elected
legislature
approving
in
a
bipartisan
fashion
that
persons
with
disabilities
should
be
able
to
use
the
already
existing
electronic
system
that
is
used
by
members
of
the
military
who
are
serving
overseas.
M
Yes,
chair
mark
velasquez
for
the
record
that
is
correct.
A
C
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
say
you
know.
C
Want
to
say,
look
I
I
remember
I
look.
I
supported
this
121
during
the
session
and
I
can
remember.
A
C
A
There's
no
concern
for
me
that
it
won't
be
safe
used
by
disabled
folks,
so
I'll
be
supporting
it.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Assemblyman
roberts.
I
think
I
saw
assemblywoman
dickman
with
the
hand
up.
Please
go
ahead.
K
Yeah
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
I
understand
why
we're
doing
this
reg
I
I
just
wish
there
was
more
protections
in
it
and
more
requirements
to
show
that
one
is
disabled,
and
so
that's
the
reason
I
will
be
a
no
thank
you.
A
A
Okay
and
then
let's
go
ahead
and
all
of
those
opposed
please
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hands,
so
I
have
just
for
the
records
clear,
assemblywoman,
dickman,
senator
settlemeyer,
assemblywoman
krasner.
I
think
that's
everybody,
so
the
motion
does
carry
by
a
count
of
nine
to
three.
If
my
math
is
correct,
I
think
it
is
so.
The
regulation
is
approved
that
was
r081-21
moving
right
along
we'll
take
the
next
one
that
we
hold
in
that
r083-21.
A
H
Hey,
mr
chairman,
specifically
on
r8321,
I
very
approving
of
the
change
that
was
done
to
require
that
two
individuals
you
know
because
currently
right
now
you
know
three
people
put
forth
the
name
on
a
recall
petition
and
now,
instead
of
just
letting
one
person,
you
know,
pull
it
back,
it's
going
to
require
two,
so
I'm
very
approving
of
that
regula
of
that
part
of
it.
However,
I
think
it
needs
a
little
bit
more
detail
because,
as
I'm
reading
it
currently
there's
no
time
frames
on
this.
There's
no
dates
of
withdrawals.
H
There's
no
issues
or
discussion
on
that
and
to
me
once
someone
goes
through
the
process
of
recalling
of
trying
to
recall
someone,
then
once
those
signatures
are
submitted,
I
don't
believe
that
a
person
should
have
the
ability
to
withdraw
it
anymore.
I
think
it
kind
of
becomes
the
ownership
of
the
government
entity
that
is
conducting
said
recall
whether
that's
a
county
com.
You
know
one
county
or
if
it's
you
know
an
assembly
person
multi-county
and
I'm
kind
of
bothered
by
that.
H
Unless
somebody
can
point
to
me
somewhere
that
there's
a
nac
or
something
on
point
that
you
know
you
can't
be
the
day
of
the
you
know
before
we
announce
the
results
the
day
before
the
election
and
all
of
a
sudden,
you
just
go
get
two
of
these
three
people
to
agree
that
you
know
what
I've
changed
the
mind
for
whatever
reason
and
this
election,
that
everybody's
gonna
take
and
think
it's
gonna
be
an
effect
won't
actually
be
in
effect,
because
you
know
what
I
got
these
two
to
pull
it
back,
and
so
I'm
just
trying
to
get
clarification
on
that,
and
if
there
is
no
clarification,
it's
my
opinion.
H
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
mark
velashin
for
the
record.
You
are
right
that
there
is
no
timeline
defined
in
nrs
306
or
in
the
regulations
in
nac306.
That
specifically
explains
the
the
timing
process
for
withdrawals.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
That's
the
only
question
ahead.
I
appreciate
the
answer.
I
just
see
that
as
a
an
oversight
that
should
be
corrected
before
a
regulation.
This
matter
is
approved
because
that
to
me
is
a
big
issue.
It
could
be
the
day
of
an
election
and
people
think
they're
going
out
to
get
rid
of
or
to
retain
so
and
so,
and
I
often
they
get
to
the
ballot
saying.
Oh
well,
you
know.
Actually
it
didn't
count,
because
these
two
individuals
overtook
the
vote
of
the
rest
of
the
constituents
and
that
that
just
bothers
me.
F
And
maybe
ashford
can
answer
this
or
mr
velasco?
What
is
the
situation
now?
Can
two
people
can
one?
Can
one
person
stop
the
recall?
What
is
the
situation
now
that
we're
trying
to
solve
in
this
regulation.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
mark
lashon
for
the
record,
currently
again,
there's
no
guidance
outside
of
what
this
regulation
proposes.
So
it
could
be
possible
that
one
individual
out
of
three
submits
a
request
for
a
withdrawal
and
and
withdraws
and
essentially
ends
a
recall
petition.
This
this
clarifies
so
that
again,
if
three
individuals
are
on
the
notice
of
intent,
it
would
require
at
least
two
of
them
to
to
withdraw
that
petition
for
recall.
F
And
so
this
would
allow
for
a
little
bit
more
as
to
now
as
far
as
timeline,
let
me
ask
that
this
way
the
recall
usually
takes
a
vote
vote
of
the
people,
and
so
in
essence,
there
is
a
virtual.
F
M
Senator
thank
you
for
the
question
mark
velasco
to
the
record.
Again
there
are
timelines
relating
to
how
long
an
individual
has
to
gather
signatures,
but
but
ultimately,
and
also
when
the
petition
can
be
filed
in
the
first
place,
but
ultimately
again,
it's
not
laid
out
specifically
in
regards
to
the
withdrawal
timeline.
So
the
the
petition
process
for
a
recall
overall
is
defined,
but
just
there's
no
wording
regards
specifically
regarding
the
withdrawal
process.
F
M
So
right
now,
sir
again
mark
philosoph
of
the
record
as
soon
as
these
signatures
are
submitted
for
review,
that
that
eliminates
the
that
really
starts
the
ball
rolling,
so
to
speak
for
the
rest
of
that
recall
procedure,
but
again
it's
not
defined.
You
know
where
you
know
necessarily
at
what
point
outside
of
that.
You
know,
but
someone
could
withdraw
it.
Otherwise,
if
that
makes
sense.
F
So
I
guess
to
senator
settlemyre's
point
two
people
now,
instead
of
one
person,
could
stop
a
recall
at
any
point
without
having
any
all
of
those
people
who
have
signatures
having
to
say
in
it.
A
Well,
let
me
ask
a
question,
because
I
I'm
not
understanding
it's
the
same
way
that
that
I
think
senator
hardy
and
settlemeyer.
The
way
that
I
read
this
proposed
regulation
is
that
we
are
talking
about
before
the
petition
is
submitted
for
verifying
of
the
signatures,
so
we're
not
talking
about
an
election,
we're
at
the
point
where
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
mr
velasquez,
I
think
we're
at
the
point
where
a
petition
has
been
distributed
for
signatures
and
those
signatures
have
not
yet
been
verified,
so
we're
not
at
the
election
stage.
A
Yet
that's
when
somebody
can
comment.
If
you
look
at
section
one
subsection,
one
of
the
regulation,
it
says
a
petition
to
recall
may
be
withdrawn
if
these
two
things
are,
and
so
first
of
all,
you
need
to
vote
or
two
signatories,
and
then
the
second
part
of
that
is.
It
has
to
be
submitted
before
the
petition
before
the
signature
verification
happens.
So
I
don't
read
this
as
saying
we're
going
to
be
on
the
even
election
and
it's
going
to
be
withdrawn,
because
at
that
point,
signature
verification
has
already
already
happened.
A
M
Yes
jared,
I
apologize
for
not
being
more
clear,
mark
velasquez
article,
two
section:
nine
of
the
constitution.
Our
state
constitution
defines
the
recall
process
with
with
nrs
306,
providing
a
little
more
clarity
and
you're
right
it's
before
the
signature
verification
process.
