►
Description
This is the eighth meeting of the 2021-2022 Interim. Please see the agenda for details.
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
All
right
it
is
8
A.M
and
I
promised
you
an
8
A.M
start
today.
Welcome
to
the
interim
Judiciary
Committee
I.
Have
some
I'll
give
you
guys
a
roadmap
of
our
meeting
shortly,
but
we
always
start
with
public
comments,
so
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
get
that
started.
Is
there
anybody
in
Las
Vegas
here
to
give
public
comment
in
person,
I
see
that
there
is
and
they
are
still
getting
organized.
So
let's
go
to
Carson
City
and
see
if
there's
anybody
in
person
in
Carson
City
to
give
public
comment.
A
Oh
and
while
we
are
waiting
for
anybody
well
hold.
B
A
C
C
B
E
A
A
F
Hello,
my
name
is
Jody
Hawking
and
I.
Think
you
already
know
I'm
the
founder
and
executive
director
of
return,
strong
and
I'm
going
to
be
very
hopefully
brief.
Today,
I
just
wanted
to
two
things.
First,
really
thank
the
committee
and
on
really
just
hearing
us
when
the
agenda
came
out
for
today's
meeting,
I
mean
those
of
you
that
have
worked
with
us.
We
have
been
pounding
the
pavement
and
earphones
and
public
comments
for
two
years
begging
people
to
just
hear
what
our
concerns
were
and
I
just
wanted
to
know.
F
Let
all
of
you
know
that
we
do
appreciate
and
actually
really
do,
feel
heard
when
we
saw
what
was
on
the
agenda
and
there
were
a
couple
of
just
quick
comments.
I
wanted
to
make
one
is.
Regarding
sentencing
again,
thank
you
for
hearing
us.
F
We
have
been
since
ab241
trying
to
find
solutions
to
some
of
the
problems
with
sentencing
and
we
don't
even
really
know
or
understand
them
all
and
I
think
after
the
presentation
now
it
makes
sense
why
it's
so
difficult
to
understand,
understand
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
thanks
for
bringing
that
to
the
table
and
those
changes,
and
we
are
looking
forward
to
working
with
you
and
helping
share
experiences
that
people
are
going
through
with
kind
of
resolving
that
I
wanted
to
clarify
one
thing
that
I
think
most
people
understand,
but
there
have
been
a
few
comments
that
have
been
made
to
us
regarding
the
markups
and
commission.
F
The
issue
is
not
inflation.
There,
people
have
been
saying
like
well,
cost
of
everything
is
going
up,
and
so
why?
Wouldn't
it
go
up
in
prison?
The
issue
isn't
the
inflation.
We
understand
that
piece
of
it.
The
issue
is
the
markups
and
the
commission,
which
is
rooted
in
the
contract
because
they
have
a
monopoly
with
Keith
They
Keith
then
gives
them
the
ability
to
add
whatever
rate
of
commission
that
they
want.
There's
no
limit
to
that,
and
that
commission
is
what
the
problem
is.
That's
what
the
markup
is
rooted
in.
F
It's
not
rooted
in
inflation
and
then
the
last
point
for
the
work
session
is
really
about
visitation
and
I,
just
wanted
to
say,
I
completely
lost
track
of
where
I
was
on
my
document.
Sorry,
the
the
issues.
The
visit
visitation
are
really
more
more
complex
than
just
building
an
appeals
process.
It
has
to
be
an
independent.
F
And
if
we
want
to
see
Improvement
in
recidivism
and
re-entry,
we
need
to
include
families
in
that
process.
Last
thing,
I
just
want
to
personally.
Thank
you
all
of
you,
chair,
schaible
and
many
of
the
others
who
you
guys
have
really
inspired
hope
with
us.
As
a
sorry
I'm
going
to
get
choked
up
as
a
group,
we
have
been
traditionally
marginalized
for
my
members
activists
and
have
really
struggled.
Most
of
us
have
not
even
participated
in
the
Democratic
process.
F
We
probably
have
30
or
40
people
now
who
were
formally
incarcerated
during
covid,
who
literally
they
hit
the
streets,
and
the
first
thing
they
do
is
text
us
and
say
how
do
I
participate?
How
do
I
engage
so
when
you
look
back
at
those
like
the
bill?
I
wasn't
even
involved
in
that,
but
like
when
we
gave
ex
felons
the
right
to
vote
in
Nevada.
We
Now
are
engaging
those
people,
and
this
is
what
really
democracy
looks
like,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to.
Thank
you
for
helping
us
find
our
voices.
A
For
for
being
here
and
for
participating,
that's
what
makes
this
process
work.
So
we
are
likewise
appreciative
of
your
contributions.
I
don't
see
anybody
else
coming
to
the
table
in
Las
Vegas
unless
PK
excuse
me,
unless
assembly
member
O'neill
gesticulates
wildly
at
me
to
indicate
that
there's
somebody
in
Carson
City.
A
G
Good
morning
and
thank
you
chair
scheibel
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Nick
shepak
s-h-e-p-a-c-k
I
am
the
state
deputy
director
of
the
fines
and
fees
Justice
Center
I
wanted
to
thank
the
committee
for
including
our
recommendations
on
today's
work
session.
We
strongly
believe
that
expanding
the
powers
of
the
sentencing
commission
and
allowing
them
to
look
at
and
review
the
misdemeanor
code
will
lead
to
a
great
benefit
for
the
state,
while
all
stakeholders
might
not
agree
on
what
misdemeanor
reform
looks
like
in
the
future.
G
Our
conversations
with
diverse
groups
of
individuals,
including
Advocates,
Law,
Enforcement
prosecutors
and
defense
counsel,
have
all
led
us
to
believe
that
this
discussion
is
one
that
everyone
is
ready
to
have
willing
to
have
in
that.
The
sentencing
commission
is
the
right
place
to
start
this
discussion.
We
urge
you
to
move
forward
on
this
item
once
we
get
to
the
work
session.
We
also
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
the
for
considering
the
items
related
to
the
financial
practices
of
ndoc.
G
We
are
currently
we
had
a
step
in
this
state
with
best
practices
are
neighboring
states
and
the
nation
as
a
whole.
When
it
comes
to
these
issues
at
fines
and
fees,
Justice
Center,
we
would
not
bring
you
any
recommendations
that
we
did
not
believe
would
not
improve
the
lives
of
nevadans
as
a
whole
and
increase
Public
Safety.
We
think
that
there
are
common
sense
reforms
here
that
can
be
bipartisan
similar
to
the
passage
of
the
caps
on
the
deductions
last
legislative
session.
G
We
look
forward
to
working
with
all
stakeholders
and
the
committee
members
to
make
sure
that
we
have
evidence-based
best
practices
implemented
in
these
areas.
We
urge
the
committee
to
also
vote
on
this
and,
lastly,
we
just
want
to
thank
you
for
all
the
hard
work
this
interims
it's
been,
it's
been
different
than
it
has
in
the
past.
G
It's
been
actual
very
pleasant
experience
I'm,
going
to
miss
my
time
up
here
with
assemblyman
O'neill,
but
we
will
be
in
contact
with
all
of
you
in
between
now
and
the
legislative
session
and
again,
thank
you
for
all
the
hard
work
during
this
interim.
A
All
right
it
looks
like
that
is
everybody
we
have
in
person
in
Las,
Vegas
and
Carson
City.
Do
we
have
anybody
on
the
phone
to
give
public
comment.
A
All
right,
then,
so
that
leads
us
into
the
rest
of
our
agenda
for
today.
As
those
of
you
who
have
been
following
along
know,
we
have
a
couple
of
presentations
this
morning
which
relate
to
some
of
the
items
that
are
on
the
work
session
document
that
we
will
be
diving
into
later.
A
Today,
I
I
may
be
taking
some
of
the
work
session
out
of
order,
because
our
committee
does
have
other
obligations
that
this
always
happens,
and
we
so
appreciate
all
of
our
legislators
making
themselves
available
in
person
and
virtually
it's
hard
for
for
everybody
to
be
in
the
same
place
at
the
same
time,
and
so
I
want
those
of
you
who
are
following
along
with
us
to
understand
that
sometimes
our
legislators
have
to
attend,
to
you,
know
very
serious
family
and
personal
matters
or
professional
obligations,
and
so
they
they
may
pop
in
and
out,
and
that
may
affect
our
our
timing.
A
But
I
also
know
that
our
legislators,
when
they
aren't
here,
they
always
follow
up
with
me,
and
they
watched
our
meetings
online
and
they
they
catch
up
with
the
presentations
that
they
miss.
And
so
that
is
my
way
of
saying
that
we're
going
to
start
with
the
presentation
which
is
listed
as
agenda
item
number
three.
It
is
from
the
ACLU
and
the
mass
Liberation
project.
A
After
that,
it
is
my
plan
to
to
finish
our
presentations,
take
a
quick
lunch
break
and
then
go
in
into
the
work
session,
but
we
may
take
a
couple
of
the
work
session
items
before
we
go
to
lunch,
just
to
facilitate
the
the
schedule
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
our
friends
at
the
ACLU
and
mass
Liberation,
who
I
believe
are
in
person
in
Carson
City
whenever
they
are
ready
to
present.
D
L-I-L-I-T-H-B-A-R-A-N
then
I'm
the
policy
manager
for
the
ACLU
of
Nevada
due
to
the
different
start
time.
My
colleague
from
Mass
Liberation
project
is
actually
dropping
their
kiddo
off
at
school,
so
they're
not
able
to
join,
unfortunately
at
this
time,
but
hopefully
we'll
pop
in
a
little
bit
later
in
the
presentation.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
Mr
Chambers,
please
go
ahead
and
direct
them.
You
have
his
contact
information,
so
I
do
apologize
about
that.
D
School
had
not
yet
started
this
time.
Last
last
committee
meeting
so
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
some
of
the
reflections
and
recommendations
that
we
have.
It
looks
like
looking
at
the
work
session.
A
lot
of
the
things
that
we
would
like
to
see
in
this
upcoming
session
are
already
going
to
happen,
and
we're
really
appreciated
to
the
committee
for
all
of
their
hard
work
and
for
being
so
organized
during
this
interim.
So
this
shouldn't
take
very
long
and
I
appreciate
your
time.
D
The
first
is
oversight
we
do
share
some
concerns
with
other
organizations
regarding
the
need
for
more
oversight
and
to
provide
quality
care
to
inmates
and
staff,
and
our
recommendation
Echoes.
That
of
other
folks
who
have
presented
that
the
department
be
subject
to
the
administrative
code
233b
to
adjust
address
the
shared
concern
and
I
see
that
in
the
work
session
already.
So
we
appreciate
that
next
I
would
like
to
talk
about
the
disparity
in
women's
prisons.
D
Female
identifying
constituents
in
custody
are
a
fast-growing
population
in
Nevada
prisons.
A
report
from
the
crime
and
Justice
Institute
shows
that
Nevada's
population
of
incarcerated
persons,
identifying
as
female,
has
grown
39
in
the
last
decade,
which
is
four
out
of
five,
are
non-violent
offenses
to
address
the
growing
population
in
female,
identifying
persons
becoming
incarcerated
and
underserved
in
comparison
to
their
male
identifying
counterparts.
15
states
have
passed
a
dignity
for
incarcerated
women,
bill
House,
Bill
1418
in
Pennsylvania,
based
their
legislation
on
the
following
eight
points
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
those
quickly
with
you.
D
One
is
prohibiting
the
shackling
of
pregnant
people,
which
we
already
do
in
Nevada.
Two
is
prohibiting
solitary
confinement
for
pregnant
people,
three
provides
for
trauma-informed
care
and
training
of
Corrections
Officers,
interacting
with
pregnant
and
postpartum
people.
Four
provides
for
up
to
three
days
of
post-delivery
bonding
time
between
the
mother
and
the
newborn
child.
D
Five
provides
for
accommodation
of
adequate
visitation
time
between
mother
and
child
incarcerated
people
who
were
this
or
incarcerated
people
who
are
the
sole
legal
guardian
of
those
minor
children
at
the
time
of
their
arrest,
number
six
would
prohibit
full
body,
searches
of
incarcerated
people
by
mail
guards
and
number
seven
would
provide
for
appropriate
amount
of
feminine
hygiene
products
at
no
cost
to
the
incarcerated
individual
and
finally,
number
eight
provides
for
limited
coverage
of
cost
to
transport
individuals
to
a
safe
location,
upon
release,
I'd
like
to
expand
on
some
of
these,
because
Nevada
hasn't
shown
Integrity
through
the
past
decisions
to
do
even
better
for
female,
identifying
constituents
in
custody.
D
One
example
of
how
we
can
improve
on
the
Pennsylvania
bill
is
on
point
four,
where
the
bill
provides
up
to
three
days
of
bonding
time
between
the
mother
and
child.
Some
states
have
passed
up
to
18
months
of
bonding
time
with
a
child
and
Mother
by
incorporating
alternative
environments
where
the
mother
can
care
for
the
child,
as
well
as
receive
guidance
through
extensive
programming
on
Pediatric,
Health
and
parenting
seriously.
D
As
an
answer
to
this
growing
problem
and
I'm
going
to
move
on
now
to
0.7
the
people
who
menstruate
are
unable
to
control
when
when
they
do
in
the
amount
of
products
that
they
need
right
now
accessing
these
products
is
discriminatory
and
can
cause
significant
medical
complications
such
as
toxic
shock
syndrome,
if
they
aren't
able
to
receive
the
adequate
amount
of
menstrual
products
on
average.
Someone
who
menstruates
does
so
for
five
to
seven
days
and
that
sometimes
requires
some
10
tampons
a
day
to
avoid
those
medical
complications.
D
Each
of
these
tampon
tampons,
being
sold
in
the
three
to
five
dollar
range,
is
looking
at
someone
paying
about
fifty
dollars
a
day
just
to
menstrate
and
those
Medical
items
that
need
to
be
required
to
be
accessible
to
all
those
who
are
in
need-
and
this
also
goes
in
parody,
with
examinations
such
as
regular
pap
smears
and
mammograms
etc.
For
people
who
are
incarcerated,
because
some
folks
are
coming
out
of
incarceration
with
serious
serious
women's
health
issues
that
could
have
been
detected
had
they
received
appropriate
care
while
incarcerated.
D
I
heard
you
said
that
okay
moving
on,
we
just
want
to
revisit
the
trans
rates
to
care
and
I
know,
that's
already
something
that
some
folks
are
working
on:
just
prescribing
the
standards
in
each
institution
and
facility
for
the
supervision,
custody,
care,
security,
housing
and
medical
and
mental
health
treatment
of
people
who
are
incarcerated,
who
are
transgender,
gender,
non-conforming
and
non-binary
and
intersex
the
implications
of
not
providing
this
kind
of
care
to
these
individuals
can
be
costly
when
litigated
or
worse
they
can
be
deadly.
D
Moving
on
we
like
to
talk
about
solitary
confinement,
this
bill
last
session
did
do
really
well.
The
only
complication
was
a
fiscal
note,
so
we
would
like
to
revisit
this
in
New
York.
They
were
able
to
show
a
cost
Savings
of
80
million
dollars
to
the
state
by
ending
and
reducing
the
practice
of
solitary
confinement.
So
we
would
like
to
revisit
that
again.
D
The
temporary
admit
with
you.
You
have
the
temporary
administrative
regulation
494
and
the
medical
directive
from
this
regulation.
You
also
have
a
report
from
the
ACLU
that
was
presented
in
the
last
discussion.
The
new
exhibit
before
you
is
from
our
friends
at
halt
in
New
York,
and
it
shows
in
great
detail
the
data
to
ease
the
financial
concerns
previously
made
by
Nevada
Department
of
Corrections
and
overseeing
bodies.
D
So
in
2017,
with
funding
from
the
U.S
Department
of
Justice,
the
Vera
Institute
of
Justice
partnered,
with
the
Nevada
Department
of
Corrections,
which
included
an
in-depth
assessment
of
segregation,
use
in
undocked
facilities
and
the
identification
of
opportunities
for
reform
and
Innovation.
Various
findings
and
recommendations
were
published
in
the
2019
report,
which
I
believe
you
also
have
with
you.
This
hearing
was
favorable
and
got
majority
approval
in
the
last
session
and
again
was
not
passed
because
of
the
40
million
dollar
fiscal
note,
38
million
of
which
was
for
personal
services.
D
Last
month,
I
had
the
esteemed
privilege
of
of
attending
a
national
conference
about
solitary
confinement
and
we
were
able
to
meet
with
halt,
as
I
mentioned
before
and
I.
Don't
think
that
I
mentioned
what
the
acronym
stands
for.
It
is
human
alternatives
to
long-term
solitary
confinement.
Act
you
have
with
you
their
policy
and
I.
Please
encourage
you
to
go
through
that
and
hopefully
coming
up
in
the
future.
We
can
have
a
member
from
halt
to
speak
with
you
further
on
the
subject.
D
Alternatives
to
solitary
is
access
to
congregate,
programming
and
designed
to
address
underlying
reasons
why
the
person
needs
to
be
separated
from
the
general
population
and
reduces
the
need
for
beds
in
solitary
housing
units.
That
is
the
major
cost
savings.
D
On
page
three
of
that
halt
report,
the
report
shows
that
less
use
of
solitary
confinement
was
able
to
save
by
reducing
lawsuit
settlements,
state
and
local
medical
costs
and
the
reduction
of
people
being
incarcerated
in
general.
