►
From YouTube: 9/27/2022 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the seventh meeting of the 2021-2022 Interim. Please see the agenda for details.
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
one
welcome
to
the
seventh
meeting
of
the
legislative
commission
for
this
interim
good
afternoon
again
to
those
joining
us
here
looks
like
we
have
a
pretty
full
room
here
in
Las
Vegas.
We
have
folks
with
us
in
Carson
City
as
well,
and
we
have
some
on
Zoom.
So
it
is
a
packed
house
in
all
manners
of
attendance
at
this
point,
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
the
role
and
then
we'll
proceed
after
that,
so
Madam
Secretary.
Could
you
please
call
the
roll.
B
A
I
am
present
so
I
believe
that
means
everyone
is
present
again,
as
you
can
see
folks
who
are
watching,
we
have
some
in
person
here
in
Las
Vegas,
some
in
person
in
Carson
City
and
then
some
over
Zoom
before
we
get
started
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
items,
I'd
like
to
ask
anyone
who
testifies
today
to
please
State
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
before
testifying
that
helps
us
to
keep
a
very
clear
record.
A
If
anyone
would
like
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
commission's
agendas
minutes
or
reports,
you
may
be
added
to
our
mailing
list
by
following
the
link
on
the
legislature's
website
or
by
providing
your
information
to
our
staff
contact
information
for
staff
is
also
listed
on
the
legislative
website.
In
addition,
we
accept
written
comments
which
may
be
emailed
or
mailed
before,
during
or
after
the
meeting.
The
information
regarding
where
to
send
written
comments
is
also
on
the
website
and
listed
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
A
So
that
will
now
take
us
to
agenda
item
number
two
public
comment.
We
will
be
accepting
public
comment
at
this
time
from
persons
present
here
at
the
Grant
Sawyer
building.
In
Las
Vegas,
then
from
those
attending
in
the
legislative,
at
the
legislative
building
in
Carson
City,
and
then
from
persons
wishing
to
provide
public
comment
by
phone
and
just
a
reminder,
if
you
prefer
to
wait
to
speak
until
later,
there
will
be
a
second
period
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
agenda.
A
The
end
of
the
meeting,
please
remember
that
comments
will
be
limited
to
not
more
than
two
minutes
per
person.
Just
to
make
sure
we're
being
fair.
I
will
be
timing
you.
So
if
you
get
to
those
two
minutes
and
you're
still
talking
I
will
ask
you
to
please
wrap
up,
and
if
you
could
please
do
so.
That
would
be
much
appreciated.
So
we'll
start
again
here
in
Las
Vegas.
If
there's
anyone
in
Las
Vegas
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment
at
this
time,
I
would
ask
you
to
please
come
forward
to
the
table.
A
We
do
have
three
seats
here,
so
we
just
ask
that
you
fill
those
seats
in
and
then
just
a
reminder
when
you
do
speak.
If
you
could
identify
yourself
for
the
record,
please
be
sure
to
explain
any
acronyms
that
you
might
use
and
then
ensure
that
if
you
haven't
already
you
sign
in
at
the
clipboard
by
the
door
before
you
leave,
so
we
have
an
accurate
list
of
who
is
here
for
public
comment.
So
I
see
we
have
at
least
a
couple
here
in
Las
Vegas,
sir.
E
E
Kenneth
Paul
k-e-n-n-e-t-h
p-a-l-p-a-u-l,
former
principal
W,
McLean
Middle,
School
CCSD
principal
from
the
Inception
of
ab469
until
the
present
NRS
388g,
which
requires
CCSD
Central
Administration
to
include
service
level
agreements,
beginning
with
the
1819
school
year.
Ccsd
CFO
Jason
Gowdy
had
no
intention
of
complying
with
the
law.
Last
year,
I
met
with
a
few
role.
Principals
and
CCSD
director
of
facilities,
management,
drafting
drafting
the
initial
service
level
agreements
was
difficult.
E
After
CCSD
Central
Services
learned
those
funds
would
go
to
the
schools
of
the
precincts,
CCSD
Central
Administration,
specifically
CFO
Jason
Gowdy
and
Associate
superintendent,
Kelly
Cole,
Powell,
Powell,
quietly
assured
CCSD
Central
services,
department
heads.
They
would,
however,
still
control
that
money.
Since
then,
the
transferring
of
funds
from
CCSD
Central
Services
to
schools
has
been
a
carefully
orchestrated
illusion.
E
After
school
and
Community
level,
presentations
in
public
comment
and
Nevada
Board
of
Education,
this
illusion
came
sharply
into
Focus
as
it
quickly
began
to
unravel
as
a
result
in
December
of
2021,
in
direct
violation
of
the
law,
CFO
Jason
Gowdy
and
Associate
superintendent,
Kelly
Cole,
Paul
convinced
the
trustees.
All
slas
must
be
recentralized
by
the
January
15th
deadline
for
the
22-23
school
year.
E
The
illusion
of
funds
being
properly
and
legally
transferred
to
schools
is
an
is
an
intentional,
premeditated
and
calculated
ruse
by
Central
leadership,
specifically
CCSD
CFO,
Jason
Gowdy
and
chief
strategy
officer,
Kelly
Cole
Paul
that
continues
to
this
day.
This
illusion
is
what
leads
CCSD
superintendent,
Jesus
Jara
to
believe
CCSD
is
in
substantial
compliance
with
the
law.
These
NRS
388g
regulations
being
voted
on
today
are
critical,
since
CCSD
Central
Administration
continues
to
prove
they
have
no
intention
of
complying
with
the
law.
Thank
you.
F
Go
ahead,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
it's
been
a
while
my
name
is
Ed
Gonzalez
Ed
g-o-n-z-a-l-e-z
I
am
the
Community
member
of
the
Hickey
Elementary
School
organizational
team
of
spell
hickey
h-I-c-k-e-y
I'm,
here
to
speak
on
three
regulations
in
support
of
r06322a
r06422a
and
r06522a.
You've
heard
previous
testimony
talking
about
the
school
regularization
a
little
background
for
members
who
don't
know
it.
I
was
a
staffer
in
2015
we
originally
passed
the
law.
I
was
an
educational
lobbyist
in
2017.
F
What
the
goal
was
is
to
make
sure
that
dollars
that
are
handing
down
to
schools
and
give
principals
the
accountability
and
also
the
autonomy
to
be
able
to
do
what's
best
for
the
community.
The
frustration
has
been
over
the
last
six
years.
We
have
not
seen
this
happen
and
it
goes
against
the
Defiance
of
both
the
State
Board
of
Education,
also
the
legislators
actions.
F
So
today
those
three
regulations
has
with
the
dispute
process
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
way
if
there's
some
objections,
direct
supervision,
so
principles
have
more
autonomy
over
the
control
of
their
schools
and
also
a
pathway
for
non-compliance,
so
I
would
not
I
would
expect
more
regulations
to
come.
As
the
State
Board
looks
at
this
more
but
Mr
chairman,
we
hope
I,
hope
you
approve
this.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
your
public
comment:
Mr
Gonzalez.
Anyone
else
here
in
Las
Vegas.
If
so,
don't
be
shy,
make
your
way
to
the
front
of
the
room.
A
Okay,
I'm,
not
seeing
anyone
at
the
moment
in
Las
Vegas,
let's
go
up
to
Carson
City.
If
there's
anyone
there
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment,
I
would
ask
you
to
please
come
forward
to
the
table
and
when
you're
there
and
ready
hit
your
microphone
button
and
please
provide
your
public
comment,
looks
like
we've
got
eyes
on
Carson
City.
Do
I
see
anyone
coming
forward?
No.
D
A
All
right
no
take
note
takers
in
Carson
City.
Thank
you,
Senator
gokuchia.
Let's
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
we
have
anyone
joining
us
over
the
phone
who'd
like
to
give
a
public
comment,
so
I'll
hand
it
over
to
BPS,
and
if
you
are
on
the
line,
if
you
would
please
wait
for
instructions,
you'll
be
given
those
instructions
and
you'll
be
able
to
give
public
comments.
So
please
take
it
away.
Bps.
B
G
Good
afternoon
sir
Yeager
and
members
of
the
legislative
commission,
this
is
Kathy
Flanagan
On
behalf
of
the
Springs
Preserve.
The
Springs
Preserve
would
like
to
offer
its
supportive
regulation,
ro25-22
proposed
by
the
Nevada
Department
of
Conservation
and
natural
resources.
The
Springs,
the
Springs
Preserve,
appreciates
all
the
work
dcnr
has
done
on
these
regulations
and
encourages
the
committee
to
approve
them.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
this
opportunity
to
make
public
comments.