So
this
is
still
again
prior
to
that
that
important
step.
H
That
being
said,
as
long
as
it
is
once
the
signatures
are
submitted
that
it's
on
autopilot
that
then
it's
in
the
hands
of
the
body
to
follow
the
process.
Then
I
am
far
more
comfortable
with
that,
because
that's
the
way
it
should
be
once
signatures
are
submitted
and
accepted
by
the
citizens
of
the
state
of
nevada.
It
should
be
on
autopilot
and
not
be
capable
of
being
withdrawn.
A
That's
the
way
I
read
it,
I
would
think
the
only
way
you
could
withdraw
at
that
point
would
be
through
litigation,
but
in
terms
of
this
regulation,
if
the
if
this
petition
has
already
been
submitted
with
the
signatures,
it's
too
late
at
that
point
to
withdraw
no
matter
how
many
people
come
forward
and
say
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
be
on
this
anymore.
A
H
A
Great
and
just
want
to
remind
commission
members
last
name
is
only
police.
I
know
we
know
each
other
here
very
well,
but
if
we
could
remember
to
use
last
names
and
legislative
hearings
would
appreciate
that
senator
mayor
I'll
see
if
there's
any
other
questions
before
I
have
you
make
a
motion
any
other
questions
on
this
regulation.
H
A
A
I
see
12
for
12,
I
believe
so
that
regulation
our
83-21
is
approved
unanimously.
That'll
take
us
to
the
next
one
on
the
agenda,
which
is
r087
dash
21..
This
is
regulation.
Revising
provisions
relating
to
legal
holidays
who
would
like
to
have
that
was
the
one
who.
H
Would
answer
which
one
to
be
pulled
in
that
respect?
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
get
it
on
the
record
that
this
only
pertains
to
legal
holidays
that
are
paid
time
off
I'd
hate
to
see
a
situation
where
someone
creates
some
nefarious
days
just
to
extend
out
the
procedure.
So
I
just
want
it's
on
the
record
that
this
is
only
for
legal
holidays.
You
know
paid
days
off
that
have
been
recognized
by
the
legislature
and
or
the
federal
government.
That's
my
point
of
clarification.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
mark
velasco
for
the
record,
that
is
correct.
Nrs
236.015
defines
those
legal
holidays,
so
it's
only
those
legal
holidays
relating
specifically
defined
in
that
nrs
that
this
applies
to.
A
A
A
H
Chairman,
I
just
you
know,
I'm
not
a
real
big
fan,
as
you
probably
know,
of
this
concept
of
mailing
everybody
about,
and
I'd
actually
prefer
to
leave
this
language
in
place
so
that
hopefully
someday
we
can
go
back
to
the
absentee
ballot
discussion
because,
frankly,
I
think
that
the
concept
of
making
sure
that
people
request
nasa
to
bout
and
sending
it
in
is
the
right
way
to
do
it
versus
what
we're
going
to
so.
For
that
reason
alone,
I'm
opposing
it.
H
A
Thank
you
senator.
I
didn't
necessarily
hear
a
question
there,
but
I
think
we
got
a
statement
of
where
you're
going
to
be
on
the
vote.
Are
there
other
any
other
members
that
have
questions
for
mr
velasco
on
this
regulation?.
A
Okay
and
then
anyone
opposed
please
raise
your
hand
as
well.
So
just
so,
the
record
is
clear,
looks
like
we
have
opposition
from
senator
settlemeyer
senator
hardy
assemblyman
dickman
assemblyman
roberts,
assuming
women,
presner
and
senator
hammond,
so
that
results
in
a
six
six
vote,
and
that
means
the
regulation
is
not
approved
so
that
motion
fails.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I'm
just
wondering
why
there
are
no
provisions
in
this
for.
K
Observation
of
duplication
of
ballots,
because
at
that
point,
isn't
the
the
ver
the
thing
that
would
you
know
the
envelope
that
which
would
you'd
know
who
this
vote
belonged
to.
It's
separated
from
the
ballot
right
and
then
also.
Why
is
there
no
provision
for
observing
verification
of
signatures.
M
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman.
So
two
questions.
First,
one
regards
to
no
provisions
relating
to
the
observation,
duplication
and
then
the
second
part,
no
provisions
for
the
observation
of
signature,
verification
again
to
clarify
ma'am.
This
regulation,
as
part
of
our
holistic
review,
was
again
a
measured
step
forward,
there's
a
great
number
of
things
that,
frankly,
the
clerks,
the
secretary
of
state
and
the
public
all
kind
of
want.
M
At
the
same
time,
increased
transparency
is
certainly
one
of
those
that's
very
near
and
dear
to
everyone's
hearts,
while
there's
no
specific
precision
provision
calling
out
the
requirement
for
observation
of
duplication,
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
can't
be
done.
This
is
something
that,
as
we
looked
at
this
proposed
regulation,
as
we
discussed
it
with
the
the
clerks
and
this
their
staffs
again
we're
taking
a
measured
step
forward
with
the
idea
being
that
there
was
a
number
of
changes
to
how
our
elections
were
run.
M
That
came
out
of
the
2021
legislative
session.
We
didn't
want
to
overburden
the
clerks
and
their
staffs
by
by
mandating
certain
things
that
may
overwhelm
or
frankly,
swamp
the
clerks
and
registrars
and
their
staffs.
So
this
this
is
a
measured
step
forward
again,
the
clerks
want
transparency.
M
They
want
observation
to
occur
following
a
review
of
the
2022
election
cycle,
we're
going
to
conduct
another
regulatory
review
of
all
of
our
regulations
to
see
even
these
that
were
passed
today
to
see
if
there's
ways
that
we
can
improve
upon
them
and
continue
to
increase
transparency
for
the
public
going
forward,
but
to
mandate
and
require
observation
of
specific
things,
including
duplication
of
ballots
and
signature
verification
without
having
the
opportunity
to
really
assess
you
know
where
we're
at
as
election
officials
across
the
state.
It
just
didn't
seem
prudent.
M
So
this
is
again
a
measured
first
step
with
an
understanding
that
going
forward.
We
are
going
to
continue
to
endeavor
for
increased
transparency
in
these
regulations.
K
It
just
seems
to
me
that
you
know
that
if
the
clerk
makes
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
there's
ambiguity
and
this
ballot
can
be
duplicated,
someone
should
be
able
to
observe
that
a
bipartisan
team.
So
therefore
I
will
have
to
be
opposed.
Thank
you.
H
A
That
we
were
on
90.
yeah
senator
this
is,
I
think
you
skipped
a
head
one,
we're
on
r090-21,
so
93.
A
It's
okay:
we
have.
We
have
a
lot
going
on
today,
so
no
worries
at
all
any
other
questions
from
commission
members
on
this
particular
regulation.
Senator
hardy,
please.
F
Thank
you,
mr
church,
so
how?
How
is
the
ballot
reviewed
by
people
who
say
there's
a
problem
with
it?
So
how
is
it
reviewed?
Is
it
reviewed
by
two
people
or
is
it
reviewed
by
a
machine?
How
is
it
reviewed.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
mark
colossians
for
the
record.
So
when
it
comes
to
the
the
ballot
duplication
process,
it
is
a
bipartisan
team.
That
is
the
goal.
In
some
cases,
though,
the
clerks
and
registrars
may
do
it
themselves,
given
the
staff,
workloads
and
timing.
But
that
is
something
that
yes
is
the
utmost
importance
that
we
have
a
ideally
a
bipartisan
team.
M
Some
of
the
proposed
feedback
in
regards
to
this
reg
called
for
a
mandated
tripartism
team,
with
a
possibility
of
it
and
adding
possibly
a
democrat
or
republican.
Maybe
an
independent
or
a
minor
party
as
well,
but
but
as
it
currently
exists
again,
bipartisan
as
practical
is
what's
required.