Just
to
iterate,
the
practice
of
solitary
confinement
further
harms
the
incarcerated
individual.
From
the
beginning,
some
in
solitary
confinement,
it
is
said
that
you're
most
likely
to
attempt
suicide
within
the
first
five
days
in
isolation.
D
In
addition
to
those,
in
addition
to
that,
those
can
find
are
far
more
likely
to
suffer
heart
attacks,
heart
disease
and
strokes,
while
the
bill
does
not
limit
the
use
of
solitary
to
less
than
15
days,
it
is
a
step
in
that
direction.
In
the
common
saying
among
Advocates,
survivors
and
mental
health
professionals
is,
if
you
don't,
have
a
mental
illness
before
entering
solitary,
you
will
when
you
leave.
D
D
I'm
zooming
past
my
slides.
Finally,
we
want
to
look
at
re-entry
and
looking
to
other
communities
for
model
legislation
to
address
the
various
barriers
presented
in
the
re-entry
process.
One
of
those
largest
barriers
is
employment.
There's
a
background
check,
Fairness
Act,
which
is
one
of
which
addresses
one
of
the
hardest
challenges
which
is
getting
through
the
background
check
process
upon
re-entry
in
Illinois.
The
passage
of
the
employee
background,
Fairness
Act
provided
standards
for
employees
to
follow
employers
to
follow.
Excuse
me
when
they
consider
conviction
records
on
a
person's
background.
D
One
of
the
other
larger
issues
is
occupational
Licensing
in
Nevada.
Our
barrier
to
occupational
licensing
is
fourth
highest
in
the
nation,
its
requirements
that
are
necessary
for
an
individual
to
obtain
a
gainful
employment
that
would
provide
them
the
ability
to
navigate
the
cost
of
living
and
prevent
the
individual
from
having
to
rely
on
other
means
to
require
funds
oftentimes
these
jobs
don't
have
really
much
to
do
with
a
criminal
background.
D
However,
they
do
require
a
license
that
folks
are
restricted
from
obtaining
due
to
their
background
in
the
U.S
70
to
100
million
or
as
many
as
one
in
three
people
have
a
criminal
background
in
Nevada
One
in
four
adults,
who
are
disproportionately
people
of
color
have
an
arrest
conviction
record
that
that
may
prevent
them
through
occupational
licensing
that
is
regulated
by
the
state.
As
I
said,
Nevada
is
top
four
in
the
nation
when
it
comes
to
this
requirement.
Nevada
Licensing
Laws
require
background
checks
and
often
Grant
boards
and
agencies.
D
Broad
discretion
to
reject
applicants
based
on
non-conviction
of
Records,
such
as
arrest
records
and
juvenile
adaptations,
and
extensive
licensing
requirements
present
a
series
of
problems
for
a
formerly
convicted
persons
to
acquire
gainful
employment,
such
as
being
a
contractor
or
a
taxi
cab
driver
landscape,
architect,
communication
interpreter
music,
therapist
motor
vehicle
salesman.
The
list
goes
on
in
a
lot
of
these
jobs.
That
I
mentioned
are
jobs
that
someone
could
really
have
a
chance
at
restarting
their
life
when
they
are
re-entering
in
society,
and
so
many
businesses
are
desperate
for
employees.
D
I
am
not
able
to
I,
don't
want
to
expand
too
much
on
one
of
the
points
that
I
was
hoping
could
be
made
by
mass
Liberation
because
they
do
it
so
beautifully,
but
they
do
have
projects
such
as
the
black
moms
bailout,
which
create
kind
of
a
community
council
where
this
person
is
not
only
bailed
out,
they're
not
only
met
with
Community
they're,
seen
to
their
probation
appointments.
D
They're
making
sure
that
they're
being
checked
in
and
whatever
various
meetings
they
need
or
other
programming
that
they
have
prior
to
their
their
complete
freedom
and
I,
really
would
encourage
encourage
folks
to
look
into
some
of
those
re-entry
programs
that
communities
are
forming
because
they're
really
working
very
well.
D
When
someone
has
a
community
to
come
home
to
and
people
to
help
them
make
those
correct
decisions
and
help
them
navigate
the
world
that
they
have
not
been
participating
in,
we
are
seeing
much
less
recidivism
and
a
huge
success,
as
well
as
someone
who
is
really
able
to
be
Shopper
done
on
a
New
Journey
throughout
life,
and
that
is
all
I
have
for
today
and
I.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
I'll
open
to
any
questions.
If
anyone
has
any.
A
Thank
you
so
much
Miss
Baron
any
questions
from
Las
Vegas.
All
right,
I
think
we're
good
up
here.
Anybody
in
person
in
Carson
City
with
questions.
A
A
No
questions
all
right!
Well,
I
think
this
is
a
historical
first.
We
should
start
meeting
at
8
A.M
more
often,
and
if
you
want
to
be
the
lucky
winner
of
the
coolest
Hot
Seat
in
town,
get
on
the
8
A.M
agenda.
So
thank
you
again
so
much
for
your
presentation
and
that
closes
this
agenda
item.
We're
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
our
next
presentation
from
the
Nevada
Department
of
sentencing
policy
who
I
believe
are.
A
Looks
like
they're
in
person
in
Carson
City,
so
I
will
let
you
get
set
up
and
please
go
ahead
and
start
whenever
you
are
ready.
H
Good
morning,
thank
you
so
much
chair
and
good
morning,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name,
is
Victoria
Gonzalez
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
sentencing
policy
with
me
today.
Here
I
also
have
Georgia
Powers,
who
is
our
policy
analyst
and
I
have
Eros
mokosio.
Who
is
our
lead
data
analyst?
H
The
purpose
of
our
presentation
today
is
to
share
some
of
the
data
and
Analysis
that
we
can
provide
to
help
members
of
this
commission
and
other
lawmakers
and
stakeholders
prepare
for
the
upcoming
legislative
session.
We
will
also
review
the
recommendations
from
our
slides
that
were
including
your
materials
for
the
July
meeting.
H
Our
three
main
points
today
will
be
first
what
we
can
do
by
showing
you
more
of
our
data
collection
and
Analysis
capabilities
and
other
projects
we
have
worked
on.
Second,
we
will
give
you
a
brief
preview
of
the
bdr
we
submitted
as
an
example
of
a
data-driven
recommendation
developed
by
our
agency
and
approved
by
a
majority
of
the
members
of
the
Nevada
sentencing
commission
and
third,
we
are
going
to
share
findings
for
our
most
recent
prison
population
analysis
and
what
we
have
identified
as
potential
policies
for
the
legislature
to
prioritize
I'll.
I
Well,
thank
you
director.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee.
Georgia
Powers
for
the
record.
Ndsp
has
been
receiving
raw
and
aggregated
data
regularly
from
the
ndoc.
We
have
worked
closely
with
the
offender
management
division
to
identify
available
variables
and
continue
to
meet
regularly
with
them
to
expand
these
data
points
we
have
presented
to
the
committee
previously.
Regarding
our
dashboard
containing
population
information
for
ndoc,
you
will
be
seeing
more.
You
will
be
seeing
more
of
that
later.
In
our
presentation.
We
can
also
perform
cost
analysis
for
Corrections.
I
We
have
done
a
preliminary
comparison
of
Nevada
Corrections
costs
to
other
states,
analysis
of
current
Nevada
doc
budgets
and
are
performing
ongoing
research
regarding
how
to
actually
talk
about
corrections
costs
we
have
completed
some
requested
research
for
various
stakeholders
and
legislators,
and
we
welcome
any
requests
that
you
may
have
here.
You
see
a
list
of
some
research.
We
have
completed
to
include
analysis
for
possible
outcomes
and
consequences
of
proposed
legislation.
I
We
can
provide
that
deeper
dive
for
data-driven
answers
and
also
any
possible
collateral
effects.
Also
listed
are
some
Doc
areas
for
which
we
already
possess
data
points
and
would
be
happy
to
provide
further
analysis
and
targeted
comparison.
If
so
asked
we
are
here
to
assist
with
any
other
criminal
justice
topics
about
which
you
may
be
interested
to
receive
further
information
such
as
Nationwide,
Trends
or
up-and-coming
matters
of
Criminal
Justice
Focus.
I
One
such
topic
is
prosecutor,
initi,
initiated
resentencing
or
second
look
legislation.
This
topic
is
gaining
attention.
Nationwide.
It
came
to
our
agency's
attention
earlier
this
year
and,
interestingly
enough,
the
subject
was
covered
at
length
by
keynote
speakers
at
the
National
Association
of
sentencing
commission's
annual
conference
earlier
this
week.
I
This
initiative
is
backed
by
the
model
Penal
Code
as
a
best
practice
for
addressing
past
sentences,
leading
to
prolonged
incarceration
that
may
no
longer
be
serving
the
advancement
of
Justice.
We
would
be
happy
to
share
what
we
have
found
concerning
this
topic.
Please
reach
out
regarding
this
or
any
other
requests
or
questions.
You
may
have
another
topic
we
get
frequent
questions
about,
is
Nevada's
sentence
credits
and
their
application.
I
Ndsp
completed
a
review
of
how
sentence
credits
are
rewarded
to
offenders
and
how
the
credits
affect
offender
Benchmark
dates.
We
will
refer
you
back
to
the
slides
from
the
July
meeting
for
some
recommendations
related
to
sentencing
credits,
to
assist
the
public
and
stakeholders
better
understand
how
credits
are
projected
and
applied.
I
One
tool
ndsp
has
developed
is
now
available
to
help
with
this.
You
heard
about
this
document
during
the
last
committee
meeting.
This
guide
is
available
on
our
website
and
we
plan
collaboration
with
ndoc
to
disseminate
this
guide
to
all
offenders
and
to
their
website.
Also
in
the
slides
from
July
as
well
was
an
explanation
of
an
additional
date
that
may
help
with
some
of
the
confusion.
Around
credits
and
the
movement
of
offender
dates.
I
The
cexd
is
the
days
owed
on
a
sentence
expressed
the
date
with
only
the
flat
days
credited
any
other
credits
are
added,
as
earned
Senator
Harris
spoke
at
the
last
committee
meeting
about
a
Rosier
date,
one
that
wasn't
always
moving
away
from
the
offender,
and
this
date
would
fit
that
bill.
The
date
would
move
closer
to
the
offender,
as
credits
are
earned,
it
would
also
move
the
exact
number
of
days
earned.
I
The
current
projected
dates
the
ped
and
p-e-x-d
would
remain,
and
for
the
purposes
of
this
recommendation,
adding
the
cexd
will
just
provide
transparency.
I
H
For
the
record
Victoria
Gonzalez
exactly
at
a
Nevada
sentencing,
Department
of
sentencing
policy,
so
we
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
what's
coming
next
for
other
projects
we're
working
on
and
what
you
can
plan
to
see.
We
are
working
on
analyzing.
The
data
we've
been
collecting
to
identify
the
outcomes
from
the
enactment
of
ab236
from
the
29
to
2019
legislative
session.
The
Nevada
sentencing
commission
is
required
to
collect
and
analyze
this
data
for
tracking
those
outcomes.
So
we
will
have
more
information
about
that
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
going
into
session.
H
We
are
also
working
on
expanding
our
data
collection
to
more
criminal
justice
agencies
like
the
division
of
parole,
probation
jails,
Etc.
We
are
working
on
developing
monthly
fact
sheets,
which
will
include
findings
from
our
most
recent
data
and
Analysis.
Our
first
fact
sheet
will
be
published
in
mid-august.
H
If
you
follow
us
on
Twitter,
as
you
can
see
our
handle
here
or
subscribe
to
our
listserv
or
regularly
check
our
website,
you'll
be
able
to
get
the
mo
the
latest
updates
and
Analysis
we
are
offering
for
the
public
and
the
stakeholders
and
the
lawmakers
next
I
wanted
to.
Just
briefly
give
you
a
preview
or
give
you
a
brief
preview
of
the
bdr
that
we
submitted.
That
came
out
of
both
our
department
and
the
Nevada
sentencing
commission.
H
Those
a
highlight
of
some
of
the
revisions
we
have
there
are
listed
here
on
this
slide.
We
also
are
revising
some
of
our
proposing
to
revise
some
of
our
statutes
in
order
to
enhance
our
sustainability
of
data
collection
and
functionality
of
our
commission
to
ensure
that
our
agency
is
able
to
deliver
what
this
state
needs.
When
it
comes
to
criminal
justice
data.
H
Here's
a
highlight
of
the
change
we
have
to
the
temporary
revocations.
A
temporary
revocation
is
related
to
those
technical
violations
for
a
probate
for
a
probation
or
parolee,
who
is
on
supervision
and
may
have
a
technical
violation
is
resolved
with
a
temporary
revocation.
H
Our
proposal
is
to
change
the
structure
of
this,
because
our
data
found
that
parolee
specifically
we're
spending
on
average
and
97
days
incarcerated,
while
they
were
waiting
for
the
hearing
result
regarding
their
temporary
revocation
the
outcome
of
that
hearing
and
then
actually
serving
the
time
related
to
that
temporary
revocation.
So
the
change
here
would
help
reduce
the
time
that
both
probationers
and
Parolees
are
spending
just
weighting.
H
Foreign
moving
to
the
third
part
of
our
presentation,
analysis
is
regarding
the
changes
in
the
prison
population.
We
are
going
to
introduce
the
findings
that
we
have
from
the
data
that
we
I'm
going
to
introduce
the
findings
that
we
have
so
far.
The
data
we've
received
from
Doc
allows
us
to
conduct
regular
analysis
of
the
trends
in
the
prison
population.
H
Our
findings
from
our
analysis
show
that
it
may
be
time
for
Nevada
to
rethink
how
we
house
our
offenders,
which
means
this
is
an
excellent
opportunity
for
our
lawmakers
stakeholders
and
the
public
to
prioritize
our
sentencing
and
Corrections
policies.
With
intention,
we've
noted
here
what
the
population
was
on
June
30th.
This
only
includes
offenders
that
were
housed
in
institutions
and
does
not
include
offenders
that
were
in
jails
or
hospitals,
and
you
can
see
this
is
the
lowest
our
population
has
been
since
2001.
H
J
J
The
next
thing
I
want
to
present
is
a
possible
Trends.
We
are
seeing
that
ndoc
facilities
based
on
quantitative
analysis
for
our
analysis.
We
took
actual
population
and
compare
that
to
Total
bed
capacity.
Just
for
the
month
of
June,
we
found
in
June
that
there
was
an
average
of
66.3
percent
bed
vacancies
in
camps,
and
we
found
as
of
yesterday
that
there
was
an
average
of
79.6
percent
bed.
Vacancies
in
camps.
J
H
For
the
record,
Victoria
Gonzalez,
so
what
this
means
for
our
findings
and
the
qualitative
analysis
of
this
data
is
that
there's
there
are
fewer
offenders
who
are
qualifying
for
minimum
custody
in
the
camps.
Our
qualitative
analysis
shows
us
and
indicates
that
this
is
most
likely
due
to
ab236.
This
is
contrib.
This
is
a
contributing
factor,
because
those
offenders
who
would
qualify
for
the
minimum
custody
that
would
put
them
in
a
camp
are
no
longer
are
being
offered
opportunities
for
diversion
and
alternative
sentences.
H
So
what
this
means
for
Nevada
is
that
there
are
several
opportunities
to
not
to
rethink
the
sentencing
and
correction
policies
in
our
state
and
prioritize.
What's
important
to
this
state
There's
an
opportunity
here
to
rethink
how
we
house,
our
offenders,
There's
an
opportunity
here
to
address
our
prison
population
proactively,
rather
than
reactively
There's,
an
opportunity
here
to
prioritize
the
policies
that
are
flexible
and
then
it
can
adjust
to
our
needs
over
time.
H
Whether
there
are
changes
in
population,
whether
we
want
to
prioritize
supports
for
re-entry
programming
or
health
care
that
may
be
needed
for
an
aging
population.
What's
important
when
identifying
and
prioritizing
policies
is
looking
at
flexibility
and
prioritizing
flexibility,
prioritizing
policies
that
will
allow
Nevada
to
allocate
resources
and
beds
and
programming
and
other
needs
as
appropriate
and
as
needed
for
our
population
and
for
Public
Safety
and
for
our
state
as
a
whole.
H
I
will
note
that
what
we
have
presented
here
other
than
what
we
discussed
in
the
bdr
does
not
reflect
any
opinion
of
this
Nevada
sentencing
commission,
but
rather
our
independent
research
that
we've
been
looking
for
to
provide
as
resources
to
our
stakeholders,
our
law,
the
lawmakers
and
the
public.
Our
intent
here
is
to
offer
a
bipartisan
approach
to
data
collection
and
Analysis,
so
anybody
can
reach
out
to
us
when
they're
looking
to
develop
legislation,
policies
and
other
ideas,
we
can
help
you
look
through.
H
A
K
Vice
chairwin,
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
I
I
believe
you've
had
the
opportunity
to
kind
of
review.
Probably
the
work
session
document
that
was
on
there
today
do
some
of
the
recommendations
that
are
in
that
work
session
document
kind
of
encapsulate.
What
you
guys
are
seeking
to
be
able
to
accomplish
with
some
added
resources
and
some
statutory
changes
in
language.
H
For
the
record
Victoria
Gonzalez
executive
director
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
sentencing
policy,
yes,
Vice
chairwin,
we
reviewed
the
work
session
document
and
those
are
consistent
with
recommendations
that
we
had
identified
previously
and
will
help
us
Advance
our
efforts.