B
H
G
My
name
is
Sally
stillworthy,
that's
s-h-e-l-l-y,
stillworthy
is
s-t-o-l-w-o-r-t-h-y,
I
am
on
the
Moapa
Valley
Community
Education,
Advisory,
Board
and
I
am
also
on
the
Middle
School
saw
in
Overton
Nevada
with
Clark
County,
School
District
being
as
large
as
it
is.
We
were
grateful
to
have
the
reorg
law
so
that
the
thought
would
have
control
over
budgeting
instead
of
the
centralized
Clark
County
School
school
district
CCSD
is
very
unaware
of
our
rural
needs.
In
simple
decision
decision
making
and
more
complex
situations,
ccfd
is
very
slow
to
help
or
fix
our
problems.
G
G
Hi,
my
name
is
Dr
Mary
stroth,
it's
m-a-r-y,
s-c-h-r-o-t-h
I
am
the
chief
medical
officer
for
KIRO
samay,
a
patient
advocacy
organization,
which
represents
Nevada
residents
affected
by
spinal
muscular
atrophy
or
SMA.
I
am
speaking
in
strong
support
of
the
newborn
screening
regulation
being
considered
today.
Sma
is
a
devastating
neurodegenerative
disease
that
results
in
severely
weakened
muscles
in
every
part
of
the
body.
Infants
with
SMA
lose
the
ability
to
swallow,
breathe
and
move
independently.
Throughout
my
25-year
career
as
a
lung
specialist
for
children,
most
babies
with
SMA
died
before
reaching
their
second
birthday.
G
That
has
changed
because
there
are
now
treatments
for
SMA
that
these
medications
are
most
effective
when
given
before
the
symptoms
of
s,
May
begin,
and
these
medications,
coupled
with
newborn
screening
for
SMA,
has
dramatically
changed.
The
outcomes
for
those
babies
born
today
with
SMA
are
living
full
and
normal
lives,
but
only
if
they
can
access
treatment
right
after
birth
and
before
permanent
nerve
damage
begins.
G
G
Because
the
newborn
screening
regulation
has
been
delayed
due
to
a
larger
debate
over
Health
privacy
and
patient
and
Family
Choice
I
work
with
patients
and
families
dailies
for
over
two
decades,
I
respect
their
choices
and
take
their
privacy
seriously.
But
this
debate
has
delayed
this
role
and
has
hurt
the
health
and
well-being
of
Nevada
children,
while
babies
born
with
SMA
in
every
neighboring
state
are
thriving.
Children
in
Nevada
are
developing
irreversible
permanent
disabilities
that
will
affect
their
entire
lives,
irreversible
and
costly
lifetime
visibility
only
because
they
were
born
in
your
state.
G
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
BPS
and
again
as
a
reminder
to
everyone
here.
We'll
have
a
chance
for
public
comment
a
second
time
at
the
end
of
today's
meeting
that
closes
agenda
item
two
and
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
three,
which
is
approval
of
the
minute
committee
members.
You'll
have
found
in
your
packet.
The
draft
minutes
for
the
June
10th
2022
legislative
commission
meeting
they're
also
available
on
the
website.
So
I
would
ask
if
there's
any
discussion
or
Corrections
on
the
minutes
and
if
not,
would
certainly
accept
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
A
A
A
Okay,
you're
you're,
very
welcome
and
committee
members
will
try
to
do
I
know
it's
a
little
challenging
because
we
have
members
in
two
locations
and
on
Zoom,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
voice
votes.
But
if
you
could
also
raise
your
hand
to
signify
when
you
were
voting
as
well,
I
think
that'll
help
visually
and
hopefully
that'll
get
us
where
we
need
to
be
so.
We
do
have
a
motion,
and
we
have
a
second
I
would
ask
all
those
in
favor
of
that
motion
to
either
say
I
or
raise
your
hand.
E
A
Okay
and
then,
if
there's
any
opposed,
would
you
say,
nay
or
raise
your
hand?
Please,
okay,
I,
don't
see
any
in
opposition.
We
did
have
two
abstentions,
but
if
my
math
is
correct,
that
would
mean
eight
in
favor,
no
10
in
favor,
zero
opposed
and
two
abstentions.
So
that
motion
does
carry.
Thank
you.
Committee
members.
That
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number.
A
Three
will
go
next
to
agenda
item
number
four,
which
is
our
fifth
Court
mandated
status
report
regarding
the
Nevada
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
technology,
fee
refund
project
I,
believe
we
have
Sean
sever,
who
I
think
is
probably
in
Carson
City
he's
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
DMV
and
he's
going
to
go
ahead
and
present
any
information
he'd
like
to
present
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
questions.
So
welcome
to
legislative
commission,
Mr
sever,
always
good
to
see
you
and
please
proceed.
F
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
and
good
afternoon,
commission
members
Sean
sever
from
a
DMV
for
the
record
s-e-a-n-s-e-v-e-r.
F
Thank
you
for
giving
me
a
chance
to
update
you
on
our
Tech
fee
refund
project
through
August
30th
of
this
year.
The
DMV
has
distributed
more
than
1.7
million
dollars
of
the
six
million
dollars
available
in
Tech
fee
refunds.
The
DMV
started
issuing
the
refunds
by
sending
out
checks
to
businesses
on
February
22nd
of
this
year.
Sixty
one
thousand
and
five
business
refunds
were
issued
for
close
to
two
point:
two
million
dollars
as
of
August
30th.
Forty
four
thousand
six
hundred
business
refunds
have
cleared
for
more
than
6.
F
1.6
million
dollars
or
seventy
four
percent
of
the
business
refunds.
More
than
3.8
million
dollars
in
customer
refunds
were
made
available
to
the
public
on
April
4th
of
this
year.
As
of
August
30th
37
261
of
these
refunds
have
been
issued
for
more
than
one
hundred
and
fourteen
thousand
dollars,
or
almost
three
percent
of
the
customer
refunds.
F
The
DMV
is
trying
to
get
the
word
out
to
everybody
about
this,
and,
and
we
have
we've
conducted
a
fifteen
thousand
dollar
advertising
campaign,
received
a
lot
of
media
coverage
and
posted
many
times
on
social
media
to
inform
and
remind
customers
about
getting
their
refunds.
A
Thank
you
Mr
cyber
appreciate
that
commission
members,
this
is
an
informational
item
only
so
it
does
not
require
any
action
on
our
part,
but
it
is
a
chance
for
members
to
ask
questions
if
they
have
them
about
the
project,
so
I
will
open
it
up
to
members
I
guess.
Let
me
start
here
in
Las
Vegas.
Anyone
with
a
question
for
Mr
sever
on
the
DMV
status
report.
I,
don't
see
anyone
here
in
Las
Vegas
how
about
up
in
Carson
City.
Anyone
have
any
questions.
A
Might
let
you
off
easy
today,
Mr
sever
I,
don't
I,
don't
hear
any
questions,
but
members,
as
you
know,
if
you
do
have
questions
after
today's
meeting,
feel
free
to
reach
out
directly
to
Department
of
Motor,
Vehicles
I'm.
Sure
Mr
sever
would
be
happy
to
answer
those
questions,
but
for
now
Mr
sever.
Thank
you
for
the
update
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
Okay.
That
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number
four
and
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
five,
which
is
the
meat
of
the
agenda.
These
are
the
administrative
regulations
under
consideration.
Today
we
have
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council,
Asher
Killian
with
us
in
Carson
City,
at
the
end
of
the
video
conference,
to
assist
us
with
this
item.
A
If
we
need
to
just
a
way
of
reminder,
we
have
two
types
of
proposed
approvals
for
regulations
under
item
five
today
items
five,
a
five
b
and
5c
are
all
requests
pursuant
to
subsection
4
of
NRS
233b.040
to
continue
a
regulation
not
adopted
within
two
years
after
submission
to
the
legislative
Council.
A
So
we're
going
to
start
with
consideration
of
those
three
which
are
requests
for
extensions
and
then
we'll
get
to
the
bulk
of
what
we
have
left
today.
So
at
this
time,
we'll
start
with
item
5A,
which
is
a
request
for
continuation
of
R,
101-19
and
I.
Believe
we
have
Mr
Richard
Whitley,
director
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
at
the
Carson
City
end
of
the
video
conference,
to
provide
the
explanation
required
by
Statute
and
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
So
thank
you
for
being
here.
K
The
regulations
that
we
have
before
you
today
are
101.9
we're
requesting
an
extension
as
submitted
to
the
legislative
Council.
The
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
did
not
adopt
the
regulations
within
two
years,
and
two
factors
really
contributed
to
this.
One
is
the
pandemic
and
the
the
impact
on
our
staffing
and
then.