M
So
senator
mark
washington
for
the
record.
It
is
secret
specifically
in
that
the
by
the
point
it
goes
to
ballot
duplication.
The
envelope
has
been
separated
from
the
ballot
itself
and
those
individuals
that
are
duplicating
the
ballot
do
not
see
the
name
on
the
envelope,
so
they
they
see
a
ballot.
The
duplication
boards
oftentimes
address
ballots
that
have
food
on
them
or
maybe
have
been
torn
somehow
or
coffee
stains.
M
A
Thank
you
senator
hardy.
Let
me
see
if
anyone
else
has
a
question
on
this
one.
First,
before
we
take
a
motion,
any
commission
members,
I
don't
see
any
hands
up
so
senator
hardy.
I
think
it's
time
for
a
motion
so
moved.
We
have
a
second,
the
second,
only
one.
How
did
he
has
her
hand
up
so
we'll
give
her
the
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
A
I
don't
know
if
my
math
is
good,
either
nine
to
three
or
eight
to
four.
I
can't
remember
one
of
those
two.
It
carries
regardless,
okay,
so
that
will
take
us
to
the
next
one,
and
this
is
the
one
senator
satellite
referenced
in
his
last
comment.
So
this
is
r093-21
secretary
of
state
regulation,
establishing
provisions
relating
to
ballot
boxes
and
election
yearing.
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
on
this
particular
regulation.
I
had
some
current
concerns
with
section
8
sub
2
and
section
17
sub
2.
First
of
all,
I
have
heard
from
hundreds
of
people.
L
They
have
a
large
concern
regarding
the
term
persons
they
do
not
to
like
that
term
persons
in
there
they
want
it
to
say
citizens,
they
believe,
and
as
do
I,
that
only
citizens
have
the
right
to
vote,
and
so
I
I
don't
like
the
fact
that
it
says
persons.
L
Second
of
all,
in
section
eight
sub,
two
and
section
17
sub
two.
It
says
the
retrieval
team.
This
is
the
retrieval
team,
picking
up
the
ballot
box
that
it
should
be
composed,
if
practicable
by
two
members
of
the
election
board,
who
are
different
political
parties,
it
should
be
mandatory.
L
It
should
be
mandatory
that
they
are
of
two
different
political
parties
because
of
election
integrity
issues.
So
I
I
have
some
concerns
with
that.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you
for
the
questions
assembly
woman
mark
velasco
for
the
record
first
to
address
the
comments
regarding
persons
versus
citizens.
That
was
a
comment
we
received
frequently
as
well.
Throughout
the
workshops
and
adoption
hearings
upon
further
discussion.
We
realized
that,
for
example,
nac
293
has
190
instances
of
the
word
person,
but,
but
not
all
of
those
frankly
are
required
to
be
citizens
in
some
cases.
For
example,
observation
there's
no
requirement
to
be
a
citizen
or
even
a
resident
of
the
state.
M
In
fact,
we
have
international
observers,
you
know
other
folks,
maybe
aren't
qualified
are
eligible
to
vote
high
school
students
and
the
like
who
are
interested
in
observing
our
process.
Instead
of
going
through
these
specific
proposed
regulations
in
finding
and
replacing
or
at
least
proposing
the
word,
persons
with
citizens,
we've
decided
to
consider
that
going
forward
for
our
future
regulatory
reviews
so
that
we
can
do
it
holistically.
M
We
can
look
at
all
of
the
regulations
relating
to
title
24
identify
again
really
if
it's
practical
to
put
a
citizen
in
certain
cases
or
person
and
others
or
to
see
if
there's
another
means
by
which
we
can
define
that
elsewhere.
M
So
that
way,
again,
it's
uniform
and
across
the
board
for
all
regulations,
and
not
just
the
these
specific
proposed
regulations
that,
frankly,
only
touch
on
on
portions
of
the
entirety
of
our
regulations
related
to
title
24.
and
then
in
regards
to
the
ballot
collection
teams.
M
The
comment,
if
practicable,
simply
identifies
and
addresses
the
fact
that
we
have
counties
where
there
are
large
majorities
of
only
one
party
and
while
the
clerks
and
registrars
collectively
are
very
eager
to
involve
everyone
in
the
process
to
the
fullest
extent
possible
and
recognize
the
importance
of
bipartisanship
and
that
the
election
integrity
of
having
bipartisan
or
even
tripartisan
teams
involved
in
these
processes.
M
I
guess
the
alternative
if
we
mandated
bipartisanship
but
but
we're
unable
to
find
people
of
multiple
parties,
would
it
just
not
happen
and
then
that's
something
that
we
are
going
to
to
critically
analyze
going
into
this
22
election
cycle
to
try
to
identify.
You
know.
How
can
we
continue
to
improve
upon
this?
So
I
understand
your
concerns.
M
I
do
appreciate
them
and
I
do
recognize
that
there
were
a
great
number
of
people
that
provided
that
that
same
feedback
to
us
as
well,
but
but
again
in
in
an
effort
to
to
not
hamstring
our
clerks
and
registrars
in
the
execution
of
their
duties.
That
that's
something
we're
going
to
take
into
consideration
and
analyze.
Going
into
this
election
cycle.
A
H
Hey
mr
sherman,
I
was
curious
if
we
don't
pass
this
regulation
today,
there's
really
not
enough
time
to
get
it
back
for
changes
and
stuff
before
the
primary.
So
in
that
respect,
if
we
do
not
pass
this
out
in
a
situation,
then
where
all
17
counties
can
have
their
own
set
of
rules-
and
that
means
there
is
no
one-
that's
required
to
actually
go
out
with
a
ballot
or
treatable
person,
and
so
I
don't
know
I'm
kind
of
leaning
towards
the
idea
of
at
least
having
two
people
of
different.
You
know.
H
M
Senator
thank
you
for
the
question
mark
lawson
for
the
record.
Without
this
regulation
being
passed,
there
would
be
the
possibility
of
less
consistency
that
we
have
some
ideas
on
how
we
can
try
to
help
facilitate
that
and
recognizing
the
importance
of
equal
protection
under
the
law
when
it
comes
to
our
voting
rights.
But
but
yes,
sir,
less
guidance,
I've
found
doesn't
seem
to
support
more
effective
election
processes.
That
makes
sense.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
I
am
just
going
to
clarify.
When
you
say
person,
you
actually
mean
natural
person
in
the
verbiage
of
the
law,
as
opposed
to
a
person
who
is
a
company
or
a
entity,
that's
a
business.
So
when
we
use
person
in
the
law
we
talk
about
a
organization
or
an
entity
that
is
more
than
just
one
single
person.
So
when
we
say
a
person,
I
think
you
mean
a
natural
person
as
opposed
to
a
person
that
includes
a
construction
company
or
some
other
entity.
Is
that
correct.
M
Yes,
senator
mark
lost
the
director.
That
is
correct.
F
A
Right,
I
don't
see
any
hands
up,
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
assemblywoman.
How
did
he
give
me
first
I'll
give
assemblywoman
the
royal
moreno
the
second,
because
I
don't
think
we've
given
you
a
second
yet
today
any
discussion
on
the
motion
hold
on.
I
gotta
go
back
to
my
view.
A
A
all
right,
moving
right
along
take
a
deep
breath.
Folks,
I
think
we're
about
halfway
through
all
these.
I
want
to
go
next
to
r096-21
secretary
of
state
regulation,
establishing
provisions
relating
to
boards
and,
I
think
assemblywoman
dickman
did
you
have
a
question
on
this
one,
or
was
it
somebody
else.
K
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
mark
velasquez
for
the
record
just
to
clarify
again,
there
is
certainly
a
desire
and
a
plan
to
continue
increasing
the
detail
and
scope
of
these
regulations.