Our
intent
would
be
to
help
this
body
and
other
stakeholders
to
provide
the
resources
you
need,
and
so
we're
open
to
anything
else.
That
would
help
I
know
that
we
could
discuss
further,
but
from
what
we
can
see
in
the
work
session
document.
H
That
would
help
us
and
provide
those
resources
that
will
help
you
when
it
comes
to
analyzing
the
impacts
and
prioritizing
policies
for
the
for
the
upcoming
legislative
session.
The
only
other
thing
I
would
note
is
which
wouldn't
be
for
this
body,
because
this
is
a
policy
body
would
be
those
items
related
to
analyzing
the
prison
population
and
looking
towards
what
we
just
discussed
about
identifying
those
policies
that
could
be
prioritized
going
into
session.
E
H
The
record
Victoria
Gonzalez
executive
director
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
sentencing
policy,
so
I'm
going
to
take
that
in
two
approaches.
First,
we
are
working
on
a
methodology
to
identify
how
we
is
the
best
way
to
measure
costs.
We
could
take
an
average
cost
per
day,
we're
also
looking
on
developing,
what's
called
a
reference,
a
marginal
cost
to
determine
what
is
the
day-to-day
cost?
What
is
the
bed
cost
for
these
offenders?
H
I
will
say
because
of
the
way
that
the
beds
are
distributed
right
now,
it
would
be
difficult
to
realize
the
savings,
because
you
have
overhead
costs
and
daily
costs
that
comes
to
operating
each
facility,
and
so,
if
you're
looking
to
identify
those
savings,
we
would
need
to
look
at
what
would
be
the
opportunity
to
assess
the
uses
of
the
beds
and
how
you
want
to
use
the
facilities.
So
there's
no
actual
savings
right
now,
because
of
the
way
that
the
doc
receives
their
appropriation
for
their
budget.
H
H
Your
question
is
related
to
what
the
Nevada
sentencing
commission
is
required
to
do
for
measuring
the
the
costs
avoided
in
resulting
from
ab236
that
bill
promised
to
save
640
million
dollars
over
10
years
and
what
it
identified
was
that
it
would,
by
the
640,
would
include
not
having
to
build
a
new
facility
and
not
having
to
build
or
not
having
to
remodel
additional
facilities
to
to
create
more
bed
space.
H
So
what
I
would
say
is
based
on
the
analysis
from
that
cost
avoided
Nevada
is
on
track
from
saving
what
it
could,
what
it
would
have
had
to
spend
to
build
a
new
prison,
so
I
would
say
the
cost
savings
that
we
can
identify
are
not
are
not
actual
dollars,
but
construction.
That
is
not
required
right
now.
That
was
required
several
years
ago,
back
in
2016
and
2017
when
they
were
busting
at
the
seams.
H
But
we
are
working
on
that
analysis
and
we
will
have
something
that,
based
on
what
kind
of
cost
you're
looking
at,
that
we
can
put
together
and
give
you
a
more
concrete
number
and
and
give
you
different
approaches
to
counting
that
or
to
measuring
that.
H
But
we
will
qualify
advice
and
there's
different
ways
to
measure
it
and
I
think
we'd
want
to
know
what
is
it
you're
looking
to
do
with
those
resources,
because
part
of
our
analysis
when
it
comes
to
analyzing,
the
fiscal
piece
is
what
is
what
should
be
spent
on
programming
in
order
to
prepare
for
re-entry
and
treatment
of
mental
health.
And
then,
when
we
measure
cost
savings.
H
We
also
look
at
those
offenders
that
are
being
moved
to
parole,
because
what
happens
when
the
prison
population
gets
reduced,
there's
actually
more
that's
being
spent
and
the
supervision
side,
because
those
individuals
are
no
longer
sitting
in
a
facility
but
they're
still
being
supervised.
So
we're
working
that
into
our
analysis
as
well.
So
there's
no
actual
funds
that
we
could
identify
right
now,
but
we
could
identify
what's
not
being
spent
and
when
it
comes
to
building
the
budgets.
H
For
the
upcoming
session,
we
would
have
full
reports
that
we
could
Analyze
That
in
depth
for
the
legislative
body.
E
Thank
you.
The
other
question
I
have
is
with
reduction
in
prison
population.
How
does
that
correlate
to
the
increase
in
criminal
activity
that
we've
experienced
in
the
last
few
years
here
in
Nevada?
Particularly?
Can
you
identify
it
as
we
have
less
convicted
burglars
in
the
prison
population,
but
we
have
an
increase
in
burglary
out
in
the
world
or
in
in
the
state.
H
For
the
record
Victoria
Gonzalez
executive
director
of
Nevada
Department
of
sensing
policy,
thank
you
for
that
question.
Yes,
we
are
working
on
that
analysis
right
now.
Our
cursory
findings
show
that
those
who
are
being
admitted
to
the
prison
right
now
do
reflect
what's
happening
when
you
compare
that
to
the
crime
rate,
the
types
of
crimes
where
we
have
an
increase.
H
Those
types
of
offenders
are
represented
more
in
the
admissions
that
we've
noticed
and
because
we
were
talking
about
from
the
impacts
from
ab236
and
that
you
have
those
offenders
being
offered
other
Alternatives
before
going
to
prison.
We
don't
see
those
types
of
offenders
being
represented
in
the
population.
So
again,
we'll
have
a
we'll
have
the
official
analysis
of
this
in
the
coming
months,
but
preliminarily.
H
What
we
see
is
you've
got
those
more
serious
of
offenders
and
so
to
your
question
about
costs,
those
offenders
cost
more
to
incarcerate,
and
so,
when
we
are
going
to
do
that,
cost
savings.
We're
going
to
have
to
look
at
those
individuals
that
are
coming
in
with
more
serious
crimes,
are
going
to
serve
longer
sentences
and
be
housed
in
facilities
where
more
oversight
and
support
is
needed
to
manage
those
offenders.
And
so
that's
where,
when
we're
trying
to
analyze
where
we
see
the
savings,
we
see
these
lower.
H
These
minimum
custody
beds
not
being
used
as
much,
but
if
we
see
an
increase
in
more
violent
offenders,
which
is
what
it's
looking
like
right
now
consistent
with
the
crime
rate,
then
you're
actually
going
to
spend
those
resources
are
just
going
to
be
allocated
over
to
those
more
serious
vendors
and
to
your
aging
offenders,
rather
than
those
who
are
coming
in
on
short,
shorter
term
stays.
But
right
now
the
population
is
reflecting
what's
happening
in
the
community.
So.
E
A
All
right
do
any
of
our
colleagues
on
Zoom
have
questions.
L
Thank
you,
chair
schaible,
and
thank
you
ma'am
for
your
presentation,
I'm
just
concerned
about
how
you
all
are
tracking
the
data
when
you're
speaking
of
more
support.
If,
if
lower
level,
offenders
are
not
or
having
alternative
sentences,
how
were
you
tracking
this
the
services
that
they
are
receiving
as
they
are
going
into
re-entry?
L
Are
we
seeing
add
and
and
do
you
have
any
type
of
analysis
that
talks
about
you
know
how
long
they're
receiving
Services,
if
they're
getting
mental
health
if
they're
getting
job
training?
How
are
all
those
things
Quantified
and
will
that
be
part
of
your?
What
your
analysis
that
you
present
to
us.
H
For
the
record,
Victoria
Gonzalez,
thank
you
for
that
question.
As
your
question
implies,
that's
a
very
difficult
thing
to
measure.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
the
the
scope
of
your
question.
You're
talking
about
you
said
re-entry
right,
not
what
they're
receiving
while
incarcerated.
L
It
would
be
nice
to
know
about
all
of
those
things
at
this
point.
I
I
would
have
hope
that
that
data
is
already
being
captured,
especially
since
it's
part
of
of
the
budget
and
and
is
something
that
should
be
there.
There
should
be
some
track
records
so
today
you're
not
giving
us
any
data,
you're
saying
that
it's
coming,
so
what
I
want
to
know
is
Will
specifics
about
the
types
of
care
that
they're
getting
in
in
custody,
while
they're
preparing
to
be
released.
L
L
And
we
and
and
you're
saying
that,
if
you're
saying
that
there
won't
be
or
probably
will
not
be
savings,
because
these
services
are
being
given,
then
we'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
know
how
they're
being
given
and
and
at
what
rate
and
participation
and
all
the
data
that
comes
with
moving
that
those
Monies
to
Support
Services
as
opposed
to
housing.
Then
in
incarceration.
H
For
the
record,
Victoria
Gonzalez,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
Yes,
so
our
intent
would
be
to
be
able
to
provide
data
for
anything
that
was
that
had
any
sort
of
allocation
of
funding
attached
to
it.
We
are
going
to
look
at
like
you
said
we
can
analyze
the
doc
budgets.
We
can
do
a
case
study
of
offenders
and
look
at
their
individual
case
plans
and
try
and
do
a
quality,
a
qualitative
analysis
about
what
they're
receiving,
but
it's
very
difficult
to
track.
H
However,
we
do
not
want
to
offer
anything
to
this
body
or
the
stakeholders
that
is
not
based
in
some
sort
of
qualitative
and
quantitative
analysis.
So
we
are
working
on
getting
information.
We
know
how
important
it
is
for
allocating
resources
and
for
measuring
the
success
of
of
individuals
who
need
support,
so
what
we
will
be
able
to
offer
as
well
is
we
can't
offer
who
has
indicators
of
needs
and
then
what
we
can
do
is
is
try
and
measure
them
when
they
if
they
are
to
come
back.
H
So
we
know
that
we'd
be
able
to
look
at
who
had
an
indicator
and
if
they
were
to
come
back
if
they
were
to
recidivate
and
if
they
had
that
indicator
and
then
they
came
back
and
then
we
want.
What
to
do
is
then
do
a
qualitative
analysis
of
those
individuals
and
identify
what
trends
we're
seeing
that
so
we're
going
to
work
on
a
more
Grassroots
approach
to
collecting
that
information
and
not
have
any
of
that
formalized
data.
L
Madam
chair
just
to
follow
up
if
I
may
so
miss
Gonzalez.
Are
you
saying
that
in
the
past
these
the
data
on
these
programs
has
never
been
collected
that
over
the
years
that
we've
been
doing,
that
you
all
have
been
doing
business
that
that
data
has
not
been
collected?
And
this
is
a
new
approach.
Now
we've
been
spending
a
lot
all
this
money
and-
and
we
don't
have
anything.
H
Before
the
record
Victoria,
oh
sorry,
are
you
done
for
the
record,
Victoria
Gonzalez,
so
lucky
for
this
state.
We
are
your
answer
to
that
question.
We
were
just
established
in
2019,
and
so
we've
only
been
in
existence
for
two
years
and
that's
exactly
what
we're
in
place
to
do.
What
I
can
tell
you,
based
on
my
my
preliminary
analysis
of
budgets
and
what
is
being
spent
right
now
in
the
different
programming.
Is
that
it?
It
should
be
more.
H
What
I
can
see
is
that
there's
it's
not
there's
not
enough
opportunity,
but
it
was
not
being
analyzed
in
the
level
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
analyze
for
it
before
that.
What
we're
going
to
be
able
to
do
was
not
the
data.
Wasn't
there
before
the
funding
was
there,
but
what
we
want
to
know
is
that
funding
adequate
for
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish
and
that's
been,
our
question
is
we
can
see
how
much
is
being
spent?
H
We
just
don't
know
who
it's
reaching
and
is
it
reaching
the
people
who
need
it
and
is
it
and
is
it?
What
is
the
the
quality
of
it?
We
in
statute?
It
is
required
that
for
Doc
that
they
use
evidence-based
practices,
but
until
we
came
along
there
wasn't
an
entity
that
could
come
from
the
outside
and
analyze,
some
of
that
and
get
both
the
qualitative
and
the
quantitative
analysis.
So
no,
we
don't
have
any
existing
data
to
build.
H
A
E
Is
one
more
question?
Could
you
allow
me
to
get
in
one
more
question
just
for
clarification
on
this
work
program?
It's
go
ahead
for
sentencing.
Thank
you.
I
assume.
You've
taken
you've
seen
some
of
these
this
proposal.
Could
you
tell
me
what
adding
a
representative
from
the
central
repository
for
the
Nevada
records
of
criminal
history
we'll
provide
to
you
that
you
don't
currently
have
what's
their
value
to
include
them
in
there.
H
For
the
record
of
Victoria
Gonzalez
executive
director
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
sentencing
policy,
thank
you
for
that
question,
as
we
do
not
currently
on
the
commission
have
an
expert
in
data
collection.
That
division
is
tasked
with
collecting
data
from
every
single
law
enforcement
agency
and
every
single
criminal
justice
agency
in
order
to
have
the
criminal
history
required
in
order
to
run
those
background
checks
and
they
have
had
the
expertise
of
building
databases
and
the
collection
practices
that
have
been
successful
for
each
jurisdiction
and
each
entity.
H
And
so
if
our
duties
were
expanded
to
now
include
misdemeanors
those
misdemeanors.
The
data
in
order
to
collect
to
collect
information
related
to
dis.
Misdemeanors,
expands
our
data
collection
right
now
and
our
expertise
in
how
we
would
actually
go
from
jurisdiction
to
jurisdiction
and
the
data
they
collect
is
very
analogous
to
what
would
be
collected
in
order
to
do
a
misdemeanor
study.
E
H
H
This
would
be
at
a
higher
level
for
providing
that
guidance
that
insight
and
expertise,
which
is
what
the
other
members
of
our
commission
do.
As
we
have.
You
know,
a
prosecutor
who
tell
who
gives
us
expertise
about
prosecution
and
expertise
about
Public
Defense
and
we
have
a
victim
advocate.
So
the
idea
is
to
have
a
data
expert
on
the
commission
that
can
guide
our
agency
in
our
collection
and
work
that
we
do
do
on
the
ground.
I.
A
All
right
any
further
questions
all
right,
not
seeing
any
questions.
That
concludes
agenda.
Item
number
four
on
our
agenda.
At
this
point,
we
are
going
to
move
to
the
work
session.
I
do
appreciate
that
the
Department
of
Public
Safety
is
I.
Think
already
here
with
us
and
I
know
that
I
asked
you
to
come
and
present
at
this
meeting.
I
am
looking
forward
to
hearing
from
you.
We
have
to
get
to
the
work
session
document
while
we
have
a
quorum.
A
So
that
is
why
we're
going
to
go
to
that
next,
a
couple
of
comments
about
the
work
session
document
as
we
go
through
this
I
appreciate
that
so
many
of
you
all
the
people
who
are
here
who
are
listening,
who
are
in
Carson
City,
submitted
recommendations
to
us,
and
there
were
far
too
many
to
include
in
a
single
work
session
document.
So
even
everything,
that's
included
in
the
work
session
document
probably
will
not
ultimately
become
one
of
the
committee's
bdrs,
as
we
have
only
10..
A
It
sounded
like
a
lot
to
me
at
first,
but
quickly.
I
saw
that
we
had
much
more
than
10
great
ideas.
So
the
reason
that
I
mentioned,
that
is,
if
there's
something
that
you
don't
see
on
the
work
session
document
meant
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
is
dead,
that
it
cannot
be
introduced
through
an
individual
sponsor
or
through
another
committee
later
on,
in
fact,
part
of
the
reason
that
some
of
the
items
were
included
in
this
work
session
document
that
might
not
ultimately
become
our
bdrs
was
for
exactly
that
purpose.
A
To
allow
individual
legislators
on
this
committee
and
the
people
who
proposed
those
items
to
be
able
to
connect
with
each
other
and
possibly
find
their
sponsors.
Specifically.
I
have
received
a
couple
of
questions
about
the
summary
eviction
proposals
which
you
do
not
see
on
the
work
session
document,
because
we
have
not
reached
a
place
yet
where
we
are
ready
to
formulate
a
bdr
we
may
or
may
not
get
there,
and
so
with
that.
I
am
going
to
go
through
each
portion
of
the
work
session
document
individually.
E
E
E
I
appreciate
your
explanation
of
the
work
session
may
I
just
say
that
I'm
disappointed
that
I
received
the
documents
at
4
30
last
night,
and
now
we're
going
into
this
session
I'd
like
to
have
had
these
documents
to
review
at
least
a
week
in
Prior.
We
also
have
another
life
and
obligations,
we're
not
in
session
where
we're
committed
here
full
time
having
these
come
out
at
4,
30
last
night
to
me,
is
rather
disingenuous
to
the
process
of
establishing
good
legislation
or
at
least
proposals
and
build
drafts.
A
Understood
I,
don't
think
anything
on
the
work
session
document
was
something
that
wasn't
discussed
in
a
previous
meeting
or
didn't
come
from
some
of
our
previous
materials.
So
none
of
it
should
be
new
information,
but
we
are
here
today
to
have
a
discussion
about
everything
that
is
included
in
the
work
session
document
I'm
going
to
take
it
a
little
bit
out
of
order.
A
Actually,
I'm
gonna
go
I'm
going
to
start
with
section
A,
because
we
just
talked
about
this.
We
just
heard
from
the
Nevada
sentencing
commission
from
the
Department
of
sentencing
policy.