K
Secondly,
this
is
a
new
activity
for
our
department,
the
the
mediation
process
and
so
standing
that
up
has
required,
I
believe
a
great
deal
of
Engagement
with
stakeholders,
there's
three
primary
stakeholders:
years
payers,
Health,
insurers,
hospitals
and
providers,
and
so
we've
conducted
the
public
workshops.
But
we,
on
top
of
it,
we've
conducted
stakeholder
work
groups
with
each
of
the
stakeholders.
The
the
the
activities
as
required
in
statute
have
been
conducted.
K
We've
had
over
1500
referrals
of
application
for
mediation
when
a
and
and
just
to
back
up
a
little
bit.
The
the
this
statute
had
removed
the
patient
from
the
equation
when
there's
a
dispute
between
the
hospital
and
the
payer
and
the
provider
with
without
a
network
charges,
and
so
in
this
role
with
the
Department
we
wanted
to
get
it
right.
A
I
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
Senator
I
think
just
questions
pertaining
to
the
the
request
from
the
agency
for
an
extension
of
time,
since
the
regulation
is
not
final
and
before
us
in
that
form,
I
think
any
questions
about
the
content
would
be
premature
at
the
moment
appreciate.
I
That
chairman,
in
that
respect,
how
much
more
time
you
know
we
we
have
the
rule,
you
know
two
years
and
I
understand
the
discussion.
A
lot
of
things
have
occurred.
How
much
more
time
do
you
need
in
order
to
go
through
this
process
and
if
we
were
to
just
say,
go
through
the
whole
process
again?
How
much
time
would
that
take.
B
Dina
Schmidt
for
the
record,
so
if
we
had
to
restart
over,
that
could
be
another
a
year
and
a
half
plus.
If
we
were
granted
the
extension,
we
believe
we
can
get
this
adopted
right
away.
We
just
need
time
to
schedule
and
hold
our
final
hearing
for
adoption.
We
did
hold
the
hearing
to
adopt
completed,
but
we
were
just
waiting
for
approval
from
LCB
and
we
were
just
past
that
time
frame,
so
we
are
ready
to
move
forward
and
should
be
able
to
have
them
done
within
the
next
three
to
six
months.
B
I
A
D
Chair
Senator,
thank
you
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question
and
and
I've
really
sympathized
with
them
in
the
work
they've
done
on
this
and
how
critical
it
is.
But
I
I
want
to
Echo
and
support
the
statement
of
Mr
settlemeyer
I
am
concerned
if
we
start
moving
away
from
a
two-year
time
frame,
and
we
we've
got
a
couple
of
requests
here
today
and
as
we
move
forward,
I
am
very
concerned.
All
of
a
sudden.
D
A
A
I
will
I
will
note
certainly
understand
the
concerns
about
extensions,
but
that
is
why
we
do
have
this
statutory
provision
where
agencies
come
before
us
to
explain
the
extenuating
circumstances
and,
although
it
doesn't
happen
frequently
I
think
as
long
as
I
can
run
around
ledge
commission,
it
seems
like
there's
at
least
one
of
these
every
meeting,
but
when
you
look
at
the
54
plus
that
are
on
the
other
part
of
the
agenda
today,
just
as
a
percentage-wise
I
think
it's
you
know
well
founded
in
terms
of
it.
It
doesn't
look
like
this.
A
Provision
is
being
abused,
at
least
in
my
mind,
so
understand
those
concerns.
But
it
sounds
like
the
agency
is
close
to
being
done
with
this
one
and
I'll
stop
editorializing
with
that
comment,
and
we'll
just
ask
if
anyone
would
be
willing
to
make
a
motion
to
approve
the
continuation
of
r101-119.
I
feel
like
excuse
me,
Dash
19.,
so
we
we
have
some
activity
down
here.
I'll
give
the
motion
to
assembly
woman
how
to
be
in
a
second
to
Senator
Dennis.
E
Hey
thank
you.
Mr
chair,
you
know.
Look
I
I
have
some
of
the
same
concerns
that
Senator
Stella,
Meyer
and
coach
Kia
have,
but
although
I'd
hate
to
set
them
back
one
and
a
half
to
two
years
in
the
process,
I
think
we've
waited
a
long
time
for
these
Reds,
so
I'll
be
supporting
it.
A
A
Okay,
I
think
the
only
one
I'm
unclear
about
was.
We
didn't
have
both
on
the
screen.
Senator
settlemeyer,
were
you
a
yes
or
a
no
on
that
one
I'm.
A
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
have
the
have
it
right.
So
I
have
no's
from
Senator
Senator
settlemire
Senator
buck
assemblywoman
krasner,
who
am
I
missing
Dickman.
A
Senator
and
an
assemblywoman
Dickman,
and
we
had
a
yes
from
assemblyman
Roberts,
so
I
think
that
seven
to
five
in
favor,
so
that
motion
does
carry
I'm.
Sorry
for
the
clunkiness
everyone.
It's
we
have
a
lot
going
on
on
the
screen
up
here.
So,
if
feel
free
to
chime
in
at
any
point,
if
I
miss
you
or
I
incorrectly
Tally,
what
your
vote
is,
but
that
one
I
think
passes
by
a
margin
of
seven
to
five,
so
that
will
take
us
to
agenda
item
five
b,
which
give
me
one
second
here.
A
That
is
another
request.
Pursuant
to
subsection
four
of
NRS
233b040
to
continue
regulation
not
adopted
within
two
years,
I
believe
we
have
Miss
Kathy,
Sheehy
Nevada
Commission
of
mortgage
lending
in
Carson
City
to
provide
the
explanation
required
by
Statute.
So
if
that
is
the
case,
if
you
could
please
come
forward
and
provide
that
explanation,
please.
E
Cherry
Yeager:
this
is
Terry
Reynolds
director
for
business,
Ministry
and
I'm.
Here
with.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
for
being
here,
obviously
on
Zoom,
not
in
the
building,
but
whoever
would
like
to
go
first
with
that
presentation.
Please
go
ahead.
C
R119-09
we
have
already
held
the
workshop
for
the
regulations
we
submitted.
J
2022,
so
the
extension
will
allow
us
to
to
give
us
just
a
couple
of
months
to
complete
the
adoption
hearing,
which
my
plan
is
to
have
before
the
end
of
the
calendar
year,
so
that
we
can
have
that
wrapped
up.
A
F
Is
Terry
Reynolds
director
for
BNI?
Let
me
also
include
that
these
are
really
technical
changes
that
were
from
Ab
468
and
SB
69
that
were
passed
in
the
17
legislature.
They're,
basically,
wording
changes,
mortgage
brokers
and
Mortgage
Bankers
were
combined
under
the
designation
mortgage
companies,
and
mortgage
agents
will
be
called
mortgage
loan
Originators
there
were
NRS
chapter,
645e
was
repealed,
and
so
there
was
a
change
in
the
technical
writing
of
the
the
new
nacs
to
incorporate
those
legislative
changes.
It's
132
pages
of
basically
technical
changes.
F
It
took
LCB
a
while
to
to
make
those
not
faulting
them,
but
it
did
take
a
while
to
make
those
changes
within
NRS
and
the
nacs.
So
with
that,
we
are
ready
to
go
ahead
with
final
adoption
of
the
regulations
in
the
next
couple
months.
So
we
appreciate
your
consideration.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
D
D
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
I'm,
going
to
take
the
same
position
on
this
as
we
did.
The
last
reg
I
understand
the
regs
and
the
work
that
went
into
it,
but
again
deadlines
are
deadlines
and,
if
I'm
just
concerned
that
you
know
we're
talking
about
legislation
that
passed
in
17
and
we're
still
working
on
rakes,
it
concerns
me.
Thank
you.
So
I
will
be
a
no.
A
A
A
Opposed
say,
nay,
or
raise
your
hand,
hey.
A
So
I
think
I
think
the
question
really
is
assemblyman
Roberts.
Are
you
a
yes
or
no
on
this
one.
E
A
Okay
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
but
that
I
think
I
think
we
had
the
same
nose
as
we
had
last
time,
which
was
Senator,
gokuccia,
Senator
settlemire,
and
then
we
had
assemblywoman
Dickman
Senator
Buck
was
a
no
and
somebody
else
who
I
can't
recall
at
the
moment:
yeah
assembly,
woman,
krasner,
so
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
that
leaves
us
that
seven
to
five,
just
as
we
had
on
the
last
vote,
okay
hearing,
no
Corrections
that
does
pass
seven
to
five
all
right.
A
We've
got
one
more
of
these
to
go
and
that
is
agenda
item
five
C
and
this
is
a
request
for
extension
for
r024-20
I,
believe
we
have
Miss
Cindy
pitlock,
who
I
think
is
either
in
Carson
City
or
on
zoom.
And
if
that's
the
case,
if
you
could
go
ahead
and
provide
that
explanation,
please.
B
Thank
you,
chair
Yeager,
for
the
record.