But
but
really
the
bottom
line
is
that
recognizing
that
the
changes
in
the
laws
and
the
responsibilities
that
the
clerks
and
registrars
and
their
staffs
have
going
into
this
election
cycle,
it
was
determined
to
be
to
make
a
prudent,
measured
first
step
with
the
expectation
in
future
regulatory
review
cycles.
M
We
would
again
re-examine
what
we
could
improve
upon
and
I
do
want
to
state
for
the
record
as
well.
To
be
clear.
I
I
don't
mean
regulatory
reviews
is
required
by
law
under
nrs
233b,
with
the
with
it
states.
It's
got
to
be
once
every
10
years.
I
don't
mean
in
you
know,
2032
we'll
have
for
future
discussions
again.
We
recognize
these
regulations
need
to
be
updated
and
reviewed
for
again
ways.
M
We
can
improve
them,
wait
you
know
to
identify
what
we're
getting
right,
what
what
possibly
needs
to
be
clarified,
and
so,
therefore,
it's
going
to
be
a
biennial
review
that
we're
planning
going
forward.
A
Suddenly
a
woman
how
to
get
with
emotion,
we'll
give
senator
dennis
the
second.
On
that
one.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Okay,
I
don't
see
discussion
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
Please
raise
your
hand
and
then
anyone
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand
just
so.
The
record
is
clear:
we
have
no
votes
from
assemblywoman,
krasner
and
assemblywoman
dickman.
A
H
I
believe
it
was
some
of
them
in
dickman
who
had
some
concerns.
I
had
some
issues
with
the
deletion
of
the
felon
voting
rights,
but
it's
interesting
that
actually
very
few
people
were
objecting
to
taking
that
out
of
rules,
but
I
believe
miss
dickman
had
some
questions.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
senator
sotomayor
somebody,
one
medicamen
will
go
to
you.
Then.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
only
issue
on
this
one
is
all
these
things
that
that
that
they
need
to
do
that.
The
poll
workers
need
to
do
at
the
end
of
the
day
that
they
have
to
report
to
the
secretary
of
state,
but
I
don't
see
anywhere
where
it
has
to
be
released
to
the
public.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly
woman
mark
velasco
for
the
record
so
again
that
this
is
that's
one
of
the
other
things
quite
frankly
that
we've
been
talking
about
and
are
really
interested
in,
trying
to
increase
specifically
relating
to
public
transparency,
but
again
to
have
it
as
a
measured
step
that
there's
frankly,
two
of
our
counties
that
would
likely
be
able
to
meet
that
sort
of
requirement
and
mandated
every
day
that
something
is
provided.
It
would
be
published
to
the
public.
M
But
again
you
know
we
want
to
see
if
it's
possible
going
forward
so
that
all
17
counties
can
uniformly.
You
know,
compile
information
and
again,
there's
just
so
many
unknowns
about
how
this
election
cycle
is
going
to
go
in
regards
to
everything
from
staffing
goals
poll
worker
requirements.
M
The
number
of
folks,
for
example,
that
may
use
the
e-system
there's
a
manpower
requirement
for
that
as
well
to
address
those
and
keep
them
secure
and
to
go
through
that
process
properly.
So
this
is
something
that
again,
as
we
look
at,
we
suspect
in
future
regulatory
reviews
we're
going
to
increase
somehow
the
transmission,
certainly
once
we're
a
top-down
system.
Some
of
those
other
reporting
requirements
will
become
a
little
more
streamlined
as
well
will
be
more
available
to
the
public.
M
So
to
answer
your
question
directly
as
it
stands,
we're
going
to
attempt
to
to
really
provide
that
information
to
the
public.
Certainly
it'll
be
available
upon
request,
but
going
forward.
The
goal
is
to
make
that
that
sort
of
really
all
information
relating
anything
that
the
secretary
of
state
receives
we'll
be
organized.
M
You
know
again
one
to
17
counties
so
that
everyone
is
able
to
view
it
in
a
consistent
manner
going
forward,
but
soon,
but
not
yet.
K
M
Senator
thank
you
for
the
question
mark
lost
into
the
record
adversely.
Does
this
propose
regulation
adversity
affect
same-day
voting
or
registration.
M
No
senator,
I
do
not
believe
it
does,
nor
did
we
hear
or
receive
feedback
relating
specifically
to
that.
A
And
mr
velasquez,
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
clarify
something
you
said
initially
when
you
were
answering
the
question
from
assemblywoman
dickman.
A
If
I
heard
you
correctly,
I
think
the
the
objective
would
be
at
some
point
to
have
it's
a
real-time
reporting
from
the
counties,
but
it
sounded
like
from
the
secretary
of
state's
position,
obviously
as
the
entity
responsible
for
conducting
elections
in
conjunction
with
their
17
county
clerks,
that
you
felt
like
imposing
that
real-time
daily
reporting
requirement
might
not
be
feasible,
I'm
assuming
particularly
for
some
of
our
smaller
counties,
given
lack
of
resources
and
personnel
today.
Did
I
hear
that
correctly.
M
Yes,
chair,
thank
you
for
for
clarifying
and
I
do
apologize
for
not
being
more
succinct
and
clear.
My
answer.
That's
exactly
right,
though
some
counties
could
but
but
not
all
and
again
the
goal
isn't
to
to
pick
and
choose
but
to
have
uniform
information
available
to
the
public.
So
you're,
exactly
right
with
the
resource
concerns.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
No,
I
think
you
did
a
good
job
answering
it,
but
it's
it's
monday
and
it's
three
o'clock,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
I
had
it
right
all
right,
additional
questions.
Commission
members
on
this
particular
regulation,
assemblywoman
dickman,
please.
K
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman,
so
some
information
is
still
required
to
be
posted,
and
this
again
really
just
provides
clarity
there.
There
are
still
a
number
of
requirements
for
the
clerks
and
registrars
to
post
certain
information
in
those
vote.
Centers,
yes,
ma'am.
This
merely
adds
to
and
kind
of
clarifies
some
of
that
relationship.
A
You're
welcome
additional
questions
for
mr
velasquez
who's
been
on
the
hot
seat
for
quite
a
while
a
little
bit
more
to
go.
Okay,
I
don't
see
additional
questions,
so
would
look
for
a
motion
to
approve.
A
A
C
Sorry,
I
so
on
this
one
I
just
wanted
some
clarification.
H
Under
under
the
current
rules,
clerks
have
the
ability.
C
To
for
the
discretion
to
remove
people
from
the
polling
place,
this
basically
just
gives
some
specific
instances
as
long
as
it's
involving
public
safety
or
confidentiality,
correct.
M
I
thank
you
for
the
question
something
man
yeah.
Yes,
that
is
correct,
again,
increased
clarity
on
what
means
observation
is.
C
And
then
so
they
would
so
they
would
have
to
they
couldn't
just
arbitrarily
reduce
the
number
of
observers.
There's
got
to
be
something
that
triggers
it
and
reach
one
of
these
instances,
and
it
has
to
be
within
the
scope
of
this
language.
M
It
frankly
would
just
again
go
back
to
the
status
quo
again,
which
is
slightly
less
clear
for
the
public
on
what
exactly
those
requirements
are,
but
ultimately
again
would
still
default
to
the
clerks
and
registrar's
ability
to
maintain
good
order
and
discipline.
Frankly,
at
their
polling
sites.
C
K
Thanks
chair
so
yeah,
I
can
see
where
you're
trying
to
move
in
a
direction
where
there
is
more
direction,
but
I
don't
think
this
went
very
far
in
doing
that.
So
here's
a
question:
what's
the
issue
with
the
public
hearing
conversations
between
election
board
officers?
Aren't
they
public
servants
who
are
doing
a
public
job.
M
I
thank
you
for
the
question
of
something
woman.
There,
frankly,
is
nothing
wrong
with
it.