A
They
had
a
couple
of
recommendations,
including
broadening
I'll,
go
through
them,
one
by
one
sub
point:
a
broadening
their
duties
to
include
not
just
providing
recommendations
and
analyzes
for
felony
sentencings,
but
also
misdemeanors,
Part
B,
to
add
a
member
of
the
central
criminal,
the
central
repository
for
Nevada
criminal
records
of
History
to
their
board
and,
finally,
to
conduct
a
review
of
misdemeanors,
which
is
something
that
we
have
talked
about
in
several
previous
meetings
and
that
my
understanding
from
the
presentation
is
something
that
the
the
department
of
sensing
policy
is
ready
interested
to
do
interested
in
doing
so,
and
then
there's
a
second
part
of
this.
A
A
So
we'll
take
those
one
at
a
time.
I'll
start
with
sub
section
one
on
requesting
a
bdr
and
I
would
ask
for
input
from
the
committee
on
which,
if
any
of
these
three
sub
sections
we
would
like
to
include
if
we
would
like
to
develop
a
bdr
out
of
this
committee,
and
it
looks
like
a
vice
chair,
win
is
ready
to
jump
in
here.
Please
go
ahead.
K
I
I
believe
I,
like
all
three.
A
b
and
c
of
these
I
think
that
they're
all
necessary
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
clearly
lacking
on
our
state
is
evidence-based
decision
making
and
the
only
way
we
can
get
evidence
to
make
evidence-based
decision
making
is
to
collect
evidence.
So
I
would
support
that.
I
know
that
there
is
a
lot
of
movement
and,
in
the
last
two,
the
last
two
sessions
that
I've
been
in
the
legislature.
K
I
know
that,
having
served
on
many
of
these
interim
committees
with
assemblywoman
krasner
the
importance
of
having
someone
from
the
central
repository
for
Nevada
records
of
criminal
history
and
having
worked
with
her
on
some
of
her
bills
regarding
sealing
of
records
for
juveniles
and
children
that
having
that
I
know
that
assemblyman
O'neill
said
he
wasn't
quite
convinced
of
that.
Hopefully
this
will
be
a
convincing
matter.
I
think
it's
important
to
have
that
representation
from
Nevada
records
of
criminal
history.
K
We
see
ceiling
records
I
think
we
saw
like
six
or
seven
of
them
during
last
session
in
assembly
Judiciary,
so
I
know
that
it
is
important
to
have
those
that
voice
at
that
table.
So
I
would
support
all
three
of
those.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
from
Vice
chair,
Wynn
to
draft
a
bdr,
reflecting
the
things
listed
in
Parts,
a
b
and
c
under
subsection
one
of
recommendations,
a
we
just
talked
about
them.
Is
there
a
second
I'll?
Second,
we
have
a
second
from
assembly
member
marzola.
E
E
Thank
you
chair.
You
know
before
my
comment
is
before
we
expand
their
Authority
and
their
use
I'd
like
to
hear
that
they're,
actually
better
equipped
to
do
their
job
that
they
are
now
what
I
heard
presented
today
was
a
lot
of
we're
still
working
on
that
we're
still
developing
that
we
can't
answer
that.
We
should
have
that
someday
plus
there's
a
money
aspect
of
it
to
a
financial
impact.
I
know
we're
a
policy
committee,
not
a
financial
committee,
but
I
think
we
should
take
that
in
consideration.
E
But
my
main
thing
is:
there's
always
a
saying:
do
what
you're
tasked
with
first
and
perfect
that,
before
you
expand
into
doing
any
other
jobs,
and
so
I
can't
agree
because
of
that
I'd
like
to
see
better
performance
from
them
in
the
first
place.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
All
right,
if
there's
no
further
discussion
because
of
the
format
here,
we're
going
to
do
a
roll
call
vote
on
all
of
these,
for
the
clarity
of
the
record
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
ask
Mr
geinen
to
take
a
roll
call
vote
on
the
motion
on
the
floor.
B
B
E
L
A
Let's
move
to
section
two
of
recommendation,
a
which
is
to
send
a
letter
to
the
council
and
state
government,
Justice
Center
and
the
Bureau
of
Justice
assistance
about
in
participating
in
the
Justice
counts
program.
Any
discussion
on
this
item.
A
N
B
B
B
M
Saw
anyone
win
aye
hi
everyone
I
saw
me
woman,
Summers
Armstrong,.
L
A
K
Would
like
to
actually
ask
to
have
that
item
removed
from
today's
work
session
document.
A
And
I
will
honor
this
request.
We
will
be
removing
Item
B
from
the
agenda,
and
that
takes
us
to
item
C.
Item
C
regard
is
regarding
civil
infractions.
We
discussed
this
I
thought
we
mentioned
it
at
one
of
our
meetings.
A
I,
don't
see
that
reflected
in
the
notes,
maybe
I
misremembered,
but
the
suggestion
here
is
to
make
a
technical
correction
regarding
the
suspension
of
driver's
licenses
doing
two
things
to
point:
a
removing
subsection
three
of
NRS
484a
0.7047
and
B,
directing
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
to
reinstate
the
driver's
license
of
a
person
whose
license
was
suspended
pursuant
to
that
section
on
or
after
January
1st
2023.
A
This
is
an
issue
that
was
brought
to
our
attention
regarding
some
possible
discrepancies
between
two
bills
that
were
passed
last
session,
resulting
in
some
disagreement
on
whether
or
not
driver's
licenses
could
be
suspended
for
non-payment
of
fees,
and
this
request
would
resolve
that
potential
discrepancy
in
in
the
direction
of
saying
that
a
driver's
license
cannot
be
suspended
for
failure
to
pay
fees,
and
so
with
that
is
there
any
discussion.
K
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
from
Vice
chair
when
to
draft
legislation
as
reflected
in
the
work
session
document.
Is
there
a
second?
We
have
a
second
from
assemblywoman
Summers
Armstrong.
We
will
go
to
a
roll
call
vote.
Please!
Oh
I'm,
sorry!
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
I.
E
A
That's
okay,
this
I
think
would
decrease
the
suspension
of
licenses
because
licenses
would
no
longer
be
suspended
simply
for
failure
to
pay
fees
or
fines.
So.
A
K
Sorry
I
was
just
looking
just
for
clarification,
assemblyman
O'neill.
If
you'll
recall,
there
were
two
bills
that
like
went
through
the
2021
session.
One
was
assembly,
Bill
116
that
I
fully
passed
overwhelmingly
I
think
there
was
only
one
no
vote
on
that
if
you'll
recall
so
there
was
strong
bipartisan
support
that
bill
actually
had
does
not
go
into
effect
until
January
of
2023..
K
219
I
believe
that
passed
unanimously
out
of
both
houses.
When
they
went
to
be
implemented.
There
was
some
discrepancy
on
whether
or
not
they
could
act
in
concert
together,
and
this
just
clarifies
that
language
to
make
sure
that
the
intent
of
both
of
those
like
pretty
much
unanimous
votes
on
those
bills
would
work
together.
E
K
That's
correct
that
is
completely
correct
and
if
you'll
recall
there
was
an
assembly
bill
that
was
sponsored
by
assemblywoman
Gonzalez
and
there
was
a
Senate
bill
that
was
sponsored
by
Senate
Majority
Leader
can
azaro
and
they
kind
of
Blended
together
and
merged
into
one.
E
A
Understood
and
just
to
clarify
this
is
a
vote
to
draft
a
bdr.
So,
unlike
a
vote
in
normal
work
session,
where
we're
sending
a
bill
to
the
floor,
it
just
doesn't
send
a
bill
to
the
floor.
It
sends
a
request
to
LCB
to
draft
a
bdr,
and
then
we
all
have
to
review
that
bdr
decide
whether
or
not
to
introduce
it
and
has
to
go
through
the
full
process
to
become
a
law
and
I
will
go
to
Mr
geinen
for
that
roll
call
vote
unless
there's
any
further
discussion
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
M
Chair
Patrick
geinen
for
the
record
Senator
Harris.
B
M
B
B
B
L
A
All
right,
thank
you,
Mr
geinen,
that
that
part
D
regarding
bail
and
pre-trial
release.
As
everybody
knows,
we
have
been
working
on
bail
and
pre-trial
release
issues
for
a
long
time.
In
Nevada,
we
had
a
interim
study
in
the
2020
interim,
which
resulted
in
numerous
bills
being
introduced
and
passed
in
the
2021
session.
In
this
interim,
we
really
didn't
have
a
study
or
another
committee
that
would
cover
the
bail
and
pre-trial
release
issue.
A
So
that's
why
you
see
them
reflected
on
our
work
session
document
here,
because,
as
the
interim
Judiciary
Committee
we're
responsible
for
addressing
any
concerns
that
have
Arisen
as
a
result
of
what
we
passed
in
the
last
session-
and
you
know
from
the
recommendations
of
the
interim
study
of
the
2020
interim
and
so
reflected
in
the
work
session
document,
is
one
simple
possible
suggestion
which
is
to
explain
or
or
expand
the
goods
cause,
maybe
not
expand,
but
explain
or
Define
the
good
cause
exemption
requirement
that
is
already
present
in
the
statute,
but
I
would
be
open
to
discussion
on
other
possible
bdrs
that
we
may
want
to
draft
regarding
bail
and
pre-trial
release,
or
we
don't
have
to
draft
a
bdr
regarding
Bill
and
pre-trial
release
at
all.
A
K
You
actually
I
guess
a
discussion.
I
know
that
I
have
met
with
many
of
the
municipalities
and
talked
with
some
of
the
representatives
from
the
rural
communities
and
the
rural
courts
and
Court
Administration
as
well
as
I.
Think
there
were
some
documents
filed
from
the
district
attorneys
Association
as
well
about
some
concerns
about
the
process.
I've
also
met
with
members
of
the
public
defender's
office
and
the
defense
bar
about
clarifying
and
making
this
a
workable
process.
K
K
So
I
would
actually
ask
this
committee
to
amend
that
request
for
legislation
in
the
bdr
to
also
include
clarifying
pre-trial
release
process
to
include
good
time
timing
issues,
as
well
as
other
clarification
issues,
to
give
us
some
more
broad
authority
to
draft
legislation
that
takes
into
account
some
of
those
real
struggles
that
some
of
our
rural
communities
are
facing.
E
E
For
so,
if
I
understand
what
for
clarification,
they
would
have
the
courts
or
the
counties
would
have
to
explain
their
actions
for
each
bail
hearing
or
each
person
that
comes
before
them.
Or
would
this
be
a
universal
coverage
for
them?
I
I've
got
to
admit
getting
the
material
so
late
and
trying
to
read
all
the
documents
has
been
a
challenge
to
me.
E
A
I
I
can
answer
that
one.
This
would
be
a
a
case-by-case
issue.
The
statute
as
it
stands
and
I'm
sorry,
I,
don't
have
the
statute
in
front
of
me
I'm
trying
to
pull
it
up,
but
it's
been
a
little
while,
since
I've
been
in
the
courtroom
and
the
statute,
the
way
that
we
passed
it
last
session
did
include
a
good
cause
exemption
for
the
48-hour
requirement.
It
has
come
to
our
attention
that
some
jurisdictions
are
unclear
on
what
would
constitute
good
cause,
and
so
that
was
the
the
origin
of
this
recommendation.
A
It
sounds
like,
or
it's
my
it's
been
my
impression
that
there
is
still
some
work
to
be
done
on
figuring
out
how
we
can
Define
or
address
or
restate
good
cause
to
to
alleviate
those
concerns.
I,
don't
think
that
we
have.
You
know
the
language
today.
That's
why
we're
voting
on
a
bdr
and
not
on
a
bill,
but
the
issue
is
not
it.
The
proposal
is
not
to
create
a
new
exception
or
to
create
a
new
process.
A
E
A
I
I
appreciate
that
question
and
I
mean
this
is
the
the
purpose
of
our
discussion,
because
we
can.
We
can
do
this
a
couple
of
different
ways
and
what
I
would
suggest
can
I
make
the
motion.
A
Okay,
what
I
would
suggest
we
do
as
a
committee
is
request
that
a
bdr
be
drafted,
because
I
think
it
is
important
that
we
have
another
vehicle
in
the
next
session
to
address
bail
and
pre-trial
release
processes.
A
I
think
that
we
do
not
have
to
put
into
the
bdr
today
the
specific
language
that
we're
going
to
ask
to
be
changed,
modified
added
deleted,
but
I
think
that
we
should
request
that
a
bdr
be
set
aside
to
be
drafted
for
the
purpose
of
clarifying
the
bail
and
pre-trial
release
process,
so
that
this
committee,
as
we
continue
this
committee,
won't
meet
as
a
whole.
A
E
E
A
K
Vice
chairwin
and
assemblyman
O'neill
I
I
have
been
working
on
this
with,
in
particular,
the
courts.
Our
rural
jurisdictions,
as
well
as
the
prosecutors
and
law
enforcement
and
defense
and
I,
would
be
happy
to
include
you
in
on
those
conversations
as
well
to
get
your
input
in
this
as
we're
making
recommendations
for
a
specific
language,
yeah.
E
I
would
appreciate
that
because
I
feel
very
often
in
testimony
we've
had
prior
we've
talked
about
bail
release
that
has
worked
great
within
Clark
County
or
even
in
Las
Vegas.
One
of
the
proposals
was
well,
it
works
in
the
Las
Vegas.
We
don't
know
if
it'll
work
even
out
in
the
rural
part
of
Clark
County,
so
I
think
we
forget
that
we
have
16
other
state
or
16
other
counties
at
times
so
yeah
assembly,
one
when
I
would
love
to
be
with
you.
Take
that
back
I
would
appreciate
working
with
you.
E
K
A
B
B
B
K
E
L
A
All
right,
thank
you.
This
brings
us
to
part
e
of
our
work
session
document
and
this
is
a
recommendation
from
Jennifer
Richards
who's,
the
chief
rights
attorney
in
state
legal
assistance,
developer
for
the
Aging
and
Disability
Services
Division.
In
attachment
five,
you
can
see
some
of
the
information
that
she
has
provided
about,
the
request
which
is
listed
in
Parts,
a
b
and
c
I'll
get
into
them
in
a
little
bit
more
Jeff,
but
I
just
wanted
to
provide
some
more
context
for
this.
This
was
a
bill
draft.
A
This
was
a
request
that
we
received.
You
know
in
response
to
the
call
for
proposals.
I
have
been
in
touch
with
Ms
Richards
throughout
this
process.
She
did
join
us
for
one
of
our
meetings.
We
did
not
have
a
presentation
from
the
aging
and
disability
services
division
by
no
fault
of
their
own,
as
you
have
probably
I
hope
noticed.
This
is
an
extremely
busy
committee.
A
We
simply
ran
out
of
time
to
have
a
presentation
from
this
group,
and
so
I
made
the
decision
to
go
ahead
and
include
their
a
request
for
a
bdr
in
our
work
session
document,
because
I
think
it
is
a
worthwhile
cause.
I
hope
it
is
something
that
we
can
all
agree
on
and
I
think
that
they
have
provided
adequate
information
reflected
in
attachment
five
for
me
to
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
with
this,
and
hopefully
for
all
of
you
to
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
with
this.
A
If
the
motion
is
made-
and
it
carries,
what
we're
doing
here
is
requesting
a
bill
draft
request,
we're
not
agreeing
to
introduce
a
bill
and
certainly
not
agreeing
to
pass
a
bill,
but
agreeing
that
this
is
an
issue
of
such
importance
that
it
rises
above
the
level
of
you
know
just
discussing
it
and
to
actually
reserving
one
of
our
10
precious
build
draft
requests
to
do
the
following:
create
an
elder
fatality,
Review
Committee,
to
be
housed
within
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services.
A
A
It
would
also
include
the
bdr
would
include
having
a
mechanism
for
referring
cases
to
the
Office
of
the
Attorney
General
for
investigation
and
require
that
they
report
findings
annually
to
the
legislature.
My
staff
has
helpfully
reminded
me
that
we
also
have
a
domestic
violence,
fatality
review
board,
and
this
would
be
reflective
of
that.
So
again,
it's
for
people
with
disabilities
and
aging
people
who
are
in
you
know
this
assisted
care
type
facilities
and
with
that
I
will
open
it
up
for
discussion.
E
One
question
referring
this
to
the
AG:
if
I
understand
deaths,
crimes
against
the
elderly
are
investigated
by
local
Authority,
are
we
saying
that
we
don't
consider
local
Authority
law
enforcement
to
be
competent
in
their
actions
or
even
and
also
usually
crimes
cases
are
handled
back
at
the
county
level?
Why
are
we,
including
the
Attorney
General
in.
A
As
a
member
for
O'neill
we're
not
saying
at
all
that
local
law
enforcement
is
unequipped
to
handle
these
cases,
this
mirrors
the
same
process
that
we
utilize
for
infant
mortality
and
for
domestic
violence
fatalities
that
all
of
them,
those
the
DV
domestic
violence.
Fatality
board,
is
actually
housed
within
the
Attorney
General's
office,
and
so
it
acts
as
kind
of
a
clearing
house
or
a
centralized
repository
for
information
on
these
deaths
that
so
we
can
understand
and
see.
A
Statewide
Trends,
referring
the
cases
to
the
Attorney
General's
office
also
does
not
preclude
a
local
district
attorney
from
also
receiving
the
cases
or
the
Attorney
General
from
referring
the
cases
back
to
the
Local
District
Attorney.
The
idea
here
is
just
to
ensure
that
every
death
that
occurs
anywhere
in
this
state
is
reviewed
by
the
board,
and
we
keep
a
record
and
report
on
that
and
we
have
a
process
for
prosecution
by
the
attorney
general
and
or
the
Local
District
Attorney.