Cindy
pitlock
I
serve
as
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
so
same
story,
different
different
scenario,
but
same
story.
R024-20
I
am
requesting
an
exception
to
the
two-year
time
frame.
We
made
it
through
two
public
workshops
and
also
two
hearings
and
moved
for
adoption
with
some
requested
revisions
and
want
to
now
proceed
on
to
final
adoption
same
reasons.
A
global
pandemic
with
accompanying
staff
shortages
and
I
would
request
your
support
for
us
to
move
this
process
forward.
A
Thank
you
for
that
explanation
and
if
you
could
just
answer
similar
to
the
question
that
I
believe
Senator
settlemeyer
asked
of
director,
Whitley
just
give
us
the
scenarios
between
what
happens
if
we're
to
Grant
the
extension.
What
kind
of
timing
are
you
looking
at
versus
if
you'd
have
to
go
back
to
square
one
to
start
the
process
over.
B
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
hear
questions.
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
an
extension
for
this
regulation
that
we're
on,
which
is
our
r024-20.
A
A
A
And
again,
just
because
I
don't
have
everyone
on
my
screen,
assemblyman
Robert,
sorry
to
put
you
in
the
spotlight
again,
but
were
you
a
yes
or
no
on
that
one.
E
A
Okay,
so
I
believe
that
motion
would
carry
seven
to
five
with
the
same
five:
no
votes
from
the
prior
two
items
being
Incorporated
on
this.
One
I
won't
list
everyone
out
because
I
always
forget
somebody,
but
that
motion
does
carry
seven
to
five
okay.
A
So
thank
you.
Commission
members
that
takes
us
through
5A,
B
and
C
up
next
is
5D.
We
have
58
regulations
submitted
for
approval
pursuant
to
NRS
233b.067.
These
regulations
are
all
contained
in
the
binders
provided
to
all
the
members
today
and
also
all
posted
on
the
Nevada
legislature's
website
under
the
tab
for
this
meeting,
which
you
will
find
by
hitting
the
View
events
button
in
the
upper
right
corner
of
the
page.
A
So,
as
is
our
usual
practice
I'm
going
to
let
you
know
the
regulations
that
we
are
either
going
to
defer
or
I
have
been
asked
to
hold
for
questions
and
after
we
identify
those
I'll
ask
commission
members.
If
there
are
additional
regulations
you
would
like
held
for
further
discussion
once
we
pull
all
of
those
out
we'll
take
one
motion
and
approve
the
remainder
of
the
regulations
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
the
regulations
that
have
been
pulled
one
at
a
time
to
discuss
those
in
turn.
A
So
if
you
give
me
a
moment
here,
let
me
pull
up
my
list
and
let
folks
know
what
I've
already
been
asked
to
pull
and
so
I
guess.
Let
me
start
with
with
this
one:
there
is
one
that
I'm
going
to
defer
to
a
future
meeting,
so
this
means
it
will
not
be
included
in
the
motion
and
it
will
not
be
pulled
out
for
individual
discussion,
and
that
is
r134-20
again.
That's
our
134-20.
A
It
that's
the
division
of
business
and
Industrial
relations,
so
that
one
will
not
be
considered
today
beyond
that,
I
have
a
handful
that
have
folks
have
asked
me
to
pull
for
discussion.
I'll
go
ahead
and
list
those
in
order,
as
they
appear
on
the
agenda,
so
starting
under
2020
regulations.
We
will
pull
for
discussion
r130-20
again,
that's
r130-20!
That's
the
state,
quarantine
office
officer
regulation,
so
I'm
going
to
keep
a
running
tally,
so
that
will
be
one
and
then
moving
on
the
next
one
will
pull
is
r052-21.
A
A
Then
we're
going
to
skip
forward
quite
a
bit
and
actually
that's
going
to
be
it
for
the
21
regulations,
we'll
go
to
the
2022
regulations
and
the
ones
to
be
pulled
there.
The
first
one
should
be
the
third
one
listed
r016-22,
that's
r016-22
Aging
and
Disability
Services
Division
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
that
will
be
pulled
for
discussion
and
that
that
is
it
for
that
particular
category.
A
Now,
if
you
go
to
the
bottom
of
that
list
that
you
should
have,
there
are
a
couple
of
20,
a
couple
of
regulations
that
were
previously
deferred
and
they've
been
brought
back
for
consideration,
we're
going
to
pull
both
of
those
for
discussion.
So
at
the
very
end
the
first
one
is
R
88-20,
that's
a
state
board
of
health
r88-20
and
then
the
next
one
would
be
r119-21
r119-21,
the
State
Board
of
Pharmacy.
So
that
is
what
I
have.
A
Let
me
just
check
before
we
do
a
motion.
If
there's
anything
else
that
members
would
like
pulled.
I'll
start
here
in
Las.
Vegas
any
additional
regulations
that
members
here
would
like
pulled
for
discussion.
A
A
Sir,
thank
you
Senator
Sotomayor
Let's
just
go
to
the
zoom
quickly
to
see.
Are
there
any
additional
regulations
that
our
members
on
Zoom
would
like
pulled
for
discussion.
A
Okay,
I'm
not
hearing
or
seeing
anyone
so
Senator,
settlemeyer
I'll,
give
you
the
honor
of
making
probably
a
very
long
motion
for
us
to
consider
and
thank
you
ahead
of
time
for
doing
that
for
us
and
please
go
ahead.
No.
I
I
R72-21
r73-21
r74-21
r78-21,
r79-21,
r11421,
r115,
21,
R1,
1621,
r12021,
r120,
121,
r125,
21
or
12621
r12721,
r12821,
r5-22,
r-822,
r24-22,
r-2522,
r-2622,
r-32,
22,
r-33,
22
or
34-22
are
38-22,
r41-22,
r45-22
or
50-22
r51-22
or
52-22,
or
57-22,
r63,
22
or
64-22,
or
65-22,
or
69-22
r71-22,
r80-22,
r85-22
and
r170-22
and
16
years
ago
and
I
began
this
process.
I
didn't
have
to
wear
glasses.
So
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
foreign.
A
Thank
you
for
that
motion.
That
was
a
long
one
and
I
think
you
got
it
right
on
the
money,
so
do
I
have
a
second
on
that
motion
all
right.
We
have
a
second
from
assembly,
assemblywoman,
howdeggy
and
stand
by
for
one
moment.
A
A
Okay,
if
we
have
any
Nays,
would
you
please
say,
nay
and
raise
your
hand
all
right,
I
think
we
got
a
unanimous
12-nothing
vote
on
that
one.
So
thank
you,
commission
members
and
we'll
give
our
members
of
the
audience
here
and
in
Carson
a
second.
If
you
were
just
here
for
your
regulation,
that's
already
been
approved
and
you
don't
want
to
stay
for
the
rest
of
the
meeting.
While
we're
sad
about
that.
A
We
certainly
understand
and
we'll
let
you
go
about
your
day,
so
just
in
about
another
30
seconds
to
a
minute
here,
we'll
go
ahead
and
come
back
to
the
regulations
and
start
with
the
first
one.
A
A
Okay,
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
start
with
we'll
just
go
ahead
and
take
the
regulations
in
order
as
they
exist
on
the
agenda.
So
the
first
one
we're
going
to
consider
is
we're
going
to
discuss,
is
r130-20.
That's
the
state,
quarantine
officer
or
regulation
establishing
firewood,
quarantines
and
I'm,
not
entirely
clear
who
is
with
us
and
where
they
are
joining
us
from.
But
if
you
are
here
for
that
particular
regulation,
if
you
could
just
let
us
know
that
and
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
J
A
I
Thank
you,
Mr
Sherman,
specifically,
my
question
dealt
with
the
concept
of
exterior
firewood
quarantines.
It
does
this
and
it's
probably
a
question
for
legal
and
I,
know
the
answer
and
that's
kind
of
why
I'm
asking
will
this
apply
to
tribes
and
I?
Ask
because
in
Douglas
County
we
have
the
tribe
just
is
going
to
be
opening
up
a
logging
Mill,
and
then
we
also
have
a
firewood
center
located
down
by
my
other
Ranch
as
well,
and
if
we're
going
to
try
to
keep
away
in
invasive
species
infestations
and
things
of
that
nature.
I
J
For
the
record,
Ashley
Jepson
with
the
Nevada
Department
of
Agriculture
I,
don't
want
to
speak
out
of
turn,
but
my
experience
thus
far
has
been
that
our
Authority
is
limited
when
it
comes
to
tribal
land,
so
I
will
defer
that
to
legal
as
well
for
their
insights,
but
so
far
in
other
programs.
That
has
been
the
answer
that
we
typically
run
into.
K
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Kelly
and
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council.