This
this
regulation
simply
doesn't
mandate
that
an
individual
is
allowed
to
to
hear
every
conversation.
M
If
they
do
and
can
they
certainly
that
there
will
be
opportunities
and
certainly
discussions
that
they'll
be
able
to
be
privy
to,
but
but
this
simply
it
doesn't
go
as
far
as
having
enabling
a
member
of
the
public
to
say
I
want
to
be
able
to
hear
every
conversation
in
this
room.
I
need
to
be
able
to
go
over
and
stand
next
to
their
clerk
or
register
and
follow
them
around
throughout
the
course
of
the
day.
K
M
No
ma'am
looking
on
page
three
of
the
regulation
at
the
bottom
again,
it
defines
a
little
bit
more
clearly
what
east
law
observation
is,
and
it
just
simply
states
that
the
term
does
not
include
allowing
a
person
to
listen
to
any
conversation
between
election
official
election
board
officers
between
a
voter
and
election
board
officer.
So
again,
can
they
absolutely,
but
it
doesn't
mandate
or
require
that
that
is
an
option
if
that
makes
sense.
J
A
He
has
a
hand
up.
I
see
I'll,
give
assemblyman
roberts
the
second
on
that
one.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion:
okay,
seeing
no
discussion
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
raise
your
hand
and
all
those
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand,
so
we
have
opposition
nobles
from
assemblywoman
dickman
and
assemblywoman
krasner
swapped
swat
squares
on
my
screen.
I
don't
know
why
that
happens
sometimes,
but
the
vote
is
10
to
2
to
approve
the
regulation
and
therefore
regulation
098-21
has
been
approved.
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
I
did
have
a
question
here
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
appropriate
for
legal
or
or
who
might
want
to
answer
it.
But
as
I
look
at
this,
this
is
adding
additional
criteria.
It's
adding
an
additional
hurdle
to
challenge
the
right
of
a
person
who
may
who
is
thought
to
have
voted
fraudulently
so
previously.
L
Well,
I
mean
two
two
things
here
so
previously
it
was
just
if,
if
somebody
who's,
a
citizen
thought
that
somebody
else
was
not
a
citizen
and
voted
improperly,
they
had
to
have
their
the
person's
name
telephone
number.
L
But
here
now
it's
asking
and
not
just
personal
knowledge
of
the
facts,
not
just
a
sworn
affidavit
but-
and
they
also
must
have
a
documentation
of
evidence
supporting
the
fact
upon
which
each
ground
for
the
challenge
is
based.
So
that's
the
first
thing.
I'm
wondering
why
we
want
an
additional
hurdle
to
somebody
reporting,
someone
that
they
think
is
a
non-citizen
or
should
not
be
voting
voting.
That's
number
one
and
then
number
two
again
repeatedly.
I
see
a
person
voting
a
person
who's
being
challenged.
It
should
be
a
citizen.
L
I
I've
just
heard
from
hundreds
of
people
only
citizens
have
the
right
to
vote.
So
those
are
my
two
concerns,
but
the
the
question
is:
is
this
in
fact
adding
another
hurdle
for
a
person
to
to
to
to
basically
inform
that
there's
a
person
that
they
think
should
not
be
voting?
Who
is
voting?
Is
this
adding
another
hurdle
with
that
word
and.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman.
So
to
start
with
your
comment
regards
to
the
person
for
citizens,
as
I
mentioned
a
moment
ago,
we'll
reiterate
for
the
record
again.
That
is
something
we're
taking
into
consideration
going
forward
holistically,
though
not
just
viewing
at
piecemeal
and
these
specific
regulations,
but
but
really
considering
you
know
where,
which
which
situations,
where
person
or
citizen
that
does
make
sense
and
is
legally
clear,
so
that
will
be
coming
potentially
as
part
of
a
future
regulatory
review.
M
In
regards
to
your
question
about
adding
an
additional
hurdle
again
really
this
this
part
of
the
the
proposed
regulations
specifically
clarifying
that
we
request
documentation
or
evidence
supporting
the
facts
really
is
to
help
a
couple
different
situations.
This
will
help
enable
the
the
clerks
and
registrars
in
the
their
review
of
this
process,
the
county
and
city
district
attorneys
that
will
be
involved
in
these
processes
as
well
to
understand
the
nature
of
the
complaint
in
a
way
that
perhaps
in
years
past,
maybe
wasn't
quite
possible.
So
really
again.
M
This
is
just
to
ensure
that
we
are
not.
You
know
again
questioning
or
disenfranchising
any
voter
when,
when
really
again,
if
the
challenge
needs
to
go
through
and
if
it's
valid
and
we
have
the
evidence,
we're
able
to
identify
who
exactly
these
challenges
in
relation
to
they're
gonna,
there's
the
statutory
and
regulatory
process
that
will
be
executed,
but
but
the
additional
documentation
and
evidence
is
really
just
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
again
the
election
officials
across
the
states
better
understand.
You
know
the
nature
of
this
accusation.
L
Thank
you
for
that,
and
I
see
mr
killian
is
on,
but
but
what
I
do
see
is
I
believe
that
currently,
if
you
think
someone
who's
a
non-citizen
is
voting,
you
just
have
to
give
a
sworn
affidavit.
You
have
your
personal
knowledge
of
facts,
your
grounds
for
the
challenge
as
written
there,
but
now
we're
adding
and
so
we're
making
an
additional
criteria,
an
additional
hurdle
to
report
someone,
because
now
somebody's
going
to
have
to
give
documentation
and
supporting
evidence
to
prove
their
ground
for
the
challenge
of
this
person.
E
Mr
chair
asher,
killian,
chief
deputy
legislative
counsel,
so
to
address
both
of
the
questions.
First,
in
the
context
of
this
section,
I
believe
person
rather
than
citizen
would
be
the
appropriate
term,
because
it
is
a
son
whose
ability
to
vote
is
being
changed,
so
the
person
may
or
may
not
be
a
citizen.
E
For
the
first
question,
though,
the
the
and
looks
new,
because
the
section
was
restructured,
it
used
to
be
paragraphs,
and
now
it's
sub-paragraphs.
In
both
cases
this
was
an
an
inclusive
list.
Each
of
the
things
have
to
be
contained
in
the
challenge,
so
the
and
isn't
new.
It
just
appears
because
of
the
way
that
this
was
renumbered,
but
to
address
the
particular
question
about
whether
this
requires
an
additional
thing
to
be
submitted
that
wasn't
required
to
be
submitted
before
the
construction
of
the
new
subparagraph,
referring
to
any
documentation
or
evidence.
E
Supporting
the
effects
doesn't
require
that
there
be
documentation
or
evidence
it's
just
if
there
is
any
it
is
intended
to
be
included
in
this
challenge,
whereas
before
there
was
no
provision
that
allowed
for
that
documentation
or
evidence
to
be
submitted
with
the
challenge.
So
our
reading
of
this
would
be
that
it
isn't
imposing
a
new
requirement
that
you
cannot
submit
a
challenge
unless
it
has
documentation
or
evidence,
but
rather
that,
if
you
have
any,
it
can
be
included
with
the
challenge.
Whereas
before
there
is
no
mechanism
to
include
that
with
the
challenge.
L
Thank
you,
but
then
shouldn't
it
read
and-
or
I
know,
that's
just
a
legal
just
a
little
tiny
legal
thing,
but
I
believe
it
should
read
and
or
and
not
just
and
because
anne
would
be
also,
which
would
be
another
hurdle.
Another
requirement
for
somebody
to
report
somebody
who
they
feel
perhaps
is
a
non-citizen
and
they're
voting.
E
Mr
chair
usher,
killian
chief
deputy
legislative
council,
so
andorra
is
not
a
construction
that
we
use
with
an
nrs
or
nac.
In
this
case
the
and
followed
by
any
is
effectively
what's
doing
that
same
lift
the
any
means
that
this
provision
only
applies.