E
E
A
That
is
not
necessarily
how
the
Attorney
General
becomes
party
to
an
action,
and
in
this
case
we
would
be
developing
a
build
draft
request.
That
includes
a
mechanism
for
referring
to
the
Attorney
General's
office.
So
we
could
further
discuss
when
the
Attorney
General
would
be
able
to
prosecute
one
of
these
cases
and
when
they
wouldn't.
A
K
Chairwin
is
is
that
my
understanding,
I
I
kind
of
saw
this
recommendation
to
the
Attorney
General's
office,
similar
to
the
way
they
collect
data
on
domestic
violence,
the
Attorney
General's
office
isn't
in
the
practice
of
Prosecuting
misdemeanors
for
battery
domestic
violence,
as
well
as
any
of
those
child
abuse
cases
or
murder
cases
that
arise
from
any
kind
of
infant
mortality.
K
However,
it
does
give
us
like
a
central
repository
to
collect
information,
so
we
can
see
the
trends
in
this
case
it
would
be
with
elder
fatality,
so
we
can
make
better
policy
decisions
in
our
various
committees,
whether
it
is
Health
and
Human
Services
or
within
our
criminal
justice
system.
Is
that
correct,
chair.
A
B
B
O
B
E
L
A
All
right,
thank
you,
everybody.
That
brings
us
to
part
half
of
our
work
session
document.
We
did
have
a
presentation
about
crisis
response
call
centers,
and
the
study
that
the
oh,
my
gosh,
the
the
body
of
legislators,
legislative
commission,
who
tasked
us
with
completing
and
out
of
that
we
have
a
possible
recommendation
to
establish
a
pilot
program
relating
to
crisis
response,
call
centers
and
I'll
open
it
up
for
discussion
and
I.
Think
Senator
Harris
already
has
something
to
say
so:
go
ahead.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
would
like
to
propose
that
we
brought
in
the
subject
of
the
bill
draft
request
to
crisis
response
in
order
to
allow
us
to
address
possible
call
center
pilot
program,
but
any
additional
issues
that
may
need
to
be
put
into
legislation
in
next
session
related
to
crisis
response
in
general.
A
All
right
was
that
emotion
or
just
a
suggestion.
A
All
right,
we
have
a
motion
from
Senator
Harris
to
draft
a
bdr,
more
broadly
addressing
crisis
response,
centers
I'd.
Second,
that
motion
and
we
have
a
second
from
Vice
chair
Wynn.
Is
there
any
discussion
all
right?
Then
we
will
go
to
roll
call
vote.
B
B
N
L
A
All
right
the
motion
passes-
and
this
brings
us
two
section
g
of
our
recommendations.
I'll
note,
because
I
forgot
to
mention
this
at
the
beginning
that,
with
the
new
committee
format,
we
have
10
Bill
draft
requests
available
to
our
committee
for
General
Judiciary
matters.
We
have
five
available
to
us
for
Juvenile
Justice
matters,
so
section
H
I,
think
is
all
of
our
Juvenile
Justice
stuff.
That
has
a
different.
You
know
five
bdr
maximum
just
want
to.
A
Let
you
guys
know
that,
as
we
start
talking
about
section
g,
which
includes
all
of
the
recommendations
regarding
the
Department
of
Corrections,
a
lot
of
these
were
issues
that
were
brought
up
during
various
meetings
that
we've
had
over
the
course
of
the
last
eight
months
or
so
and
we'll
go
through
them
kind
of
one
by
one,
starting
with
subsection,
a
adopting
requirements
intended
to
ensure
offenders.
A
Relatives
of
offenders
and
other
interested
persons
have
access
to
information
relating
to
the
calculation
of
credits
earned
by
offenders,
and
you
can
see
that
that
has
four
subparts,
which
includes
updating
the
sentencing
guide.
Putting
the
sentencing
guide
on
the
ndoc
website
requiring
that
the
cexd
is
available
on
the
internet,
that's
the
current
earned
expiration
date
and
requiring
ndoc
to
post
on
their
website
a
disclaimer
regarding
the
dates
that
are
relevant
to
an
offender
may
be
released
from
prison
and
before
we
dive
too
deep
into
this
conversation.
A
A
B
Thank
you,
I
guess
this
will
be
a
question
for
our
policy
analysts.
Would
this
section
be
broad
enough
to
include
forming
how
sentence
credits
are
calculated.
M
Carly
o'grant
for
the
record:
yes,
Senator,
Harris
this
agenda
item
or
this
work
session
item
I'm.
Sorry
is
Broad
enough
to
include
taking
a
look
at
that.
B
M
A
O
K
E
M
A
All
right,
so
that
motion
carries
in
case
I,
didn't
say
that
already
we
I'm
going
to
remove
subsection
B
from
the
work
session
document.
I,
don't
think
that
we
have
agreement
on
that
at
this
time,
so
we
will
move
to
section
c.
That
is
a
proposal
to
require
the
department
of
corrections
to
adopt
and
publish
a
policy
regarding
inmate
visitation.
That
includes
an
appeal
process
for
the
denial
of
an
inmate
visiting
application.
E
A
E
A
I
I
think
that's
completely
Fair.
Do
we
have
a
representative
from
the
Department
of
Corrections
that
can
answer
assembly
member
O'neill's
question
I.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
Kurt.
My
name
is
Kirk
Whitmer
I'm,
the
chief
of
the
offender
management
division
for
the
Department
of
Corrections.
Currently
we
have
in
place
AR
719,
which
is
the
inmate
visitation
regulation
associated
with.
That
also
is
a
manual
that
goes
into
further
detail.
Both
those
documents-
I
pulled
off
our
website
this
morning,
are
available
to
the
the
public
to
have
access
and
in
the
manual
on
page
three,
it
is
very
specific
to
the
when
a
visiting
application
is
granted
and
when
it
is
denied
at
the
facility
level.
P
If
the
warden
chooses
to
deny
for
reasons
that
are
spelled
out
in
the
document,
then
it
can
be
appealed
to
the
director
his
designee,
which
is
generally
the
deputy
director
of
operations,
and
they
have
an
opportunity
to
appeal
to
the
highest
level
of
the
department
currently
is
already
in
place
and
has
been
in
place.
This
this
current
AR
is,
is
revised
and
has
been
effective
and
in
place
since
2017..
The
appeal
process
has
been
beyond
that
as
well.
A
Sure
and
I
just
want
to
follow
up.
Is
this
policy
on
the
Department
of
Corrections
website.
B
P
With
Madam
chair
Kirk
Whitmire
for
the
record
with
that
without
the
website
right
in
front
of
me,
we
have
our
administrative
regulations
Section.
We
also
have
right
on
the
I
believe
on
the
front,
there's
a
large
section
related
to
visiting
visiting
his
back
open
something.
To
that
extent,
and
in
there
you
will
find
both
the
AR
and
the
manual
available.
A
All
right
is
there
any
other
discussion
from
the
committee.
E
P
Kirk
whitmar
of
Chief
Fender
management
division.
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman.
We
can
put
it
right
on
the
front
page.
Have
it
stand
alone?
We
don't
need
a
statue
to
do
that.
If,
if
that's
the
desire
of
the
public
and
the
committee,
we
can
absolutely
through
director
Daniel's
Direction
provided
and,
however
many
places
we
need
to
it's
a
public
document
and.
A
L
Not
a
contribution
so
much
as
it
can
as
a
question
of
Mr
Whitmore,
you
said
that
the
visitation
policy
is
on
your
website.
I've
tried
a
couple
times
just
now,
and
I
can't
access.
It
is
that
the
regulation
that
you
were
speaking
of,
like
I,
didn't
get
the
number
on
it.
Could
you
please
clarify
that
for
me.
P
Kirk
whitmar
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
assembly,
one,
the
AR
719.
P
A
So
I'm
going
to
chime
in
just
for
a
second
here,
I
I,
think
that
part
of
the
proposal
here
or
so
another
option
for
the
committee
to
discuss
is
whether
the
appeals
process
is
adequate.
At
this
point
in
time,
I
think
that
we
heard
from
some
of
our
presenters
that
the
problem
is
that
when
they
appeal
the
denial
of
a
visit,
the
appeal
is
reviewed
by
the
same
people
or
the
same
body
that
just
denied
their
request
for
a
visit,
and
so
does
the
committee
want
to
address
this
issue
with
a
bdr.
A
Does
this
committee
want
to
ask
the
Department
of
Corrections
about
this
issue?
I
think
that
is
really
the
the
point
of
discussion
here
that
I
would
like
to
you
know
open
that
I
would
like
to
open
up
for
everybody
on
the
committee.
K
I
guess
this
is
another
question
for
the
Department
of
Corrections
I
I
was
able
to
go
on
I,
do
see
the
document
that
you
referred
to,
I
think
it's
ar1719
and
I
do
see
that
process
in
there
and
I
I
have
the
the
process
for
appeal.
Who
who
developed?
That
policy
was
that
something
that
was
just
made.
You
know
internally,
how
do
you
do
you?
K
How
often
do
you
change
policies
to
visitation
and
the
out
appellate
process
like
and
who
may
like,
is
that
just
a
top-down
like
is
that
a
warden
decision
is
that
the
director
like
who's
making
that
decision,
if
you
know.
P
Kirk
whitmar
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
It
falls
under
the
administrative
regulations.
Therefore,
it
is
drafted
internally
by
the
department.
It
is
approved
by
our
Review
Committee
and
internally.
The
director
has
the
authority
at
that
point
by
Statute
to
time
to
sign
it
into
a
temporary
status.
P
Then
those
ARS
are
all
reviewed
by
the
board
of
prison
commissioners
and
approved
as
final
any
suggestions
that
come
from
the
members
of
the
board
of
prison.
Commissioners,
of
course,
which
include
the
governor,
the
attorney
general
and
Secretary
of
State.
They
any
directions
they
give
us
related
to
amending,
adopting
changing
any
of
the
document.
We
do
so
and
then
the
final
say
will
always
fall
with
that
body,
making
the
process
a
permanent
internally.
We
review
our
ARS
for
any
statutory
updates
law
updates
on
a
yearly
basis.
K
So
I
tend
to
not
want
to
like
over
legislate
things
that
we
can
already
do
what
would
be
the
process
for
the
public
or
would
it
have
to
come
from
like
the
Attorney
General's
office
or
directly
from
the
governor
or
directly
from
you
know
the
director
of
Prisons
to
address
changing
that
appellate
process?
I
guess
how
would
that
happen
other
than
a
statutory
change
by
a
legislative
body.
P
Kirkwood
Mart
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Any
recommendation
to
the
director
that
has
made
that
he
feels
is
necessary
to
modify
the
document.
Of
course
that
could
come
from
the
board
of
prison
Commissioners.
It
could
come
from
anybody
any
of
the
body
here.
It
could
come
from
within
the
department,
a
public
and
it
would
be
considered
by
the
director
and,
if
deemed
appropriate,
he
would
make
the
change.
P
If
it's
a
directive
from
the
leadership
that
we
answer
to,
then
we
make
the
change
and
we
then
immediately
can
make
that
change.
Sign
attempt
it's
effective
as
soon
as
the
director's
signature
is
on
it,
which
allows
us
the
ability
to
be
very
flexible
in
dictation
from
the
courts
for
the
legislative
body
to
implement
things
immediately
and
then,
ultimately,
once
again
back
to
the
board
of
prison
Commissioners
for
final
approval.
B
Requests
related
to
the
appeals
process
for
visitation.
A
All
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
from
Senator
Harris,
with
a
second
from
assembly
member
Summers
Armstrong,
to
introduce
a
bdr
addressing
the
appeals
process
for
visitation
requests
at
the
Nevada
Department
of
Corrections,
and
we
will
go
to
a
roll
call
vote
discussion.
A
E
K
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
assembly,
woman,
surroundra,
Summers
Armstrong,
here,
I'm
also
I've
seconded
this
motion
and
I
did
so
with
the
hopes,
as
assemblywoman
Nguyen
said
that
this
is
an
opportunity
for
a
department
of
corrections
to
do
some
internal
soul.
Searching
on
this.
L
But
I
can
tell
you
from
my
experience
in
in
my
previous
life
that
it's
it's
difficult
when
a
process
is
not
clarified
and
and
you
go
to
the
same
people
for
a
review
oftentimes.
If,
if
that's
the
case,
there's
never
a
change
of
heart
and
I.
I.
L
Think
that,
although
this
may
appear
to
be
a
situation
where
there
could
be
over
regulation,
I
think
that
when
that
sometimes
we
have
to
be
firm
and
ex
and
our
expectation
that
the
re
that
reviews
and
these
processes
are
as
Democratic
and
and
and
work
for
the
people
who
we
want
them
to
work.
For
so
I
understand
your
concern.
Some
of
the
member
O'neill,
but
I
think
that
we
need
to
look
into
this
a
little
bit
more
so
I
hope
I,
look
forward
to
working
with
you.
A
I'm
not
sure
who
that
was
who
wanted
to
chime
in.
But
let
me
just
say
this:
first,
it
might
answer
some
questions
and
I'm.
Sorry
I
think
I
I
had
this
in
my
mind
and
I
was
not
clear
when
I
opened
up
this
discussion,
that
what
we're
doing
going
through
section
g
is
talking
about
each
of
these
sections
a
b.
Well,
we
skip
b,
c
d,
e,
f
in
concept
and
determining
which
ones
we
do
and
don't
want
to
include
in
a
bill
draft
request.
A
At
the
end
of
this
conversation,
we're
going
to
go
back
and
discuss
whether
that
will
be
in
the
form
of
a
single
bill
or
multiple
bills,
but
right
now
we're
the
the
roll
call
votes
that
we're
taking
are
in
concept
to
to
include
these
suggestions
in
a
bdr
generally,
and
then
we
will,
like
I,
said,
go
back
and
determine
exactly
how
many
bills
we
want
and
what's
going
to
be
in
each
bill
and
part
of
the
reason
for
that
was
anticipating
that
there
may
be
some
places
where
we
all
agree,
some
places
where
we
don't
and
that
way
we
can
divide
those
into
separate
bills.
A
B
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
will
be
voting
yes
with
the
right
to
reserve
to
change
my
vote
prior
to
floor
vote.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
so
the
motion
on
the
floor
is
to
approve
a
Bill
dropped,
a
a
policy
within
a
bill
drop
request
regarding
the
Appellate
process
for
visitation
requests.
So
all
right
and
we're
going
to
do
a
roll
call
vote
on
that
question.
B
A
B
B
L
A
All
right,
moving
on
to
section
D,
we
are
going
we're
going
to
open
up
a
discussion
on
whether
we
want
to
introduce
you
know
include,
in
a
bill
draft
request,
a
policy
proposal
to
authorize
the
director
of
the
Department
of
Corrections
to
adopt
regulations
authorizing
a
person
in
their
custody
to
use
telecommunication
devices
for
certain
purposes,
including
legal,
medical,
educational
and
re-entry.
A
Any
discussion
on
this
point
or
motions
on
this
point.
At.
K
A
Senator
Harris
all
right
and
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
B
B
O
E
B
A
A
K
Is
it
possible
for
legal
to
kind
of
give
us
an
update
on
what
exactly
that
means.
M
Carly
o'grant
for
the
record,
certainly
Vice
chairs,
so
existing
law
subjects
certain
agencies
to
the
Nevada
administrative
procedures,
act,
which
requires
that
agencies
provide
certain
notice
to
folks
who
are
interested
in
a
particular
regulation
that
they're
going
to
be
hearing
a
regulation.
They
vote
that
regulation
out
and
it's
then
taken
to
the
legislative,
commission
and
members
of
the
public
are
given
another
opportunity
to
weigh
in
on
that
process
and
it's
ultimately
up
to
the
legislative
commission
to
decide
whether
or
not
those
particular
regulations
are
adopted.
K
M
Sure,
as
a
general
matter,
the
provisions
of
the
Nevada
that
chapter
233b
are
applicable
to
executive
branch
agencies
and
there
are
a
couple
of
different
exceptions
that
are
already
carved
out
and
Doc.
Being
one
of.
K
Them
and
what
do
you
know
what
other
agency
is
carved
out.
M
M
Carly
o'grant
for
the
record.
It
certainly
gives
the
legislative
commission
the
ability
to
ask
questions
of
the
agency
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
regulations.
Thank.
K
B
B
Thank
you,
I
just
wanted
to
acknowledge
that
233b
can
sometimes
be
a
bit
restrictive.
B
Necessary
so
I'll
support
this
I
want
and
Doc
to
know
that
this
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
All
or
Nothing
proposition.
B
B
O
L
M
A
All
right-
and
that
brings
us
to
the
final
proposal
within
this
section
g-
and
this
is
a
possible
proposal
to
require
that
certain
debts
be
discharged
upon
the
release
of
an
offender
and
establish
guidelines
and
procedures
and
requirements
relating
to
the
fiscal
activities
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
Correction,
including
markup
of
commissary
items
and
banking
services
and
medical
co-pays.
I.
Think
that
we
discussed
this
at
well.
There's
some
information
attachment.
Seven,
we
discussed
this
at
length
in
one
particular
meeting.
I
can't
remember
the
date
of
it.
E
E
The
wording,
though,
of
this
is
to
me,
is
too
broad
to
discharge
all
debts.
This
would
include
if
I
understand,
debts
to
the
victims,
victims
upon
discharge
from
the
prison
I
just
I'm,
having
trouble
grasping
some
of
this.