So
this
is
a
situation
where
the
federal
Constitution's
Commerce
Clause
comes
into
play.
The
Commerce
Clause
Is,
Not,
Just
interstate
commerce,
but
also
also
applies
to
tribal
Commerce
and
it
reserves
those
matters
to
the
federal
government.
So,
to
the
extent
that
this
would
be
a
regulation
of
a
state
entity
that
attempts
to
regulate
commerce
with
the
tribes,
that
would
be
that
exercise
of
this
power
would
be
precluded
by
the
Commerce,
Clause
and
Reserve
to
the
federal
government.
Instead,.
I
D
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Kelly
and
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council,
I,
wasn't
sure
if
the
agency
wanted
to
speak
to
that.
But
it's
my
understanding
that
there
are
Provisions
in
place
to
allow
for
this
kind
of
Interstate
quarantine
under
federal
law,
but
I
believe
the
agency
may
have
better
information
on
that
than
I.
Do.
D
If
I
may
follow
up
Mr
chair
just
you
know,
I
mean
when
we
start
talking
firewood.
Are
we
talking
wood
pellets
I
mean
how
far
down
the
line
you
get.
You
know
I,
don't
care,
you
can
go
to
Maverick
or
Walmart
and
see
these.
You
know
bundles
of
firewood.
Are
they
all
in
fact
and
been
inspected
or
cleared?
And
if,
if
not,
then
who's
going
to
do
this
work.
J
J
My
apologies
for
speaking
in
advance
for
the
record
Ashley
Jepson
with
the
Nevada
Department
of
Agriculture.
So
to
answer
your
your
initial
question
there
there
are
causes
that
do
allow
the.
J
And
states
to
have
those
quarantines
in
place
it's
fairly
common.
A
lot
of
other
states
have
similar
Provisions.
In
fact,
most
of
the
language
that
we
have
here
has
been
referenced
from
Utah,
so
it
does
allow
us
to
establish
a
quarantine.
Typically,
those
are
pest
oriented
to
answer.
The
second
piece
of
your
question,
you're,
correct
that
firewood
is,
is
widely
distributed
and
trying
to
capture
all
those
different
Avenues
will
be
a
challenge,
so
we
did
involve
Nevada
division
of
Forestry.
J
We
did
have
a
pretty
massive
call
out,
and
this
has
been
a
national
effort
to
try
to
educate
and
try
to
get
as
many
eyes
out
there
involved
as
possible.
So
there
will
be
a
lot
of
Outreach
and
education.
There
will
be
spot
checks
to
look
at
those
labels,
see
where
things
are
coming
from,
but
a
big
part
of
that
is
flagging.
The
areas
of
particular
concern
where
these
pests
are
coming
from
that
we
want.
J
You
know
these
retailers
to
be
particularly
cognizant
of.
So
there
will
be
a
lot
to
it.
There
will
be
a
lot
of
Outreach
and
education.
There
will
be
spot
checks
to
look
for
that
labeling
and
it
will
be
a
divide
and
conquer
effort
with
some
of
our
partners
as
well,
that
are
in
the
campgrounds
and
the
parks
are
are
folks
that
are
doing
retail
inspections
to
keep
it
to
keep
an
eye
out
for
so
we
can
do
our
best
to
try
to
mitigate
this
issue.
I
You
Mr
chairman,
I,
moved
to
adopt
regulation.
130-20
I'm
still
very
concerned
that
it
doesn't
go
far
enough
in
many
respects,
especially
you
know
as
we
try
to
protect
Lake
Tahoe,
and
then
you
have
somebody
bring
in
some
bad
firewood
and
unfortunately
bring
a
beetle
up
there,
but
I
guess
doing
something's
better
than
nothing.
But
yet,
like
I,
said,
there's
problems
with
this,
so
maybe
next
session
someone
can
try
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
slightly
better,
but
with
that
I
moved
to
adopt
regulation
130-20.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
A
A
A
I,
don't
hear
any
Nays,
so
that
means
we
do
have
12
votes
in
the
affirmative.
That
means
r130-20
is
approved,
and
that
takes
us
next.
The
next
one
I
believe
we
had
pulled
was
R
52-21,
the
Nevada
Tax
Commission,
a
regulation
implementing
the
provisions
of
SB
389
relating
to
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
taxes
and
again
I'm,
not
entirely
sure
who
we
have
with
us.
So
if
you
are
here
for
that
regulation,
could
you
just
let
us
know
that
you're
here
and
we'll
have
some
questions.
J
A
Oh
great,
thank
you
good
to
see
you
Miss,
Hughes
and
I
actually
had
a
question
on
this.
So
I'll
go
ahead
and
ask
that
and
then
we'll
see
if
anybody
else
has
questions.
My
only
question
really
pertains
to
the
information
that
will
be
collected
by
The
Tax
Commission
relative
to
the
vehicle
that
is
being
used
for
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
and
in
the
regulation
itself.
It
lists
a
number
of
items
of
information
that
will
be
collected,
including
the
name
and
contact
information
of
the
shared
vehicle
driver.
I
have
heard
some
concerns
about
that.
A
Whether
that
information
is
is
necessary
and
so
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
your
I
guess.
Top
Line
view
of
what
exactly
the
Tax
Commission
is
intending,
what
kind
of
information
you're
intending
to
collect
and
how
that
information
would
be
related
to
you
know,
I
guess,
carrying
out
the
mission
of
SB
389.
J
J
However,
nrs482c.245
authorizes
the
department
to
access
all
records
of
a
business,
and
so
that
would
include
the
host
name
in
this
instance,
which
is
the
car
owner's
name
and
contact
information,
something
that
may
ease
the
concerns
is
NRS.
360
255
requires
the
department
to
keep
any
records
that
we
obtain
confidential.
J
So
any
of
this
information
that
would
be
submitted
to
us
would
be
confidential
and
we
would
not
disclose
that
our
taxpayer
Bill
of
Rights
does
provide
that
we
will
collect
the
minimum
documentation
that
may
be
reasonably
required
for
audit
purposes.
J
J
The
type
of
information
that
is
being
required
is
the
host
or
car
owner's
name
and
contact
information.
The
vehicle
VIN
number
and
license
plate
number,
the
date
of
purchase
and
the
full
amount
of
the
purchase
and
whether
or
not
sales
tax
has
been
paid
on
that
vehicle,
and
that
is
so
that
we
can
ensure
that
sales
tax
was
properly
paid
to
the
state
of
Nevada.
A
Great,
thank
you
thank
you,
director,
and,
and
not
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
I
think
what
I
hear
you
saying
is
you're
going
to
collect
the
information.
You
need
to
be
able
to
do
your
job
as
the
Department
of
Taxation,
but
you
don't
intend
to
collect
anything
beyond
that
and,
of
course,
keeping
that
information
confidential
is
not
only
good
policy
but
required
statutorily
as
well.
A
I
A
Sorry,
second
great
we'll
go
ahead
and
we'll
give
it
to
a
senator
Dennis
down
here,
just
because
he
he
he
spoke
up
a
little
quicker
and
we'll
give
the
second
to
assembly
woman
how
to
get
any
discussion
from
committee
members
on
the
motion.
A
A
A
Okay,
great
thanks
so
much
for
joining
us
today,
over
zoom
and
I
believe
we'll
start
with
assemblywoman
krasner,
who
I
think
had
a
question
on
this
one.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
chair
Yeager,
it's
just
more
of
a
comment.
B
I
I
still
have
concerns
about
these
freestanding
birthing
centers,
because
in
accordance
with
the
ab287,
which
was
the
assembly
bill
that
brought
forward
this
Legislation
during
the
2021
legislative
session
in
the
bill,
it
states
that
the
freestanding
birthing
centers
have
to
be
30
miles
from
a
hospital
that
provides
neonatal
ICU
services,
I'm
informed
that
a
infant
born
in
fetal
distress
who
needs
neonatal
ICU
Services
needs
to
be
15
minutes
away
from
those
services
or
the
infant
will
die,
and
so
that's
my
concern
here.
B
I'm
I'm,
just
wondering
if
there's
any
change,
they're
all
for
their
records,
since
that's
a
statutory
requirement,
I,
don't
believe
it's
something
I
could
address
with
the
regulations.
I
would
leave
that
perhaps
to
legal
counsel,
but
it's
in
the
statues.
B
Yes,
anyway,
I
want
to
put
that
on
the
record.
I
think
it's
very
dangerous,
but
I
do
understand
that
the
Nevada
Hospital
Association
wants
these
regulations
passed
because
they
want
some
regulations
on
these
freestanding
birthing
centers.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
assembly,
woman,
krasner
and
and
I
think.
That
is
correct.