If
that
thing
exists,
if
there
is
not
documented
documentation
or
evidence,
then
there
wouldn't
be
any
documentation
or
evidence
to
submit.
L
I
understand
that,
but
I'm
looking
at
the
regulation
as
written
and
it
has
the
seven
requirements
that
are
currently
on
the
books
and
it
says
the
word
and
and
then
it
has
the
new
language,
documentation
or
evidence
supporting
the
facts
upon
which
each
ground
for
the
challenge
is
based
and
in
the
law.
When
you
put
the
word-
and
it
means
you
have
to
have
both
those
seven
and
the
eight
it
doesn't
say
or.
A
So
yeah
I
mean
I
just
I'll
say
I
think
that's
the
reason
we're
having
this
discussion.
This
is
the
legislative
intent
in
history
of
this
regulation
and
I
think
it's
at
least
to
me.
It's
pretty
clear
that
it
doesn't
mean
there
has
to
be
evidence.
It's
just
that.
If
you
have
any,
then
you
must
submit
it,
which
I
think
we
would
want
right,
because
our
elections
officials
should
want
all
the
evidence.
A
What
we
don't
want
is
people
coming
forward
saying
I
know
this
person
shouldn't
have
voted
should
not
have
voted,
and
I
have
this
document
and
I'm
not
going
to
give
it
to
you.
That
proves
what
I
said.
So
you
know
I
I
get.
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
assemblywoman
krazer,
but
I
think
the
record
we've
made
today
is
pretty
clear
that
it's
not
a
requirement
that
evidence
or
other
documentation
be
submitted.
A
It's
just
that
if
you
have
it,
you
should
submit
it
because
that'll
help
the
elections,
officials
be
able
to
actually
adjudicate
any
of
these
claims.
So
I
mean
with
that
being
said,
I
feel
comfortable
and
I'm
not
going
to
ask
legal
to
do
something
that
we've
never
done
in
any
other
regulatory
framework,
because
I
think
that
that
opens
up
to
all
a
whole
new
set
of
challenges
that
I
don't
really
want
to
open
legal
up
to.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
asher,
killian,
chief
deputy
legislative
council.
That's
correct.
I
think,
as
the
chair
represented
at
the
intent
here
is
that
if
the
evidence
exists,
it
can
be
submitted
with
the
requirement,
but
this
doesn't
create
a
ground
to
reject
a
challenge.
If
the
challenge
does
not
contain
such
additional
documentation
or
evidence.
A
A
Seeing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
raise
your
hand
and
anyone
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand.
Okay,
I
think
I
saw
12
in
favor
so
that
does
carry
motion
carries
unanimously.
R102-21
is
approved
that
takes
us
next
to
our
104-21
secretary
of
state,
a
regulation,
revising
provisions
relating
to
vital
statistics
records,
and
I
believe
assemblywoman
krasner
pulled
this
one
as
well.
So
we
will
go
to
you
for
the
first
question.
L
Thank
you
chair,
so
on
r10421p
this
this
refers
to
dead
people
voting.
So
deceased
voters
is
a
concern.
Obviously
we
don't
want
any
dead
people
voting.
Is
there
an
effective
date
on
this
legislation?
I
did
I
I
pulled
it.
I
did
not
see
an
effective
date,
so
would
this
be
effective
for
our
our
our
our
primary
in
june
and
our
general
election
coming
up
in
november
or
what
is
the
effective
date
for
this
legislation?
Please.
A
It
looks
like
mr
killian's
on
back
on
screen,
so
we'll
go
we'll
go
to
legal
for
that
answer.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair
usher,
killian
chief
deputy
legislative
council,
so
generally
for
regulations.
Unless
they
contain
an
effective
date
stating
some
other
date.
They
become
effective
immediately
after
being
approved
by
the
legislative
commission
and
filed
with
the
secretary
of
state.
So
if
the
legislative
commission
approves
this
regulation
today,
it
would
presumably
be
filed
with
the
secretary
of
state
today
as
long
as
the
meeting
concludes
before
five
o'clock.
If
not,
it
would
be
probably
filed
tomorrow,
but
in
either
case
it
would
be
effective
before
the
primary
and
general
elections
this
year.
A
Well,
I
think
we,
even
if
it's
after
five
o'clock,
mr
velashan,
might
be
there
unable
to
file,
even
though
it's
after
hours,
so
as
long
as
we
get
it
approved
today,
I
think
we'll
be
all
right.
Any
additional
questions,
assemblywoman
dickman.
A
Perfect,
I
have
a
motion
to
approve.
Do
I
have
a
second
something
woman?
How
did
he
raise
her
hand
we'll
give
her
the
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
Okay,
I
don't
see
discussion
all
those
in
favor.
Please
raise
your
hand,
I
think
that's
all
12
of
us,
but
let's
be
sure
anyone
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand
at
this
point.
A
H
H
We
once
did
not
that
my
appendix
ships
that
great
I'll
have
to
admit,
but
in
that
respect
it
seems
that
this
regulation
does
nothing
to
deal
with
the
consistency
of
the
machine.
Like
I
said
in
the
rules,
it
was
about
500
a
senatorial
district
where
down
in
clark
county,
that
machine
was
only
rejecting
about
20
to
29
in
the
senate
district,
and
I
find
that
troubling.
H
M
H
K
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
being
so
indulgent.
My
question
just
has
to
do
with
the
specifics
of
the
training.
Why
is
there
no
definition
of
what
a
passing
grade
might
be?
I
mean
just
because
you
take
the
training.
How
do
you
show
your
proficiency
and
that
you
are
actually
qualified.
M
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman.
The
the
definition
of
a
passing
grade
is
not
contained
in
this
provision
in
part
because
it
hasn't
quite
yet
been
discussed
or
solidified.
M
We've
conducted
a
significant
amount
of
effort
and
put
a
significant
amount
of
effort
and
research
into
identifying
appropriate
signature,
verification,
training
and
processes,
but
as
we're
getting
closer
now
to
to
finalizing
that
training,
and
I
believe
in
the
next
week
or
two
we,
we
should
have
something
in
a
final
state
that
we
can
provide
to
the
clerks
and
registrars
again
as
we
drafted
this
regulation
and
started
getting
it
through
the
timeline.
It
had
not
been
clarified
going
forward
again.
M
That
is
certainly
something
that,
as
we
look
to
continuing
to
improve
our
signature,
verification
training.
You
know,
even
even
as
we
have
this
first
iteration,
that
we're
ready
to
getting
ready
to
release
in
preparation
for
the
primary
election
and
looking
to
future
election
cycles.
We
certainly
anticipate
again
scrutinizing
what
we're
doing
what
works.
M
What
doesn't
how
we
can
make
it
better
and
provide
more
clarity
not
only
to
the
public,
but
also
to
the
clerks
and
registrars,
so
that
they
can
pass
that
information
on
to
their
election
workers
and
other
administrative
staff
that
affect
the
election.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
how?
How
do
we
rationalize
the
difference
in
the
numbers
of
electronic
signature
verification?
Are
we
using
20-point
verification
in
one
county
and
40
in
another?
What
what
are
we
doing
with
the
electronic
signatures?
Because
it
seems
it's
pretty
obvious
that
you
know
if
it's
not
like
the
rurals
are
the
only
ones
that
change
their
signature?
M
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
mark
galatian
for
the
record.
Currently
only
one
county
is
using
electronic
signature
verification
again
looking
to
the
future.
This
is
something
that
we've
been
discussing
again
with
the
clerks
and
registrars
across
the
state,
depending
on
on
how
many
folks
use
the
mail
ballot
going
into
the
22
cycle
and
then
again,
even
as
we
get
closer
to
the
2024
cycle,
including
the
presidential
preference
primary.
Of
course,
in
february,
is
24.