If
it
was
broken
down
into
individual
items,
I
would
probably
be
more
in
favor
of
it,
but
as
it
states
here,
I
can't
accept
it.
A
So
I
think
I
officially
says
require
that
certain
debts
be
discharged
and
I
think
that
when
we
discussed
this
last
time
we
were
referring
more
to
the
medical,
co-pays
and
other
non-restitution
outstanding
debts
and
I
think
that
this
would
give
us
the
flexibility
to
have
that
further
discussion
and
ensure
that
restitution
is
not
included.
If
that
is
not,
you
know
our
intention.
M
O'grant
for
the
record,
that's
correct.
The
work
session
document
references
certain
debts
and
we
can
certainly
ensure
that
restitution
is
not
included
in
that.
K
A
B
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
that
was
my
concern,
the
restitution.
Obviously,
if
somebody
burns
down
your
house
and
burns
your
car
and
then
goes
to
jail
for
it,
we
don't
want
to
then
let
them
out
of
jail
and
say:
oh
and
you
don't
have
to
pay
back
the
victim
for
burning
down
their
house
in
their
car.
So
as
long
as
restitution
is
not
included,
I'm
fine
with
this.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Do
we
have
a
second
for
the
motion
all
right.
We
have
a
second
from
assemblywoman
marzola
and
we
will
go
to
a
roll
call
vote.
B
N
E
L
A
All
right
that
motion
carries
so
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
section
g
and
the
end
of
our
discussion
on
General
judiciary
potential
bdrs.
A
At
this
point,
we're
just
going
to
take
a
quick
break
about
five
or
ten
minutes
to
allow
members
of
the
committee
to
get
up
stretch
their
legs
and
for
me
to
consult
with
my
staff
on
some
technical
issues.
So
we'll
be
right
back
five.
Ten
minutes.
A
All
right,
we're
gonna,
get
started
again,
I'm,
sorry,
I,
don't
know
who
we
still
have
with
us.
Hopefully
we
have
our,
can
I
just
get
a
quick
wave
or
turn
your
mic
back
on
real
quick.
Those
of
you
who
are
online
and
let
me
know
that
you're
here
all
right,
I
see
somebody
remember
krasner,
Armstrong,
marzola,
Senator
Harris.
Are
you
there?
A
So
I
guess
some
people
ended
up
with
printed
copies
of
the
work
session
document
that
were
not
the
same
as
the
work
session
document
online.
I
think
that
we
have
determined
that
it
did
not
change
any
of
the
substantive
outcomes,
but
just
make
sure
that
you're
looking
at
the
document
that
is
online,
that's
uploaded
as
a
part
of
the
meeting
material
for
this
meeting.
As
we
continue
to
go
through
this,
we
have
counted
up
the
recommendations
that
we
approved
out
of
subsection
G.
A
We
approved
five
recommendations
and
we
have
five
Bill
draft
requests
available,
so
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
just
make
each
one
its
own
bill
and
unless
there
are
any,
if
any,
objections
or
discussion,
that
will
be
what
we
do
on
part
G
all
of
the
endoc
stuff
that
we
just
talked
about.
A
We
made
five
recommendations,
so
each
one
will
be
its
own
build
draft
request,
because
you
all
agreed
that
it
was
going
to
go
into
a
build
draft
request.
So
you
all
agree
that
it
will
go
into
its
own
build
draft
request,
and
that
takes
us
to
the
Juvenile
Justice
portion
of
our
work
session
document.
I
will
note
that
we
have
five
Juvenile
Justice
bdrs
available
to
us.
We
will
start
with
number
one,
which
is
a
suggestion
to
create
a
consistent
definition
of
dual
use:
dual
custody,
youth
throughout
the
NRS.
A
A
O
L
A
All
right,
the
next
bdr
proposal
is
to
revise
the
provisions
relating
to
the
period
of
probation
of
juvenile
offenders
by
prescribing
a
Time
certain
on
the
the
length
of
Probation
and
authorizing
the
termination
of
probation
for
a
person
who
is
18
years
of
age
and
I.
This
says:
who
has
not
paid
any
court
ordered
restitution,
but
I
think
it's
supposed
to
say,
has
not
paid
court
order
restitution
in
full,
but
has
otherwise
complied
with
all
the
terms
of
probation,
bringing
the
standard
into
alignment
with
what
it
is
for
adults.
A
A
A
Oh
okay,
there
is
discussion,
I,
see,
assembly,
members,
O'neill
and
krasner.
Both
have
comments
to
make
we'll
start
with
assembly.
Member
O'neill
thank.
E
I
I'll
be
a
no
on
this
vote.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Go
ahead,
so
my
woman
win
hi.
K
I
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
I
know
that
practicing
predominantly
in
the
adults
criminal
justice
system,
that
people
are
often
authorized
to
be
released
from
probation
when
they
have
not
paid
their
court,
ordered
restitution
in
full
after
there's
been
a
financial
determination.
So
I
would
be
supporting
this
as
it
gives
children
the
same
rights
as
adults
in
our
system.
B
Thank
you,
chair
I,
just
want
to
clarify
that
that
this
bdr
will
state
that,
even
though
the
minor
has
not
fully
paid
their
restitution,
they
will
will
be
released
with
the
promise
that
they
will
continue
to
pay.
That
restitution
is
that
correct.
A
I
think
that
would
be
a
question
for
legal.
It's
supposed
to
mirror
the
language
of
the
adult
statute,
which
I
do
not
think
includes
that.
M
Carly
o'grant
for
the
record,
that's
correct.
This
would
look
like
the
the
last
session
that
passed
regarding
adults
and
the
discharge
of
the
debts,
which
does
not
include
the
specific
requirement
that
assemblywoman
crosner
was
referencing.
A
So,
to
clarify
this
would
be
the
same
as
a
the
standard
for
adults
which
would
allow
for
a
civil
confession
of
judgment
or
would
allow
for
a
victim
to
pursue
restitution
civilly,
but
the
department
of
parole
and
probation
would
know,
or
the
District
Attorney's
office
would
no
longer
process
those
restitution
payments
to
victims
after
the
person
has
been
discharged
from
probation
and
with
that.
O
B
L
A
All
right
we'll
hold
the
vote
open
for
Senator
Harris
when
she
is
reconnected,
Madam.
A
And
that
takes
us
to
item
number
three
on
this
portion
of
the
work
session
document,
a
proposal
to
expand
competency
and
restoration
services
for
children
found
to
be
incompetent
pursuant
to
chapter
62d
of
the
Nevada
revised
statutes.
This
is
another
proposal
we
discussed
in
a
prior
meeting.
I
will
address
the
elephant
in
the
room,
which
is
the
funding
piece
that
I,
don't
know
has
been
figured
out.
A
E
I
just
remind
me:
what
is
the
expansion
that
we're
looking
for
in
this
in
their
competency
and
restoration
services,
particularly
so.
A
We
yeah
so
I
think
we
do
have
some
of
the
presenters
here
to
answer.
But
I
can
just
briefly
say
that
we
really
don't
have
a
long-term
facility
where
we
can
house
juveniles
who
are
found
to
be
not
competent
to
stand
to
trial,
and
so
we
we
don't
have
a
place
for
them
to
go
and
receive
services
like
therapy
and
Psychotherapy
to
restore
them
to
competency.
A
I
think
we
have
been
trying
to
get
by
with
keeping
them
in
parts
of
juvenile
detention
centers
with
special
supervision.
But
we
don't
have
a
a
system
to
treat
them.
E
A
I
think
when
we
talked
about
the
it's,
not
a
large
number
and
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
a
whole
new
facility,
but
having
a
dedicated
portion
of
a
facility
physically,
where
we
can
house
these
individuals
and
then
developing
the
programmatic
and
therapeutic
treatment
for
them.
So
you
know
we
might
be
talking
about
developing
a
wing
or
a
a
portion
of
a
Detention
Facility
that
has
those
psychiatric
nurses,
psychologists,
behavioral,
therapists,
on
staff,
to
restore
them
to
competency.
B
B
B
K
L
A
We
will
leave
the
vote
open,
4-1,
Senator,
Harris
reconnects
and,
with
the
vote
open,
we
can
still
move
on
right.
Okay,
sorry,
one
second.
A
All
right
so
now
we
are
up
to
item
number
four:
a
request
to
revise
NRS
174.229
174.229
is
a
statute
that
currently
says
that
the
district
attorney
may
make
a
motion
or
the
court
May
order,
suicate
that
the
testimony
of
a
child
14
years
of
age
or
under
be
recorded
at
the
grand
jury
or
preliminary
hearing,
and
this
would
change
that
age
to
18
years.
A
So
anybody
who's
a
minor
18
years
or
younger
could
have
the
district
attorney
could
move
for
their
testimony
to
be
recorded
or
the
court
could
order
that
their
testimony
be
recorded
for
preservation
for
for
use
in
the
future.
It
would
not
affect
how
and
when
it
could
be
used
in
the
future,
but
would
allow
for
that
recreation
in
advance
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
floor
for
discussion.
I.
Think
some
remember
when
wants
to
weigh
in
here.
K
I,
just
I
have
some
concerns
about
this,
not
because
I
don't
believe
that
we
should
protect
our
vulnerable
Witnesses.
However,
I
do
think
that
this
potentially
crosses
the
line
in
providing
due
process
and
confrontation
clause
issues
when
it
comes
to
those
that
are
accused
in
crimes,
so
I'm
curious
to
see
like
what
are
the
circumstances
you
had
mentioned,
both
a
preliminary
hearing
and
a
grand
jury
and
in
a
grand
jury.
Proceeding
and
maybe
legal
can
confirm.
This
I
mean
I,
know
it
to
be
true,
but
I'd.
K
M
Carly
o'grant
for
the
record
Vice
chair,
I
think
that
that
would
depend
on
the
manner
in
which
it's
drafted.
If
it
were
drafted,
simply
to
revise
NRS
174
229,
it
might
affect
the
ability
to
cross-examine
someone
during
that
grand
jury
situation.
K
And
then
my
other
question
is:
would
and
I
I
see
some
representatives
from
the
Clark
County
District
Attorney's
Office
juvenile
division,
so
they
might
be
able
to
answer
this.
If
that's
okay
with
the
chair,
when
there
are
children
Witnesses
in
crimes
within
the
juvenile
system,
are
they
subject
to
cross-examination?
K
A
A
Never
mind:
go
ahead.
Wait:
okay,
I'm
sorry,
but
we
have
to
get
this
vote
in.
So
if
Senator
Harris
is
back
on
the
line,
we
need
your
vote
on
the
previous
motion
to
approve
the
bdr
regarding
expanding
competency,
restoration,
yes
or
no.
C
Madam
chair
with
your
permission,
Bridget
Duffy,
for
the
record
Vice
chair
and
Nguyen.
We
don't
have
preliminary
hearings
or
grand
juries
in
juvenile,
so
I
don't
think
amending
that
specific
statute
would
apply
to.
If
that
was
your
question,
you
were
talking
about
cross-examination
of
of
witnesses
that
are
victims
that
are
under
the
age
of
18.,
but
we
don't
do
prelims
or.
K
Well,
and
not
even
under
prelims
I
think
the
statute
is
vague
enough,
that
it
also
covers
any
type
of
like
testimony
of
children
under
18.,
so
like,
for
example,
in
a
trial
where
there
are
juvenile
Witnesses.
Are
they
subject
to
cross-examination?
Currently,
if
they're
between
the
ages
of
14
and
18.
Bridget.
C
Duffy
for
the
record,
I
will
clarify
for
that.
Yes,
yes,
they
are.
K
And
so
if
they
were
only
allowed
to
present
videotape
testimony,
they
wouldn't
be
subject
to
cross-examination
between
those
ages
of
14
and
18..
Is
that
correct.
C
C
This
recommendation
actually
came
out
of
the
commission
for
csec
commercially
sexually
exploited
children,
because
of
because
that's
where
we
have
most
of
these
victims
from
that
age
of
14
to
17
and
364
days,
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
to
seek
material
witness
warrants
to
hold
them
as
victims
in
custody,
so
that
we
can
ensure
their
testimony
for
Trials
of
their
traffickers
as
I'm
sure
you
are
aware,
they
are
extremely
traumatized
and
have
this
flight
response,
and
sometimes
these
attachments
to
their
traffickers
that
that
cause
difficulty
in
actually
Prosecuting
the
traffickers.
After
preliminary
hearing.
K
Thank
you
as
a
part
of
the
discussion.
I
have
some
serious
concerns
about
the
over
broad
nature
of
what
this
might
include.
I
understand
the
intent
of
it
I.
Just
don't
think
that
we
are
there
right
now.
K
I
would
ask
that
chair
to
remove
this
item
from
it
and
to
allow
the
parties
to
continue
to
work
towards
what
that
more
specific
language
was
and
how
to
deal
with
the
real
problem
that
you
were
discussing
that
came
out
of
this.
That
work.
A
All
right,
we
will
go
ahead
and
Skip
well.
That
will
conclude
our
discussion
on
item
number
four
on
that
revision
and
we
will
move
next
to
section
I,
which
is
Also
regarding
commercially
sexually
exploited
children,
move
on
to
bdr
the
first
bdr.
A
And
the
request
is
to
expand
the
use
of
trauma-informed
screening
measures
for
at-risk
children
of
sex
trafficking.
Any
discussion
on
this.
E
C
Good
morning
again,
Bridget
Duffy
for
the
record
I
forgot
to
State
what
I
do
for
a
living.
I.
Just
guess
assume
you
all
know
who
I
am
by
now.
I
am
the
chief
of
the
juvenile
division
for
the
Clark
County
District
Attorney's
office,
chair
schaible,
and
to
assemblyman
O'neill
I
actually
am
part
of
the
c-sec
commission,
which
is
why
I
think
I'm
sitting
here
in
a
kind
of
a
dual
role.
Both
of
those
recommendations
came
out
of
the
commission.
So
this
one
this
is
a
recommendation
of
a
Shared
Hope
International
study.
C
They
did
on
the
state
of
Nevada
that
in
statute
we
don't
have
a
requirement
to
screen
children
that
come
into
foster
care
or
into
the
juvenile
justice
system,
for
their
involvement
in
sex
in
being
sexually
exploited
or
at
risk
of
being
sexually
exploited.
So
this
the
recommendation
was
that
we
make
it
statutory
that
any
child
who
comes
in
the
system
has
to
go
through
a
specific
screening.
C
The
tool
itself
to
do
that.
Screening
has
not
been
selected
Statewide,
so
I
would
reference
you
to
I
believe
it's
in
chapter
62
D,
which
was
the
chapter
that
created
the
on
Juvenile
Justice
oversight,
commission
and
in
that
the
state
needed
to,
with,
by
a
certain
date,
select
a
screening
tool
to
determine
the
risk
level
of
a
child
coming
into
the
juvenile
justice
system.
C
So
I
believe
what
this
statute
would
have
to
the
bdr
would
have
to
look
like
is
giving
the
state
a
certain
date
by
which
to
select
a
tool
for
which
to
screen
children
that
come
in
to
determine
if
they
are
victims
of
sexual
exploitation
or
at
risk
of
victimization,
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we
are
in
infusing
services
to
those
victims
to
get
them
safe
and
secure
and
I
hope
that
answered
your
question.
I'll
sit
up
here
in
case
there's
any
others.
K
So
would
this
be
a
like
a
a
consistent
like
screening
like
tool
that
would
be
used
across
the
state
or
is
there
are
there
multiple
tools
that
different
agencies
could
use
that?
Have
this
similar
outcome.
C
Bridget
Duffy
for
the
record,
yes,
assembly,
woman,
when
we
so,
for
example,
right
now,
anytime,
a
child
comes
into
the
juvenile
justice
system
and
is
arrested.
We
that
child
goes
through
all
kinds
of
screening
tools,
just
checklist.
This
we
use
currently
without
statutory
requirement.
C
The
enrit,
which
is
the
Nevada
rapid
indicator
tool,
that's
what
it
stands
for
and
that
that's
like
eight
criteria.
We
look
for
runaway
events
ever
taken
any
goods
or
services
in
exchange
for
anything,
so
they
just
check
lists
to
see
so
right
now
most
of
the
state
uses
the
enrit,
not
all
of
the
state.
C
K
C
Bridget
Duffy
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
are,
it
is
not
statutorily
required,
not
every
county
in
the
state
is
doing
it
and
it
was
a
recommendation
because
we
were
a
d
plus
State
as
far
as
our
statutes
go
for
protection
and
identification
and
treatment
of
of
c-sec
of
children,
children
that
are
sexually
exploited,
and
so
this
was
one
that
the
commission.
This
was
one
recommendation
out
of
that
Shared
Hope
report
that
gave
us
the
d-plus
that
we
should
bring
to
our
legislatures
to
make
it
mandatory
across
the
state
to
have
this
requirement.
E
Duffy
I
think
I've
got
a
couple
questions
that
I'm
slightly
confused.
You
talked
about
when
the
juvenile
comes
into
Juvenile
Justice.
At
one
point,
you
also
said
when
they
come
into
foster
care
at
one
point,
would
this
testing
or
we
view
policy
be
used
for
both
or
is
it
just
for
those
that
are
in
Juvenile
Justice.