That
is
a
statutory
requirement,
so
the
that
could
not
be
changed
by
regulation
without
directly
contradicting
the
statute,
so
that'll
be
up
to
a
future
legislature
to
decide
whether
some
changes
need
to
be
made
in
that
regard.
But
we
do
have
this
regulation
in
front
of
us
today
and
want
to
give
other
commission
members
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
if
you
have
them.
So,
let's
start
here,
Las
Vegas
any
questions.
I
I
believe
the
another
section
of
this
law
that
gets
into
it
on
62-21
is
the
whole
discussion
of
birthing
person.
I
can't
remember,
I
can't
find
the
correct
page
on
it,
but
I
believe
that
that
is
within
this
discussion
as
well,
and
my
mom's
been
passed
away
for
10
years
and
I
sure
never
would
have
told
her.
She
was
a
birthing
person
rather
than
a
mom,
so
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
that
type
of
language
in
the
bill,
or
rather
within
this
rig
I.
Wonder
if
anybody
could
address
that.
B
I
A
Okay,
do
we
have
any
further
questions
about
the
regulation.
A
Okay,
I'm
not
hearing
any
questions,
I
would
take
a
motion
if
someone
would
like
to
make
one.
A
Great
thank
you
assemblywoman,
and
we
have
a
motion
there
and
we'll
have
a
second
from
Senator
Dennis
down
here
in
Las
Vegas.
Is
there
any
discussion
beyond
what
we've
heard
already
on
the
proposed
regulation?.
D
E
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
and
likewise
I
voted
for
the
the
bill
last
session,
so
I'll
be
supporting
this
regulation.
A
A
Okay,
I
think
we
have
an
A's
from
Senator
Buck
senator
saddlemeyer
Senator
gokuccia,
assemblywoman
krasner
and
assemblywoman
Dickman,
which
would
make
five
no's
seven
yeses.
So
the
motion
does
approve,
did
I
get
it
that
wrong
at
all.
Did
I
mischaracterize
anybody
I,
don't
think
so.
It
looks
like
the
zoo
might
be
frozen
on
my
screen,
though
some
of
the
woman
acrossner
still
has
her
hand
up
on
my
photo.
So
I
think
she
was
a
no
though
so
well,
seven
to
five
Was
the
vote.
A
A
R16-22,
that's
Aging
and
Disability
Services
Division
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
a
regulation
revising
Provisions
relating
to
sign
language
interpreters
and
you
know,
as
you,
commission
members
and
members
of
the
audience
might
have
noticed.
We
actually
have
a
sign
language
interpretation
of
this
meeting
going
on.
That's
largely
because
of
this
particular
regulation,
but
I
do
believe.
We
have
Miss
Montoya
with
us
to
answer
questions
about
this
regulation
and
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
before
we
take
questions
that
Miss
Montoya
is
here
and
available.
C
A
Fantastic
I'm,
sorry
for
interrupting
I'll,
try
to
give
a
little
bit
of
time
for
the
interpretation
thanks
for
being
here
and
I
I
think
we
had
assemblywoman
Dickman
who
had
a
question
on
this
one.
So
if
that's
the
case
assemblywoman,
if
you
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
ask
your
question,
please,
yes,.
B
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
have
some
concerns
with
the
fact
that
we're
raising
these
standards
so
high
that
it's
going
to
create
barriers
for
qualified
interpreters,
thereby
reducing
the
number
of
those
available,
and
we
already
don't
have
enough
available.
So
do
you
anticipate
a
drop
in
in
available
interpreters
and
if
so,
what
can
you
put
a
percentage
or
a
number
on
it?.
C
To
answer
your
question,
the
NRS
was
passed
in
2001
and
then
that
led
to
us
having
The
Knack
in
2008,
and
so
we've
had
quite
a
bit
of
time
go
by,
and
so
we
didn't
have
a
lot
of
resources
available
when
these
laws
were
put
into
effect
in
regards
to
sign
language
interpreters
and
raising
the
bar
for
their
quality.
But
we
do
now.
One
example
is:
is
our
program,
the
communication
access
service
provides
mentoring
and
pro
and
assistance
to
interpreters
all
over
the
state
of
Nevada
who
are
currently
working
in
the
state.
C
The
mentoring
program
is
free
of
charge
to
any
sign
language
interpreter
that
is
interested.
So
the
changes
are
not
going
to
impact
the
availability
of
the
interpreters
that
we
have
in
our
state.
They
will
have
a
five-year
grace
period
in
order
to
meet
these
requirements
and
that
doesn't
even
begin
until
August,
1st
of
2023..
C
So
really,
if
you
break
that
down,
we've
had
six.
There
will
be
six
years
from
today
in
order
to
meet
those
changes
and
in
order
to
bring
the
quality
of
the
interpreters
up,
we
also
have
a
an
ability
to
register
in
the
state
of
Nevada
in
an
interim
so
that
they
can
have
the
time
to
meet
those
new
requirements.
C
They'll
have
time
to
bring
their
skills
up
in
order
to
change
their
registry
level
that
they're
at
so
and
I
do
want
to
emphasize
it
as
well
that
the
law
is
to
protect
the
consumers
of
sign
language
interpreters
to
make
sure
that
the
interpreting,
Services
they're
receiving
are
of
the
highest
quality.
So
those
who
are
using
The
Interpreter
should
be
their
protection
should
be
more
of
a
concern
than
the
name.
B
Thank
you
for
that,
and,
and
that's
my
concern
as
well,
I
I
agree.
We
need
the
highest
quality
interpreters,
but
I
would
hate
to
see
a
shortage
as
well,
because
that
would
cause
problems
also,
but
I
appreciate
your
explanation,
and
that
makes
me
much
more
comfortable
with
this
regulation.
A
A
Thank
you,
okay.
Commission
members.
We
have
two
more
to
go
I
believe
as
far
as
regulations,
and
then
we
have
a
little
bit
of
other
business
on
the
agenda,
but
we're
going
to
go
next
to
our
88-20.
That
is
a
2020
regulation
from
the
State
Board
of
Health,
a
regulation
establishing
Provisions
relating
to
newborn
screening.
I
think
we
have
Miss,
hopefully
I'm
pronouncing
it
right.
Miss
Ives,
it
looks
like
I
see
someone
coming
to
the
table
in
Carson
City.
C
A
A
Of
course,
we'll
have
a
vote
and
we'll
be
able
to
make
any
sort
of
discussion
points
at
the
time
of
the
vote.
But
if
there
are
questions
on
the
particular
regulation,
now
would
be
a
good
time
to
ask
those.
So
let
me
start
here
in
Las
Vegas
to
see
if
there
are
any
questions
and
I
don't
see.
Anyone
in
Las,
Vegas,
I,
see
assemblywoman
krasner
on
the
zoom
I
believe
has
her
hand
up.
Yes,
that
is
real
time.
A
B
C
I'm
Vicki
IX
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
C
At
the
the
time
the
regulations
were
drafted,
the
codified
changes
coming
out
of
last
session
that
updated
the
term
obstetric
Center
and
replaced
with
birthing
center
Throughout.
The
chapter
had
not
yet
been
codified.
So,
yes,
there
is
there.
The
references
to
obstetrics
Center
have
since
been
changed
to
birthing
center
throughout,
so
it
does,
it
would
apply.
Thank
you.
A
A
I
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I,
appreciate
that
one
of
the
things
that
was
deferred
on
last
time
was
a
discussion
of
potential
liability
and
per
se
the
expansion,
the
regulations
and
NRS
already
dictate
liability.
But
by
extending
out
these
tests,
and
now
everyone
within
that
chain
could
be
potentially
liable.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion
from
doctors
to
me
that
they
were
very
worried
about
that.
C
I'm
picky
I
was
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
the
question.
Liability
was
not
specifically
raised
during
the
public
hearing
process,
public
Workshop
process
or
during
doing
in
any
response
to
the
small
business
impact
statements.
So
liability,
just
just
just
hasn't,
been
brought
up
as
a
as
a
concern.
But
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
A
Thank
you,
Senator.
Are
there
additional
questions
in
Carson,
City.
D
D
D
And
I
don't
know
whether
I
guess
I
go
to
miss
Ives
down
south,
but
anyway,
section
five
of
the
reg
is
I.
Look
at
it.
There's
a
significant
expansion
there
of
the
liability
again
how
we
go
from
it's
any
position:
Midwife
nurse
obstructive,
Center,
Hospital
of
any
nature,
attending
or
assisting
and
or
the
mother,
and
any
infant
at
child
abortions,
but
so
on.
D
You
know
the
exposure,
the
liability
and
and
again
who
you
know
as
as
you
read
this
rig,
you
know
if,
if
you're
there,
you
can
you're
either
guilty
or
you're
imply,
or
you
can
implicate
somebody
else.
So
I'm
I'm
just
concerned
about
the
expansion
of
the
liability.