M
we're
going
to
keep
a
close
eye
on
the
number
of
male
ballots
used
and
they're
going
to
ensure
that
one
way
or
the
other
if
other
counties
are
interested
in
pursuing
electronic
signature,
verification
that
is
standardized
in
regards
to
what
that
that
process
is
so
that
again,
uniform
requirements
and
standards
across
the
state
are
are
met
and
upheld,
as
only
one
county
currently
is
using
electronic
signature
verification
again
we're
still
working
through
that
process.
M
It
is
a
very
new
thing,
as
you
remember
the
machine
itself,
it
was
leased
during
the
primary
and
only
purchase
during
the
general
election
of
2020.
So
it's
something
that
we're
continuing
to
look
closely
at
and
we'll
certainly
continue
to
refine
regulations
for
going
into
the
future.
F
So
what
you're
saying
is
the
electronic,
even
as
flawed
as
it
may
be,
was
10
20
30
times
better
than
the
rural
signature.
Verification
by
hand
is
that
the
concept
is
that
is
that
born
out
that
the
electronic
verification
is
by
20
into
500.
You
know
it
10
20
times
better
than
the
hand,
verification.
M
Senator
thank
you
for
the
question
mark
velasco
for
the
record.
I
don't
have
the
specific
stats
or
or
ability
to
compare
cross
county,
exactly
the
effective
rates,
so
to
speak
of
those
signature
verifications.
M
I
do
know
that
the
machine
that
was
used
in
clark
county
was
adjusted
so
that
if
there
was
any
possible
doubt
it
did
spit
that
that
ballot
envelope
out
so
that
humans
had
to
review
it
in
the
signature.
Verification
training
that
this
regulation
describes
again
will
really
just
standardize
the
training
and
the
expectations
for
election
administrators
and
their
staffs
across
the
state.
But
in
regards
to
was
the
machine
more
effective
than
a
person
or
not
again,
our
goal.
I
simply
can't
speak
to
that.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
just
so
just
to
clarify
so
people
that
do
signature
verification.
This
regulation
would
require
specific
training
and
each
county
has
to
have
people
that
do
manual,
signature,
verification,
so
a
clerk
just
couldn't
say:
I'm
not
sending
anybody
the
training
they're
required
to
have
it
is
that
correct.
M
Thank
you
for
your
question.
Yes,
sir,
that
is.
A
H
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
again
the
concept
that
we're
not
including
inside
this
regulation,
the
electronic
signature,
verification
that
was
done
in
the
largest
county
in
the
state
of
nevada.
I
find
very
troubling
because
again,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
actually
curing
signatures,
making
sure
that
people
are
actually
who
they
are
when
they
vote.
That
doesn't
bother
me
at
all.
For
that
reason,
I
oppose
this.
Thank
you.
A
A
And
then
any
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand
at
this
point,
so
we
have
opposition
from
senator
settlemyre
assemblyman
roberts,
senator
hardy
assemblywoman,
krasner,
assemblywoman,
dickman
and
senator
hammond.
Did
you
have
your
hand
up
too
okay?
So
if
my
math
is
correct,
I
think
that's
a
six
six.
That
would
mean
it's
a
split
vote
and
the
regulation
fails.
A
So
we
will
not
be
mandating
training
for
those
who
are
reviewing
electronic
signatures,
at
least
not
in
a
consistent
way
throughout
the
state,
so
that
regulation
again
fails-
and
I
think
committee
correct
someone
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
we
got
through
all
of
them
right.
Do
we
have
anything
else
we
have
to
do.
Okay,
I
see
some
thumbs
up.
I
know
there
were
a
lot
of
them
so,
mr
velasco,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
being
here
with
us
today.
A
A
All
right
committee
take
a
deep
breath.
We
got
a
few
more
things
to
do
yet
on
the
agenda
and
next
up
I
should
say
that
completes
agenda
item
number
six.
Next
up,
we
have
agenda
item
number
seven,
and
we
can
do
this
in
a
couple
of
different
ways.
We
have
a
number
of
appointments
to
be
made
through
agenda
item
number:
seven
in
your
packet.
You
should
have
listed
the
recommended
appointees.
A
We
could
either
take
a
motion
on
all
of
the
items
in
number
seven
together
or
if
anyone
would
like,
we
could
go
through
each
one
individually
and
take
separate
motions.
So
I
guess,
let
me
ask
it
this
way.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
go
through
and
take
ten
separate
motions
on
these
items
or
would
is
there
anyone
that
would
like
to
do
that?
Rather
than
do
one
motion.
A
Okay,
so
we
we
have
to
do
what
agenda
item
at
a
time,
so
we
can
approve
everything
under
agenda
item
seven,
which
is
a
through
j.
I
think
we
have
a
motion
from
assembly
or
excuse
me
senator
hardy
to
to
do
that
and
we
have
a
hand
up.
I
think
from
a
couple
others
we'll
give
it
to
assemblywoman
monroe
moreno.
A
A
Thank
you
and
anyone
opposed
to
the
motion.
Please
raise
your
hand,
okay,
so
12,
nothing
that
motion
carries
unanimously
and
that
takes
care
of
the
appointments
in
agenda
item
number
seven,
a
through
j
that
takes
us
next
to
agenda
item
number
eight,
which
I
think
is
just
one
item,
so
give
me
a
second
to
find
my
notes
here.
So
this
is
the
nomination
of
the
legislator
for
appointment
by
the
governor
to
the
nevada,
early
intervention,
interagency,
coordinating
council,
public
law
99-457
part
c
in
the
meeting
materials.
A
We
have
a
recommendation
that
assemblywoman
teresa
brown
may
I
should
be
traced.
Excuse
me,
tracy
brown
may
be
nominated
for
appointment
by
the
governor
to
this
council.
Do
I
have
a
motion
to
do
so
motion
from
senator
dennis
I
had
a
hand
raised
from
senator
hardy,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
give
him
the
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Thank
you
any
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand.
Okay
motion
carries
unanimously
on
agenda
item
number.
Eight
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
nine
and
again
committee.
We
can
do
these
three.
All
at
the
same
time,
if
you
would
like
there
are
three
committees
listed
there:
advisory
council
on
mortgage
investments,
mortgage
lending,
the
commission
on
ethics
and
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission.
A
A
A
And
anyone
opposed
please
raise
your
hand.
That
is
a
12,
nothing
vote.
That
means
those
appointments
are
approved
under
agenda
item
number,
nine
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
by
the
way.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
commission,
for
making
that
go
quickly.
I
appreciate
that
agenda
item
number
10
is
next.
This
is
a
correction
of
an
error
in
senate
bill
186
of
the
2021
legislative
session,
brian
fernley.
Our
legal
counsel,
is
here
to
present
this
item.
I
see
mr
fernley
is
on
the
screen
with
his
camera
odds,
mr
friendly.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
as
you
mentioned
during
the
2021
legislative
session,
the
legislature
enacted
senate
bill
186,
which
revised
various
provisions
governing
homeowners
associations
and,
specifically
the
manner
in
which
homeowners
associations
disseminate
information
and
communicate
with
homeowners
in
the
in
the
hoa
when,
when
the
final
amendment
to
the
bill
was
being
processed
by
the
legal
division,
an
error
occurred
that
resulted
in
hoas
being
required
to
send
all
information
to
homeowners
by
both
electronic
mail
and
regular
mail
rather
than
by
electronic
mail
or
regular
mail.
J
This
effectively
resulted
in
a
duplicative
requirement
that
all
information
and
communications
from
an
hoa
to
homeowners
be
distributed
by
both
email
and
regular
mail
when
the
intent
was
was
not
to
make
such
a
duplicative
requirement,
but
to
have
one
or
the
other
be
provided
to
the
to
the
homeowners
in
the
hoa
to
correct
the
error.