C
Bridget
Duffy
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Assemblyman
O'neill,
so
I
may
clarify
this
would
need
to
be
in
both
the
NRS
432b
that
handles
children,
which
which
come
into
foster
care,
as
well
as
chapter
62,
which
is
our
Juvenile
Justice,
because
a
recommendation
is
for
both
and
really
the
foster
care
piece
is
important,
because
children
that
are
in
foster
care
are
a
much
greater
risk
of
becoming
sex
trafficking
victims
than
general
population
children,
so
would
have
to
be
in
both
and.
E
That's
helping
me
buy
into
this
program.
The
other
question
is:
there
are
counties
that
are
not
currently
using
this,
which
is
upsetting
to
me
so
I
support
their,
but
I
still
am
not
sure
how
who
will
be
the
determinant
in
what
testing
system
is
used
to
standardize
this
and
that
it
should
be
standardized
across
the
state
too,
make
sure
we're
all
doing
this
March
in
the
same
way,.
C
All
right,
Bridget
Duffy
for
the
record
assemblyman
O'neill.
Currently
by
Statute,
we
have
the
the
Statewide
coordinator
over
the
commission
of
commercially
sexually
exploited
children's
issues.
So
I
would
believe
that,
because
that
that
commission
involves
the
entire
state
from
the
rurals
to
the
urban
counties
and
that
they
come
together
and
determine
what
tool
would
be
the
one
that
would
be
adopted,
Statewide
would.
C
Bridget
Duffy
for
the
record
that
I
think
would
depend
on
how
you
would
put
it
into
the
bill
draft,
but
for
the
Juvenile
Justice
oversight.
Commission,
when
we
determined
the
risk
tool
for
children
that
were
arrested
and
brought
in
it
did
not
come
back.
It
just
went
to
our
subcommittee
and
we
all
voted
on
it
and
from
the
royals
to
the
urban
counties.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
any
further
questions,
discussion,
Etc
all
right,
then
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
accept
or
draft
this
bdr
Vice
chairwin.
A
B
B
B
B
A
All
right
that
motion
carries
so
we
have
completed
our
work
session
document
in
record
time.
It's
only
11,
A.M
good
job,
everybody
and
I
think
we
are
ready
to
move
on
to
item
number
five
on
our
agenda,
which
is
our
presentation
from
the
Department
of
Public
Safety.
M
M
Q
Q
Q
Our
most
kind
of
widely
known
function
is
the
monitoring
enforcing
and
Reporting
on
an
individual's
compliance
with
court
or
board-ordered
conditions
of
supervision.
During
that
supervision
we
collect
restitution
payments
and
make
sure
that
that
money
is
distributed
to
the
appropriate
victims,
and
we
have
Personnel
working
inside
of
our
prisons
to
assist
those
with
the
most
restrictions
on
placement,
often
using
our
Indigent
funds
or
going
home
prepared
money
to
find
them
suitable
living
situations.
Q
Our
current
supervision
population
looks
like
this.
We
supervise
approximately
20
500
individuals.
A
large
chunk
of
that
about
two-thirds
is
probation,
12
135
about
6,
300
Parolees
and
approximately
2
000
lifetime
supervision.
Sex
offenders,
the
parole
and
probation
is
just
kind
of
the
overarching
umbrella
that
covers
a
lot
more
subunits.
Q
You
know,
they're
broken
into
specialty
courts
and
Interstate
Compact
sex
offenders,
enhanced
supervision
and
so
forth.
Lifetime
supervision
is
a
unique
type
of
supervision
solely
for
sex
offense
related
convictions.
It
starts
after
any
period
of
Probation,
Parole
or
prison,
and
it's
it's
different
supervision
than
parole
or
probation.
We
do
supervise
approximately
133
inmates
on
various
inmate
programs
in
the
community
as
well.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
The
most
heavily
affected
portion
of
that
sworn
is
our
line
level.
Our
our
officers.
We
are
at
a
34
vacancy
rate
at
the
line
level
officers,
the
ones
doing
the
supervision
of
these
individuals.
We
are
using
retired
officers.
We
are
using
interns
to
pick
up
the
slack
as
much
as
they
can,
but
there's
only
so
much
that
they
can
do
of
those
field
positions.
A
lot
of
those
people
are
pre-academy
in
the
academy
still
in
field
training,
so
even
they
aren't
doing
the
full
duties
and
functions
of
a
fully
trained
officer.
Q
28
of
these
50
five
vacancies
are
in
our
accounting
and
administrative
staff
positions.
Those
positions
directly
support
the
operational
units
that
write
the
PSIs,
the
pardons
that
work
on
the
re-entry
programs,
the
offender
supervision
most
of
the
or
a
good
portion
of
these
vacancies
are
coming
in
those
support
staff
rules,
which
then,
in
turn
hinders
what
our
operational
units
can
do.
Q
This
graph
shows
a
month
over
month
vacancy
for
both
our
sworn
and
non-sworn
positions
over
the
last
two
years.
The
sworn
is
in
blue
and
the
non-sworn
is
in
Orange
you'll
notice
kind
of
an
anomaly
in
the
middle
of
the
data
there,
where
it
looks
like
we
have
a
dramatic
decrease
in
sworn
vacancies.
We
go
from
72
to
41..
Q
You
can
see
that
month
over
month,
even
after
reclassifying
those
swarm
positions
are
a
trend
line
is
upward
and
that's
in
the
wrong
direction.
Again.
As
of
July
1,
we
had
73
vacancies
in
our
sworn
rank,
which
was
greater
than
where
we
were
a
year
ago.
Even
after
giving
up,
you
know,
19
sworn
positions
to
to
non-sworn
the
non-sworn
trend
line
is
better
clearly,
we
we
were
more
easily
able
to
fill
those
non-sworn
positions.
Q
They
are
a
higher
level
civilian
position,
so
they're
a
little
easier
to
fill
than
our
entry
level.
Administrative
positions.
Q
Of
our
officers,
this
is
just
the
line
level
officers.
This
shows
their
amount
of
experience.
Q
Two-Thirds
of
of
our
officers
have
five
years
or
less
in
experience
and
realistically,
when
you
take
about
a
year
of
Academy
training
and
field
training,
they've
got
four
years
or
less
so
we
are
relying
on
a
less
experienced
Workforce
to
do
our
day-to-day
operations
as
a
supervision
of
these
individuals.
Q
I
briefly
mentioned
our
records,
Management
System
earlier
I'm.
Sure.
As
many
of
you
know,
the
division
has
been
attempting
to
replace
our
records
management
system
for
years
in
the
20
teens,
we
tried
an
internal
solution
that
did
not
result
in
a
new
system.
Then
in
2020
we
contracted
with
Tyler
Technologies
and
we're
working
on
a
new
program
with
them
and
ultimately
that
contract
was
terminated
in
December
of
last
year
and
we
had
to
start
over
again
in
March
of
this
year,
the
division
was
able
to
engage
with
a
a
firm
called
VIP
and
C5.
Q
Q
many
of
the
data
items
that
we
are
required
to
collect.
We
simply
cannot
with
our
current
records
management
system.
That
was,
you
know,
first
deployed
in
99,
because
they
weren't
thought
of
back
then
so
things
that
ab236
created
like
tracking
gender
identity
and
sexual
orientation.
We
just
don't
have
a
way
to
do
that.
Q
Q
Lastly,
I'm
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
compliance
credits
after
this
committee's
meeting
last
month
with
ndoc
in
the
presentation
this
morning
by
the
sentencing
policy.
I
just
figured
you
guys
would
want
to
talk
more
about
credits,
parole,
parole
credits
when
an
individual
is
out
on
parole
is
controlled
by
NRS
209-4475.
Q
They
receive
10
days
of
credit
for
meeting
their
financial
obligations,
so
that
means
either
paying
their
restitution
or
if
restitution
wasn't
ordered,
paying
their
supervision
fees
and
they
can
earn
another
10
days
of
credit
for
providing
us
proof
of
employment
being
enrolled
in
an
education
program
or
rehabilitation,
as
was
discussed
when
they
come
out
to
us,
they
are
given
their
most
optimistic
expiration
date.
Q
The
probation
credits
work
in
the
opposite
direction.
The
criteria
is
the
same.
They
get
10
days
for
their
financial
obligations,
restitution
and
or
supervision
fees,
and
they
get
another
10
days
for
work.
Employment,
rehabilitation,
whichever
you
know
qualifies,
but
if
somebody
was
given
a
two-year
probation
today,
they
would
expire
in
August
of
24.
Q
and
they
earned
those
credits
this
month,
it's
going
to
get
deducted
so
the
next
time
they
meet
with
us
we're
going
to
tell
them
that
their
expiration
date
is
July
22nd
of
2024
and
then,
when
they're,
in
their
credits
in
September,
it'll,
move
to
July,
2nd,
so
forth
and
so
forth.
So
they
can
see
that
date
move
closer
to
them
or
stay
stagnant
if
they
are
failing
to
meet
those
those
criteria.
Q
In
the
application
of
the
credits
there,
there
is
an
issue
that
has
caused
some
some
kind
of
discourse
between
the
division
and
some
of
the
district
courts
in
in
section
one
of
176a
500.
It
says
that
the
court
can
order
a
term
of
probation
to
be
indeterminate
or
fixed,
and
when
the
courts
many
courts
when
they
order
a
fixed
term
of
supervision,
they
assume
that,
if
I,
if
they
order
somebody
to
a
24-month
fixed
term,
that
that
person
is
going
to
serve
24
months
on
supervision.
Q
Q
Where
we
run
into
the
discourse
is
when
we
then
submit
a
discharge
to
the
court,
the
person
is
served,
you
know
18
months
on
supervision
and
the
court
says
well,
we
ordered
them
to
a
24-month
term
of
supervision,
and
we
argue
that
section
6
of
this
law
says
that
they
must
be
offered
the
opportunity
for
credits,
and
so
we
kind
of
comment
to
an
impasse
where
sometimes
the
the
courts
will
refuse
to
sign
off
on
the
discharge
until
that
24-month
period.
But
in
our
view,
they've
earned
the
credits
and
they're
no
longer
under
our
supervision.
Q
So
while
it's
a
it's
a
176a
chapter,
that's
under
probation,
it
kind
of
ties
in
with
you
know
those
ndoc
credits
and
sentencing
guidelines
that
that
you
were
talking
about
in
your
in
your
work
functions
earlier
today,
but
that's
something!
Q
That's
that's
come
up
more
recently
with
the
application
of
credits
that
I
think
could
use
some
clarification
of
of
what
a
fixed
term
means
if
a
fixture
means
they're
not
eligible
for
credits,
then
I,
you
know
that's
a
simple
solution,
but
as
of
as
of
now,
the
law
is
not
clear
into
how
to
apply
those
credits.
Q
M
N
Good
I
think
there's
still
morning
in
your
area,
I'm
on
the
Eastern
side
of
the
state,
so
I
believe
you
are
looking
at
the
poster
of
our
first
try
at
putting
up
our
Nevada
State
Police
posters
on
our
bulletins
in
the
Northern
Nevada
area.
We
were
hoping
that
this
would
be
our
first
shot
at
making
our
applications
go
up.
N
As
we
got
a
lot
of
nice
comments,
it
did
not
move
our
application
numbers
much
in
any
way.
Unfortunately,
if
you
turn
to
the
next
page,
we've
got
a
list
here
of
all
the
things
we've
been
doing
and
I'm
sure
most
of
you
have
heard
me
go
on
and
on
about
what
we've
been
doing
about
our
recruitment.
N
We've
even
developed
two
wonderful
recruiters
who
were
officers
but
now
actually
recruit
full-time
for
us.
The
first
one
is
pictured
on
the
first
slide,
but
he
goes
everywhere.
Our
Southern
recruiter.
Unfortunately,
we
lost
to
Metro
or
no
I
believe
it
was
Henderson,
which
is
where
we
lose
most
of
our
our
younger
officers,
our
older
officers
or
higher
level
officers.
We
lose
to
retirement
and
it's
not
because
they
want
to
retire
and
and
go
on
with
their
lives
and
families.
They
get
a
second
job
where
they're
making
quite
a
bit
more
money.
N
So
we
are
in
a
difficult
straight
everything
we
have
done.
We
get
a
few
more
and
a
few
more,
but
it
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
the
world
is
a
place
right
now,
where
officers
are
difficult
to
find
for
everyone,
nation
and
wide,
they
aren't
considered
a
position
that
a
lot
of
people
want
to
feel
right
now,
and
so,
therefore,
in
the
state
of
Nevada,
when
you
are
the
lowest
paid
officer,
the
other
cities
and
counties
steal
from
you
and
therefore
we
are
probably
in
the
worst
shape.
N
If
you
go
to
the
next
page,
you'll
see
some
conclusions
of
some
of
the
retention
things
that
we
have
been
doing.
We
have
moved
our
backgrounds
unit
into
such
a
fine
lean
home
team.
We
have
no
backgrounds
waiting
at
all.
We
move
them
through
so
quickly.
It's
amazing!
It's
unfortunate
too.
We
just
don't
have
that
many
applications
pending,
so
we
don't
have
anything
holding
us
up.
We
make
our
offers
very
quickly.
N
We
get
things
through
done
quickly,
but
our
biggest
problem
is
getting
qualified
applicants
moving
on
to
the
next
page,
here's
the
numbers,
the
numbers
you're
seeing
in
front
of
you,
I've
corrected
for
today's
date.
This
presentation
was
intended
for
almost
I
think
about
a
couple
weeks
ago,
a
month
today
we
have
lost
85
sworn
officers,
hired
52
Cadets
and
are
separated
versus
hired
ratio
is
at
163
percent
I.
N
Imagine
by
the
next
time
you
hear
from
me,
maybe
in
a
month
or
a
half,
or
so
we
will
exceed
the
total
loss
for
the
entire
year
of
last
year,
which
was
103.
so
we're
losing
more
than
10
a
month.
N
I
am
concerned
that
if
we
wait
until
next
February,
we
especially
in
parole
on
probation
and
especially
up
north,
are
going
to
have
very
very
difficult
times
supervising
our
offenders
even
as
well
as
they
do.
N
The
next
page
covers
our
arpa
requests.
We
have
requests
retention,
incentives,
purse
coverage
for
sworn
we've
requested
a
reimbursement
for
furloughs
marketing
campaign.
N
If
we
had
something
to
offer
more
than
for
good,
looks
and
everything
else,
we
have
requested
cyber
security.
The
sock
we've
requested
a
day
reporting
Center,
a
house
arrest
system,
body
warming,
cameras
for
all
sworn
officers.
Although
our
parole
and
probation
have
managed
to
work
on
that
internally
and
we
have
managed
to
get
equipment
for
Capitol
Police
as
well.
N
We
do
want
to
expand
ndi,
but
in
all
of
these
things
we
have
not
been
able
to
get
any
of
the
arpa
funding
as
of
yet,
and
we
are
hoping
for
your
support
in
the
upcoming
legislation
to
help
us
support
our
department
and
our
officers
by
increasing
either
their
pay
or
paying
for
their
purse
so
that
we
are
competitive
with
a
local
counties
and
cities.
Thank
you,
I'll
be
happy
to
handle
any
questions.
M
A
Right
perfect,
we'll
start
with
Vice
chairwin.
K
Thank
you.
I
know
that,
in
speaking
with
gosh
any
industry,
to
be
quite
honest,
whether
it's
law
enforcement
medical
personnel,
our
retail
workers,
there
is
like
a
severe
Workforce
like
deficiency
I
should
say:
do
you
at
your
Division
and
Department?
Do
you
have
any
type
of
Workforce
Development
programs
that
you
enact
internally
or
that
you're
looking
into
whether
it
starts
with
recruitment
in
high
schools
or
criminal
justice
programs
at
the
community
college
or
university
programs?
Do
you
have
anything
in
place
currently.
N
Yes,
yes
and
yes,
we
Sherry
Brigham
in
for
the
record.
We
do
we
go
back
to
the
hiring
events
and
we
have
engaged
with
the
dod
skill
Bridge,
which
is
a
program
through
the
Department
of
Justice,
no,
the
Department
of
Defense
I.
Sorry,
this
is
for
our
veterans
coming
off
duty
that
would
allow
them,
while
they
were
still
being
paid
on
duty
to
come
over
to
our
programs
as
sworn
officers
into
our
academies.
N
So
we
were
working
through
the
Department
of
Defense
to
get
them
in
as
almost
interns
into
our
programs.
So
that's
one
of
the
programs
that
we
are
working
on.
We
actually
do
have
interns
in
parole
and
probation
on
a
regular
basis
through
the
colleges,
and
we
want
to
work
with
our
and
we
work
with
our
colleges
all
the
time,
as
well
as
our
veterans,
the
high
schools,
because
they're
a
little
bit
young
for
our
positions.
N
N
It
is
new
for
the
dob,
so
we
are
working
with
them
to
get
it
up
and
running.
We
have
been
working
with
all
of
the
veterans
programs,
whichever
ones
are
available
all
this
time,
but
this
new
skill
bridge
program
is
new
to
the
dod
and
we're
first
up
on
it.
Just
waiting
for
our
applications
to
get
approved.
We've
already
got
one
employee
in
this
or
one
potential
employee
in
the
system
ready
to
come
over
as
soon
as
we
get
approved.
K
Wonderful,
thank
you
for
highlighting
that
program.
I
think
it's
always
good
for
committee
members
and
members
of
the
public
to
know
these
like
Partnerships,
that
we
have
you
know
federally
and
with
our
veterans
to
help
keep
Nevada
safe,
I.
Don't
have
any
other
questions.
Thank
you.
Actually,
I
have
one
more
question.