There.
C
Thank
you,
Senator
Vicki
Ives
for
the
record
in
case
helpful
context.
It
does
in
NRS
chapter
442,
section
008,
all
it
does
State
any
physician,
Midwife
nurse,
obstetric,
Center
or
Hospital
of
any
nature
attending
or
assisting
in
any
way
any
infant
or
them
or
the
a
parent
of
any
infant
at
childbirth
shall
make
these
these
examinations
So.
Currently
in
statute.
Those
those
groups
are
are
called
out
in
relation
to
the
the
testing
for
the
inherited
diseases
and-
and
the
lab
may
want
to
speak
to
that
further.
C
But
in
in
case
that's
helpful
context
and
section
five
conforms
with
the
language
in
NRS
442,
section
008.
It
is
helpful.
D
Thank
you,
Miss,
Ives
and
and
Mr
chair.
If
I
may
just
a
follow-up
question
to
that,
it's
my
understanding.
If
these
regs
do
not
move
forward,
then
in
fact
we
would
they
would
either
start
over
or
we
could
bring
it
back
to
the
legislature
in
the
form
of
a
bill.
Draft
and
I
guess
I'd
be
leaning
that
way,
I'd
like
to
see.
If
maybe
we
can
clean
this
up
a
little
bit.
You
know
we're
four
five
months
from
the
session:
let's
clean
it
up
there
and
get
it
right.
A
You
know
I
had
a
couple
of
questions
that
I
think
one
probably
for
the
agency
and
and
one
probably
for
legal.
You
know
we've
gotten
into
questions
on
the
regulation
itself
and
we
certainly
heard
some
public
comment
that
I
believe
was
in
support
of
the
regulation,
but
just
kind
of
want
to
get
a
sense
from
the
agency.
I
mean
what
what
is
the?
What
is
the
driver
of
this
regulation?
Why
are
you
bringing
this
forward?
C
And
thank
you
chair
for
the
opportunity
to
address
Vicki
Ives
for
the
record.
Some
of
the
main
goals
are
are
really
to
help
the
state
public
health
Laboratory
call
out
specific
reference
by
reference.
The
the
recommended
Universal
screening
list,
that
is,
that
federally
has
the
newborn
screening
disorders
listed
as
well
as
to
tie
to
the
specific
clinical
standards
and
update
some
of
the
the
language.
That's
a
particular
for
children
that
might
have
need
a
transfusion
before
the
the
heel.
C
Stick
that
can
can
be
done
or
who
are
medically
complex
and
have
a
longer
stay.
It
updates
some
of
the
the
timelines
for
additional
screening
points
that
are
needed
in
those
contexts
it
adopts.
You
know
national
standards
by
name
the
the
two
references.
C
It
also
allows
for
payment
for
Laboratory
Testing
at
the
time
of
testing
or
when
the
test
kit
is
obtained
by
the
state
public
health
laboratory,
as
well
as
some
some
conforming
language
consistent
with
the
NRS
442
section
008
in
in
that
was
just
just
brought
up
in
relation
to
section
five
of
the
proposed
of
Regulation
and
some
just
Pathways
around
reporting,
as
well
as
to
parents.
C
Information
to
sharing
to
parents
both
from
the
provider
angle
and
if
there
is
no
primary
Provider
from
the
from
the
lab,
who
would
the
representatives
there
would
be
able
to
speak
much
much
better
to
that,
but
those
are
some
of
the
the
main
goals
of
of
bringing
forward
the
regulation
to
detail
and
add
Clarity
around
some
updates
and
clinical
processes
adopt
by
reference
and
have
and
and
call
out
some
specific
Communications
that
are
related
to
families
in
the
case
that
a
disorder
is
identified.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
I
guess,
just
as
a
follow-up.
We
heard
in
public
comment
I
believe,
and
there
was
a
letter
submitted
in
public
comment.
That
said,
Nevada
is
either
one
of
two
or
three
states
that
do
not
currently
do
newborn
screening
for
spinal
muscular,
atrophy
known
as
SMA.
Can
you
just
confirm
is
that
is
that
accurate
information
that
there's
only
a
couple
of
states
that
don't
do
that
and
we're
one
of
them.
A
Thank
you
and
then
just
a
question
for
for
Mr
Killian.
If
I,
could
we
heard
some
discussion
about
liability
and
I?
Guess
I
just
want
a
little
bit
of
confirmation
that
I'm
processing
this
correctly
because
I
I
don't
read
the
regulation
to
change
whatever
existing
liability
would
be
under
statute.
Certainly,
the
regulation
expands
responsibility
and
expands
testing,
but
I
don't
read
it
as
changing
existing
framework
of
liability
and
Mr
killing.
If
you
could
just
confirm
that
I'm
correct
about
that
and
or
if
I'm,
not
if
you
could,
let
me
know
that.
Please.
K
K
It
would
be
either
the
hospital
or
obstetric
center
now
freestanding
birthing
center
that
is
obligated
to
comply
and
in
the
absence
of
compliance
or
if
the,
if
the
infant
is
not
born
in
a
hospital
or
obstetric
obstetric
Center,
the
person
legally
responsible
for
registering
the
birth
of
the
child
is
required
to
either
have
a
physician,
Hospital
public
health
nurse
or
the
state
public
health
laboratory
take
the
blood
sample
as
revised
by
this
reg
instead
of
the
hospital
or
obstetric
Center.
K
Or
if
the
entrance
is
not
born
in
one
those
parties,
it
would
be
a
physician,
Midwife
nurse,
obstetric,
Center
or
Hospital
of
any
nature
which
aligns
with
the
language
in
NRS
44208.
So,
while
there's
not
an
explicit
expansion
of
liability
to
those
parties,
there
could
potentially
be
different
parties
engaging
in
a
medical
procedure
and
I.
Think
there's
where
that's,
where
the
impression
that
there
could
be
an
expansion
of
liability
resides
because
there
would
now
be
additional
parties
obligated
by
a
law
to
perform
a
medical
procedure
that
would
not
otherwise
be
obligated
to
perform.
A
A
Okay,
we
have
a
couple
down
here,
we'll
give
the
motion
to
Senator
Dennis
we'll
give
the
second
to
assemblywoman
howdegi.
We
have
had
some
discussion
on
this
already
but
wanted
to
give
commission
members
a
chance
if
you
wanted
to
make
any
further
discussion
or
remarks
before
the
vote.
Now
would
be
a
good
time
to
do
that.
Why
don't
we
start
up
in
Carson
City
any
discussion
up
there,
Ms.
I
German,
thank
you
with
that
being
said,
my
objection
is
to
section
five
the
expansion
of
the
scope
of
liability
by
the
people
that
are
affected
by
it.
They've
weren't,
for
that
section,
I
could
easily
vote
for
this
and
I
wish.
We
could
come
back
next
session
and
specifically
change
that
so
to
give
people
more
comfort,
you
know
you're
talking
a
disease.
Unfortunately
it
does
occur.
I
Sadly,
you
know
in
the
state
of
Nevada's
history,
I'm
told
three
people
have
come
up
with
this,
that
to
record,
of
course,
I
don't
know
if
they
were
born
in
Nevada,
so
I
don't
know
if
the
test
in
here
would
have
prevented
that,
but
three
people
have
been
diagnosed
in
the
state
of
Nevada.
That
being
said
again,
my
objection
is
to
section
five,
not
the
test
or
the
fact
that
you
know
one
particular
entity
out
there
is
one
who
might
be
able
to.
I
A
Go
ahead,
go
ahead,
assemblyman,
Roberts
Hey
thank.
E
You
Mr
chair
and
look
I,
have
I
I,
fully
support
the
expansion
of
the
testing
I
just
think
we
didn't
get
this
right
on
a
couple
of
things:
I
think
the
assembly,
woman
krasner
brought
up
the
ambiguity
and
birthing
centers.
Now
that
we've
added
that
just
by
regulation
that
I
supported,
you
know
a
couple
votes
ago,
and
we
still
have
time
to
fix
this
in
the
liability
section
concerns
me
as
well,
so
I
I
just
can't
support
it,
as
is
I
think
we
still
have
time
to
fix
it
and
bring
it
back.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Assemblyman
I
think
I
saw
other
folks
on
the
zoom
shaking
their
heads,
no
for
additional
comments,
but
I'll
give
you
another
chance,
but
anyone,
oh
assemblywoman,
Royal,
Moreno,
I,
think
I.
Think
that's
your
hand.
That's
up!
So
please
go
ahead.
J
If
you
look
at
the
way,
the
regulation
was
written
as
it's
written
now
it
just
delineate
those
that
work
in
a
hospital
or
an
obstruction
Center
or
a
birthing
center
in
plain
language,
so
that
anyone
could
understand
it.