The
and
that
would
require
information
to
be
sent
by
both
email
and
regular
mail
would
be
changed
to
an
or
so
that
the
information
could
be
sent
by
either
email
or
regular
mail.
J
There
are
exceptions
that
existed
in
this
statute
prior
to
sb186
and
that
continue
to
be
in
place.
After
sb186
that
specifically
govern
the
collection
process
and
foreclosure
process
in
hoas,
and
and
so
this,
this
bill
and
this
change
won't
affect
those
provisions.
J
Nrs
218
d
0.720
does
authorize
legislative
commission
to
correct
errors
in
legislation
after
the
adjournment
of
the
legislative
session,
and
that
does
require
a
unanimous
vote
of
the
legislative
commission.
This
error
in
sb-186
again
to
to
change
from
having
all
information
and
communications
from
an
hoa
being
sent
by
both
email
and
regular
mail
to
sending
them
by
either
email
or
regular
mail.
That
is
the
type
of
error
that
the
legislative
commission
can
correct.
With
the
unanimous
vote,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
N
Just
a
quick
question:
I
because
I
don't
remember
the
intent
of
the
legislation
was
to
do.
Does
it
give
that
ability
to
the
hoa
to
determine
whether
they're
going
to
send
one
or
the
other.
J
No,
it
gives
the
ability
to
the
homeowner
to
elect
to
receive
their
communications
by
email
and
well,
I
guess,
with
respect
to
certain
notices,
it
would
be
up
to
the
homeowner
to
elect
to
receive
them
by
email,
the
other
just
the
general
information
and
communications.
It
would
be
up
to
the
hoa
to
to
choose
the
preferred
method,
but
if
there
was
not
an
email
address
provided
or
a
homeowner
opted
out
of
email,
then
regular
mail
would
be
required.
J
N
A
B
Have
a
question
just
want
to
add
the
point
of
clarification.
The
intent
of
the
bill
was
really
to
lessen
the
cost
for
administration
for
hoas.
B
When
people
receive
things
email,
you
don't
have
to
put
the
stamps
the
envelopes
et
cetera,
and
in
this
day
and
age
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
would
much
rather
have
it
email
than
have
it
snail
mail
to
them.
Email
email
will
follow
the
homeowner
wherever
they
are,
whether
or
not
they're
in
town
to
go
to
the
mailbox
to
pick
the
mail
out
of
it
and
take
it
to
the
house
and
open
it
up.
A
Thank
you
senator.
I
appreciate
that
clarification
and
I
think
you're
correct
in
that
it.
The
email
follows
the
the
homeowner
and
then
it's
easier
to
archive
those
things.
I
think
by
email
too,
because
we
all
have
paper
and
we
can
never
seem
to
find
that
paper
when
you
need
it.
So
I
appreciate
I
know
you
were
a
sponsor
of
the
bill,
so
I
appreciate
your
intent
in
doing
that
and
all
right.
A
So
let
me
ask,
as
our
other
questions
from
commission
members
and
again
reminder
that
this
has
to
be
unanimous
vote
of
the
commission
to
make
this
correction
so
seeing
no
further
questions,
I
would
look
for
a
motion
to
correct
senate
bill.
186.,
see
senator
hardy
has
a
hand
up
I'll
give
him
the
motion
I'll
go
ahead
and
give
senator
spearman
the
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
discussion
all
those
in
favor.
Please
raise
your
hand.
Okay,
I
need
12
here.
Do
we
have
12?
We
have
12.
all
right.
The
motion
carries,
and
so
therefore
that
will
be
corrected.
Thank
you
legal
for
bringing
that
to
our
attention
and
thank
you
legislative
commission,
for
your
vote
on
that.
All
right.
We
are
almost
at
the
finish
line
that
takes
us
to
our
second
to
last
agenda
item
we're
gonna
go
to
agenda
item
number
eleven.
A
L
L
L
For
legislative
use
in
in
clark
county
we're
not
seeking
any
new
money
to
be
approved
for
this
project.
At
this
time,
our
intent
would
be
to
use
existing
employee
time.
C
And
other
existing
resources
for
this
project.
A
I
don't
see
any
hands
up
for
questions
so
at
this
time.
I
would
look
for
a
motion
to
approve
agenda
item
number
11..
Okay,
we
have,
we
have
a
whole
bunch
of
hands
up,
so
I
don't
know
I'll
give
this
one
to
assemblywoman
krasner,
we'll
give
the
second
to
assemblyman
roberts.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Okay,
seeing
no
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
raise
your
hand
and
if
we
have
any
oppose,
would
you
please
raise
your
hand?
A
It
looks
like
a
12-0
vote,
so
agenda
item
11
is
approved
and
we
look
forward
to
hearing
an
update
on
progress
on
this
item.
I
routinely
get
requests
from
constituents
here
about
the
grant
sawyer
building
and
where
they
might
be
able
to
go
to
participate
or
meet
with
legislators.
So
I
think
that's
a
very
pressing
issue,
okay
committee,
so
we're
now
going
to
go
to
our
second
period
of
public
comment,
which
is
agenda,
item
number
12..
A
Like
the
first
round
of
public
comment,
comments
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person.
I
will
be
timing
and
I'll.
Let
you
know
when
your
two
minutes
are
up.
I
don't
think
I
had
to
do
that
at
all
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
so
everyone
did
a
great
job
and
then,
if
you
want
to
submit
additional
comments,
you
could
do
so
in
writing.
They
will
be
included
in
the
records.
So
I'm
not
going
to
turn
this
over
to
bps
to
see
if
there's
anybody
else.
C
C
A
Well,
color
me
surprised
that
we
don't
have
any
public
comment
on
the
second
round.
That
might
be
a
first,
but
I
want
to
thank
bps
for
for
having
the
line
open
and
ready
so
I'll
close
agenda
item
number
12.
and
then
before
we
adjourn
today,
senator
suttlemaire.
I
wanted
to
go
to
you.
I
think
you
had
a
comment
that
you
wanted
to
make
our
question.
H
I
appreciate
it
I
was
wondering
if
maybe
we
could
find
a
way
to
find
a
time
for
members
of
let's
come
to
actually
make
you
know,
questions
or
statements
on
you
know
the
record.
Specifically
it's
been
a
while,
since
we've
had
a
litigation
update-
and
I
was
kind
of
looking
forward
to
that-
maybe
we
could
add
that
to
the
next
agenda.
I'd
also
love-
and
I
know
this
is
going
to
be
a
shock
to
everyone-
the
ability
to
come
back
in
and
actually
be
in
a
committee
room.
H
I
know
sometimes
that's
some
people
consider
that
to
be
boring.
I
think
it's
important
and
I'm
here
at
the
left
side
of
building
and
would
love
to
be
in
the
national
committee
room
and
once
again
and
go
down
that
road.
I
do
realize
that
that
adds
a
little
bit
of
cost
and
resources
to
this
process,
but
I
think
it's
important
for
the
public
to
be
able
to
come
in
and
participate.
I
I
think
this
new
process
of
zoom
is
fantastic.
H
We've
added
opportunities
for
people
to
not
have
to
have
as
much
travel,
but
I
think
it'd
be
great
if
we
could
somehow
incorporate
both
of
them
and
also
a
question
of
how
the
litigation
is
being
funded
for
outside
council
and
stuff,
like
that,
so
I'm
just
throwing
that
out
there.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
You're
welcome,
I
anticipate
we'll,
have
a
litigation
update,
hopefully
on
our
next
agenda
and,
like
you,
I
hope,
we'll
be
together
in
a
committee
room
soon,
although
there's
not
a
touch
up,
my
appearance
feature
when
we're
live
and
in
person
as
there
is
on
zoom,
so
I
think
I
look
better
on
zoom,
but
we'll
deal
with
that
as
it
comes
anything
else
from
committee
members
before
we
wrap
up
today's
meeting.