You
had
kind
of
glossed
over
this
I'm
not
glossed
over
it.
You
just
highlighted
that
there
was
a
difference
in
supervision
for
Lifetime
supervision
as
opposed
to
other
types
of
supervision.
N
That
I'll
hand
that
back
over
to
our
PNP
folks,
but
I,
think
we
were
talking
about
lifetime
for
now,
I've
just
lost
it.
Our
sexual
predators
is
what
I
was
going
to
say,
but
I
do
not
believe
that
is
the
proper
term,
so
take
it
away.
Tamara
please.
Q
Aaron
Evans,
division
of
parole
and
probation
I'll
answer
that
question
to
the
vice
chair.
Lifetime
supervision
is
governed
by
a
different
set
of
NRS,
and
when
you
look
at
the
conditions
that
are
outlined,
they
don't
have
some
of
the
key
requirements
that
Parolees
and
probationers
to
like.
They
don't
have
a
an
automatic
kind
of
forefoot,
not
forfeiture,
but
that
they
have
to
submit
to
search
and
seizure
by
the
division
of
parole
and
probation.
Q
They
don't
have
to
report
to
the
division
of
parole
and
probation
by
Statute,
whereas
if
you
look
at
the
conditions
that
are
outlined
for
a
parolee
or
probation
or
it
says
you
know,
you
shall
report,
you
shall
submit
yourself
to
a
search
at
any
time.
You
know
by
your
PO
Etc,
so
lifetime
supervision,
you
know
when
it
when
it
started.
Q
There
was
discussions
of
it
being
more
of
like
a
civil
penalty,
post,
the
criminal
supervision
and
then
it's
morphed
over
the
years,
and
there
was
a
long
time
where
the
division
supervised
them
just
like
we
supervised
Parolees
and
probationers,
and
then
there
was
I
believe
it
was
the
McNeil
decision
that
change
the
how
we
operate
and
changed
a
lot
of
the
conditions
that
govern
the
lifetime
supervision
offenders.
So
they
are
less
supervised
by
us
because
we
are
restricted
by
law
of
what
we
can
do.
Q
They
have
to
let
us
know
where
they're
living,
but
we
really
don't
have
the
authority
to
go
into
their
residence.
They
don't
have
to
submit
to
drug
tests
for
us
they
don't
have
to
provide
proof
of
employment
to
us.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
less
that
we
can
actually
do
with
them
by
Statute,
so
they
are
less
of
a
resource
load.
Q
But
again
these
lifetime
supervision
is
after
they
have
done.
You
know
if
it's
a
probation
or
probational
offense
they've
done.
You
know
their
three
years
on
probation
or
whatever.
If
they're
coming
out
of
prison
they've
done
their
prison
time
and
their
parole
time,
then
they
do
lifetime
supervision.
K
So,
just
to
clarify
you're
talking
about
individuals
when
we're
talking
about
lifetime
supervision,
we're
talking
about
individuals
who
have
already
served
their
sentence
or
served
their
parole
or
serve
their
probation
for
qualifying
offenses.
Is
that
correct.
Q
There
gets
some
confusion
because
you'll
have
a
life
parole
that
is
not
lifetime
supervision.
Your
your
parolee
that
comes
out
for
some
sex
offense
that
has
a
finite
term
of
parole,
they'll
expire
that
parole
then
they'll
pick
up
on
this
lifetime
supervision.
If
they
were
ordered
to
a
term
of
you
know,
10
years
in
prison
with
life,
then
they'll
come
out
on
life
parole
and
that's
not
lifetime
supervision.
It's
it's
a
problem
with
the
naming,
I
think
of
the
program.
K
Q
Aaron
Evans
for
the
division
that
is
correct,
life
and
parole
is
going
to
Trump.
You
know:
lifetime
supervision.
E
Have
you
broken
down,
or
do
you
have
available
the
breakdown
of
your
vacancies
in
the
various
areas,
Clark
County
or
Vegas
Carson
or
this
area
here,
Carson
Reno
and
the
rurals
out
to
Ely
would
be
one
I'd
be
interested
in.
Seeing
that
and
another
one
is.
E
Have
you
looked
at
any
Technology
Solutions
to
supplement
your
vacancy
Personnel,
such
as
we
used
to
or
DPS
used
to
have
an
aeronautical
unit
and
as
I
remember,
a
highway
traffic
safety
said
that
a
patrol
of
the
interstates
by
a
plane
was
equivalent
to
four
or
five
officers
in
their
ability
to
patrol
Etc
and
then
have
you
also
looked
at
doing
a
reserve
program.
I
know
some
State,
Police
or
agencies
have
started
Reserve
programs
with
the
various
veterans
groups
and
for
twofold
one
to
support
that
area.
E
E
N
Okay,
I'll
start
with
the
last
one,
because
that's
one
I
remember
those
were
the
big
asks
in
terms
of
requests
for
our
funding.
N
Ndi
has
been
as
I
know,
you
know
probably
the
most
harmed
and
reduced
division
we've
had
since
2012
it
was
cut
significantly
and
it
continues
to
wallow
I
can't
even
think
of
a
better
word.
We
just
are
desperate
there
to
expand
it
again,
so
that
was
just
one
of
the
items
on
our
list
and
probably
isn't
really
well
represented
in
these
discussions.
But
on
all
your
other
points,
let
me
get
back
to
those.
E
Can
we
stay
with
India,
so
they're
not
getting
the
requests
from
the
counties
you're
saying
because
it
used
to
be
their
only
Authority,
they
had
was
truly
a
Narcotics
and
then
their
rest
was
in
at
the
request
of
the
local
jurisdictions.
So
is
that
they
weren't
getting
the
requests.
So
we
cut
on
that
and
they're
still
not
getting
the
requests
or
are
we
getting
requests.
E
N
We,
the
bigger
issue,
would
be
is
how
much
more
we
could
uncover
and
find
with
the
drugs
if
we
had
more
staff
to
do
it.
That's
that's
more
of
the
issues,
his
regard
with
regard
to
Major
Crimes
and
the
requests
from
the
cities,
quite
a
different
ball
game,
but
we
have
been
inundated
with
those
requests
as
well
and
yes,
I
can
get
you
what
we
have
available
to
us
on
the
other
item
or
you
still
have
some
more
questions
about
investigations.
N
E
N
Have
discussed
the
air
error
coverage
as
well
as
plain,
not
just
plain,
but
helicopter
renting
versus
buying
and
owing
and
as
we
got
out
of
the
air
business
in
the
first
place,
because
we
were
not
able
to
maintain
the
airplanes
as
funding
again
was
cut
at
that
year.
So
again
we
are
looking
into
it,
but
our
priority
has
been
Staffing
more
than
anything
right
now,
but
it's
not
off
the
table
at
all.
N
You
mentioned
some
kind
of
it
wasn't
Cadet
I.
What.
N
N
If
that's
what
we
are
referring
to
to
handle
more
of
the
paperwork
at
accidents
and
that
sort
of
thing
to
basically
expand
on
one
officer
so
that
we're
taking
one
officer
and
maybe
multi-tasking
it
with
a
civilian
handing
off
some
of
that
work,
so
he
can
go
to
the
next
accident
faster.
N
Then
there
was
some.
What
was
the
other
one.
N
I
can't
do
that,
for
you,
it
used
to
be
the
rules
were
were
the
worst,
but
I
have
to
add
now
Carson,
City
and
Reno
into
that
and
Vegas
is,
is
I
used
to
say
in
the
best
situation,
but
that's
not
even
the
case
anymore.
So,
yes,
I,
can
get
that
to
you,
particularly
with
regards
to
PNP,
but
Carson
City
and
Reno
are
particularly
in
bad
shape,
especially
with
regards
to
PMP
right
now,
but
yeah
I'll
be
happy
to
get
it
for
you.
E
M
M
We
believe
it's
24
I'll
allow
Captain
acting
deputy
chief
Schubert
answer
that.
A
I,
don't
see
anybody
chiming
in
all
right
and
I.
Don't
have
any
questions
so
I
think
that
brings
us
to
the
conclusion
of
agenda
item
five.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
comprehensive
presentation.
It
sounds
like
a
lot
of
challenges
coming
up
for
DPS
and
hopefully
we
can
work
together
in
the
next
session
to
address
many
of
them.
So
I
think
that
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
is
public
comment:
correct.
Okay,
we
will
move
into
this
second
round
of
public
comment.
You'll
have
three
minutes
each.
A
G
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
chair
will
committee
members
I'll
make
this
brief.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
everyone
again
for
all
the
hard
work
this
session
and
for
moving
forward
some
of
our
recommendations.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
you
all
on
this.
For
those
who
had
concerns
with
some
of
our
recommendations.
We
hear
you.
G
We
know
that
if
you
have
concerns,
you
are
not
alone
and
we
would
plan
and
promise
to
work
hard
during
this
interim
session
and
into
the
next
session
to
hopefully
bring
you
on
board
and
make
you
comfortable
with
these
bdrs
once
they
become
bills
again.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
present
this
intro.
A
B
R
Good
morning
and
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
Tanya
Brown
advocates
for
the
inmates
of
the
innocent
Although.
Our
recommendations
did
not
make
it
onto
the
today's
agenda
work
session.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
heard.
We
would
like
to
ask
if
at
least
one
of
the
members
here
today
would
use
their
personal
bdrs
for
a
petition
for
actual
innocence
posthumously
for
the
upcoming
2023
legislature.
For
the
past
few
years,
our
legislators
have
been
legislating
to
reform
criminal
justice
system
that
would
include
in
the
2019
assembly
Bill
356
petition
for
factual
innocence.
R
When
we
talk
about
reforming
the
criminal
justice
system
here
in
Nevada,
we
sometimes
stop
just
short
of
achieving
that
final
goal.
I
refer
to
the
2019
Espy
Senate
bill
384..
This
bill,
too,
was
a
petition
for
factual
innocence.
However,
there
were
parts
of
this
bill
that
would
have
closed
the
gap
on
wrongful
convictions
and
would
have
established
a
precedent
across
our
country
on
Criminal
Justice
Reform.
The
Spiel
died
in
committee.
I.
Ask
that
you
please
take
a
look
at
SB
384.
R
We
would
also
like
to
ask
if
at
least
one
of
you
would
please
consider
using
the
criteria
for
the
petition
for
actual
factual
innocence,
posthumously
I've,
provided
that
in
my
written
public
statement,
I've
submitted
as
a
person
who've
been
personally
affected
by
having
their
loved
one
who
was
wrongfully
convicted.
I
would
like
to
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
struggles
and
the
stigma
that
is
attached
to
me
and
the
other
families
go
through
because
of
their
loved
ones,
wrongful
conviction
it
does
not
stop
at
their
death.
R
I
have
I,
have
had
the
district
attorneys
public
officials
and
other
misrepresent
the
facts
of
this
case
to
the
courts,
to
the
public
and
to
your
legislators.
They
have
gone
out
of
their
way
to
just
lie
in
order
to
take
the
focus
away
from
the
truth.
That
really
happened
in
this
case.
R
Public
comment:
okay:
that
was
an
interview
that
was
given.
I
had
testified
at
the
ACA
regarding
some
of
the
recommendations
and
everything
and
then
I
was
contacted
to
be
interviewed,
and
then
they
went
after
Mr,
gamek
and
Mr
gamek
came
up
and
he,
as
I
stated
he.
He
said
some
things
that
were
absolutely
untrue,
such
as
that
they
were
repeatedly
raped,
tortured
and
burned
with
cigarettes.
Absolutely
none
of
that
happened
and
it
seems
to
be
an
ongoing
issue
with
this.
I
have
been
physically
assaulted
and
injured.
R
I've
taken
civil
actions
against
defendants
for
them
to
use
the
words
like
convicted
brother.
In
a
personal
injury
case
in
2001,
I
hired
a
private
investigator
to
locate
mrsarski,
he
was
the
Prime
Suspect,
the
police
believed
had
committed
the
crime.
My
brother
went
to
prison
for
recently
in
2022,
I
received
a
declaration
from
the
private
investigator
regarding
his
interview
with
the
Sparks
police,
Prime
Suspect
Mr
zarsky.
This
declaration
would
support
Mr,
Klein's
claim
of
Innocence.
B
R
You've
reached
three
minutes.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
comments,
I
just
ask
that
you
create
allow
the
families
to
exonerate
their
loved
ones
names.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
and
I
don't
see
anybody
else
at
the
table
in
Carson
City,
so
I'll
take
that
to
mean
that
we've
concluded
in-person
public
comment
there
and
move
to
the
phone
lines.
Please.
B
O
Emory
grant
for
the
record
sister
Thomas
Hardy,
murdered
by
Reno
Police,
given
the
recent
covid-19
pandemic
that
has
taken
the
lives
of
thousands
of
community
members,
it's
not
just
a
possibility,
but
a
reality
for
one
man,
Rudolph
Stanton,
who
died
due
to
covid-19
as
the
innocent
project
of
Pennsylvania
was
working
to
exonerate
him.
I'd
like
to
talk
about.
O
They
didn't
just
say:
oh
well,
he
died
we'll
forget
about
it.
Instead
they're
pursuing
a
posthumous
exoneration,
exactly
what
I
am
urging
at
least
one
member
of
this
commission
to
use
one
of
their
bdrs
for
an
exoner,
a
posthumous
exoneration
Bill
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
Washington,
cic
conviction,
Integrity
committee,
and
use
it
to
exemplify
why
a
POS
Fitness
exoneration
bill
is
what
is
best
and
what,
if
we
are
seeking
true
reform
of
our
justice
system.
O
I
requested
data
from
the
cic
unit
in
June
of
2021
for
a
number
of
cases
they
have
reviewed
since
Inception
in
2018.,
either
internally,
initiated
by
DA's
office
or
outside
I
was
told
quote.
As
for
the
question
of
self-initiated
reviews,
the
Washington
County
DA's
office
is
not
an
investigative
agency.
The
D.A
comes
into
possession
of
such
evidence
within
the
course
of
a
palette
process
or
when
a
defendant
prevents
the
evidence
to
the
office
outside
of
the
appealot
process
in
the
pool
of
persons,
have
requested
and
received
a
review
of
newly
discovered
evidence.
O
Since
2018
is
limited
to
a
request
by
Tanya
Brown
I
put
in
a
request
recently
for
updated
case
info
and
have
not
received
it,
I
fully
expect
that
no
other
cases
have
been
reviewed
by
the
washout
cic
unit.
A
star
comparison,
for
example,
to
my
own
D.A
in
Suffolk
Massachusetts,
who,
since
its
cic
unit
Inception
four
years
ago,
has
exonerated
nine
wrong
wrongfully
convicted
individuals,
four
of
which
the
same
police
officer
was
involved.
O
It's
clear
that
Jennifer
Noble
could
not
have
reviewed
these
as
they
were
not
available
on
the
computer
system
and
had
never
been
scanned
now,
unless
these
days
off
has
had
the
original
filing
sitting
over
there
for
the
past
30
years,
there's
no
way
she
reviewed
them.
She
did
not
have
access.
What
is
the
point
of
having
a
cic
unit
if
they
aren't
going
to
truly
investigate
the
case,
he
stated
Nolan
Klein's
case
not
offer.
The
cic
cannot
offer
a
more
thorough
assessment
of
your
claim
than
12
citizens
who
served
on
a
jury
by
the
way.
O
Those
jurors
did
not
see
all
the
evidence
that
was
withheld
by
the
VA.
So
if
their
position
is
that,
why
even
have
a
cic,
it
appears
as
a
dog
and
police
show.
I
am
not
going
to
be
half
the
fact
of
the
case
of
Nolan,
Klein's,
wrongful
conviction
and
the
numerous
laws
in
the
case
today.
To
be
frank,
it's
appalling
to
me
that
Miss
Brown
has
provided
the
evidence
to
every
person
in
the
state
of
Nevada
that
could
right
this
wrong,
only
to
be
ignored.
B
O
Was
submitted
through
the
committee
I
want
you
to
imagine
not
if
it
was
yourself
in
prison.
I
want
you
to
imagine
that,
like
for
you,
if
it
were
your
son
or
daughter
serving
time
for
a
crime,
they
did
not
admit
at
what
point.
Would
you
stop
fighting
to
clear
their
name?
We
need
a
personal
right.
That's.
A
A
I'd
like
to
thank
our
policy,
analysts,
Patrick
geinen
and
Diane
Thornton,
who
have
been
absolutely
irreplaceable
in
this
process,
and
we
would
not
be
here
if
it
were
not
for
them
I'd
like
to
thank
our
legal
counsel,
Carly
o'krent,
who
is
smarter
than
me,
and
thank
goodness
because
she
has
the
answers
when
we
need
to
know
what
the
law
is
so
I'm
sure
that
I'm
missing
somebody
I'd
like
to
thank
my
vice
chair
chairwin
for
her
help,
I'm
sure
that
I'm
missing
other
people.
A
So,
as
my
colleague
Senator
Spearman
likes
to
say,
please
attribute
to
my
head
and
not
my
heart.
It's
not
that
we're
not
grateful.
It's
that
I
have
lost
the
my
memory
in
this
particular
instance,
and
so
with
that
I'm
going
to
draw
this
meeting
to
a
conclusion,
I'm
sure
we
will
see
you
all
again
before
February,
but
we
will
see
you
again
for
sure
when
we
get
back
to
Carson
City
for
our
next
legislative
session.
Thank
you
for
your
participation
and
this
committee
is
adjourned.