I
do
not
see
it
as
an
expansion
of
liability
for
any
of
those
that
are
specifically
listed
because
they
would
have
already
been
under
the
original
liability.
As
the
regulation
was
written
now
it
just
specifically
States
who
those
are
whether
it's
a
midwife
attending
to
a
birthing
and
a
birthing
center
and
a
home
setting.
J
A
A
Okay,
I,
don't
see
any
Assembly
women
Merle
Moreno.
Would
you
like
to
make
a
motion?
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
we
already
made
the
motion
it's.
It
feels
like
a
Friday,
but
it's
still
Tuesday.
So
that's,
okay.
We
already
have
emotion.
We
already
have
a
second.
We
have
completed
discussions
so
we'll
take
a
vote
now,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
and
raising
your
hand
I.
A
A
A
A
Anyway,
r119-21,
which
is
a
State
Board
of
Pharmacy.
This
is
a
regulation
implementing
provisions
of
ab177
relating
to
the
labels
on
containers
of
prescribed
drugs.
The
listed
contact
I
have
here
is
Miss
hunting
and
so
miss
hunting.
If
you
are
with
us
either
in
person
or
on
Zoom,
could
you
say
something
or
if
there's
somebody
else,
there
I
think
actually
I
think
I
see
see
someone
else
on
Zoom.
So
please
go
ahead.
Sir
Mr.
E
Surely
works
with
me
so
I'll
be
doing
this
today.
I
can
answer
any
questions.
A
Great,
thank
you.
Sorry,
it's
hard
to
see
on
the
screen
sometimes,
but
thank
you
for
being
here
with
us
and
committee
members.
You
may
remember:
we
previously
deferred
this
one
I
think
we
gave
some
additional
direction
to
the
State
Board
of
Pharmacy
at
a
prior
meeting,
but
we
had
this
one
pulled
for
discussion
and
I
think
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
was
Senator,
settlemire
or
somebody
else,
but
Senator.
A
I
You
Mr
chairman
I,
believe
Ms
Dickman
had
a
question
but
I
think
it's
similar
to
mine.
The
concept
that
has
happened
in
other
states
in
discussion
of
this
type
of
a
bill
where
we
add
additional
languages
onto
a
bottle
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
But
the
question
that
comes
is
sometimes
the
bottle
is
not
very
large
and,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
having
to
wear
glasses,
I
don't
have
to
get
a
larger
prescription
in
order
to
read
the
bottle.
E
Eight
weeks
for
the
record
executive
secretary
of
the
Board
of
Pharmacy
w-u-e-s-t
as
the
language
is
in
front
of
you,
there's
no
exception
for
that.
That
is
the
we're
to
the
direction
that
you
that
this
committee
gave
us
exactly.
So,
as
it
refers
back
to
the
bill,
there's
no
listed
exemption
for
it.
I
Thank
you
and
thank
you
Mr
chairman
and
that's
my
opposition
is
that
you
need
to
have
an
exemption
just
due
to
the
simple
fact
it
is
not
physically
possible,
sometimes
on
these
smaller
bottles
to
fit
additional
languages,
and
we
need
to
have
an
exemption
to
that
effect.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
A
B
You
chair,
the
senator
mostly
covered
it,
but
but
it's
my
understanding
also
that
these
pharmacists
can
be
fined
if
the
labels
aren't.
You
know
in
these
other
languages,
even
if
they
don't
fit.
So
you
know,
if
we're
going
to
be
finding
people
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
how
we
go
ahead
with
this
I
as
I
understand
that
there's
been
discussions
of
fixing
it
next
session,
but
what
happens
between
now
and
then.
E
Dave
weeks
for
the
record,
there's
not
a
listed
fine
and,
like
you,
can
ask
your
own
Council
that
but
there's
not
a
listed
fine
for
this
I
guess:
there's
a
possibility
that
the
board
could
get
a
complaint
and
it
would
go
through
the
typical
complaint.
But
as
that
does
people
that
have
complaints
again
in
Nevada
go
in
front
of
their
peers.
So
they
would
weigh
they
would
weigh
you
know
the
circumstances.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Killian,
Chief,
Deputy,
legislative
Council,
so
in
general,
in
the
apps,
when
a
when
the
law
imposes
a
requirement
on
a
party
and
the
party
fails
to
comply
with
the
law
and
the
absence
of
any
other
penalty,
it
would
be
a
misdemeanor
and
the
penalty
for
a
misdemeanor
is
generally
a
fine
and
fine
or
not
more
than
six
months
in
jail.
A
Let
me
ask
a
quite
I:
don't
know
Mr
Wiese
if
this
is
an
appropriate
question
for
you.
Maybe
it's
more
of
a
comment
but
I'll
just
throw
it
out
there
in
case
you
have
any
relevant
information
add,
but
it
just
seems
to
me
I
when,
when
I
go,
get
prescriptions,
I
mean
we're
thinking
of
labels,
but
most
of
these
bottles
seem
to
have
these
very
small
labels
that
and
with
apologies
to
Senator
settlemeyer,
because
you're
going
to
have
to
get
your
glasses
out.
A
But
you
know
you
have
to
like
peel
them
off
and
it's
almost
like
a
CVS
receipt,
they're,
so
long
already
and
so
I
guess
I'm,
just
I'm
not
seeing
the
issue
about
having
a
different
language,
because
you
already
have
the
ability,
with
these
very
small
sort
of
folded
and
attached.
Labels
to
incr
include
an
incredible,
maybe
too
much
information
at
times
on
these
labels,
so
I
just
I
just
throw
that
out
there
as
an
observation,
Mr,
whis,
I,
don't
know.
A
If
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that,
but
it
it
seems
like
putting
something
the
basic
warnings
in
other
languages
number
one.
It
might
already
have
happen
with
some
of
these
medications
and
certainly
happens
on
over-the-counter
things,
but
if
you
had
any
thoughts
on
that
and
whether
that
kind
of
a
label
would
comply
with
the
regulation.
E
Yeah
I
do
since
I
work
for
you.
I
will
have
to
give
you
my
thoughts
because
you're
asking
for
them.
The
pharmacy
I
I
think
that
in
certain
circumstances,
this
could
be
challenging
in
most
it
would
not
be,
and
the
pharmacies
do
have
a
way
of
folding
the
labels
now
so
they
kind
of
become
a
flag
out
the
side
of
them.
I
think
the
intent
of
the
legislation
as
I
saw
it
was
that
the
information's
on
the
bottle
at
the
time
that
the
patient
needs
it.
E
I'm,
sorry,
for
one
more
thing:
just
go
ahead:
the
board
does
not
have
the
ability
to
charge
a
misdemeanor,
so
it
would
not
be
the
Board
of
Pharmacy
that
would
charge
that
that
would
be
law
enforcement
if
they
were
to
go
down
that
path.
So.
A
J
Mr,
chair
I,
have
a
question:
can
I
just
ask
legal
just
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
it
correctly
in
the
digest?
It
says
that
the
prescription
drug
would
be
in
English
and
upon
the
request
of
the
prescribing
practitioner,
a
patient
or
authorized
representative
in
any
of
the
other
languages.
So
does
that
mean
only
at
the
request
or
is
it
every
prescription
just
to
make
sure
I
understand
it
correctly.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Killian,
Chief,
Deputy
legislative
Council.
Yes,
so
this
would
only
apply
if
there
was
a
request,
either
from
the
patient,
an
authorized
representative
of
the
patient
or
a
prescribing
practitioner
for
the
label
to
be
printed
in
a
language
other
than
English
in
addition
to
in
English.
Unless
that
request
is
made,
the
label
would
only
be
printed
in
English
and
not
in
an
additional
language.
J
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
clarification,
so
with
that
understanding,
I,
don't
see
it
as
an
additional
labor-intensive
requirement
that
we've
been
putting
on
our
pharmacist
or
subjecting
them
to
any
legal
ramifications,
because
it's
not
attached
to
every
prescription.
So
for
that
reason,
Mr,
chair
I,
could
support
this
regulation.
A
I
You
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
again
again
the
concept
that
there's
no
exemption
level
allowed
I
mean
you
can
have
several
homes
where
you
have
a
tiny
bottle,
it's
in
English,
but
they
have
someone
who's
Chinese
living
there
and
they
have
somebody
who
is
Hispanic
living
there.
You
have
several
languages
on
the
bottle.
I
A
A
Okay,
I
think
we
have
a
six
six
split
as
far
as
I
can
tell
that
would
be
nose
from
Senator
settlemeyer,
Senator,
gokuccia,
Senator
Buck
knows
from
assemblyman
Roberts,
assemblywoman,
Dickman
and
assemblywoman
krasner.
That
leaves
us
in
a
six
to
six
vote,
which
means
that
motion
fails
all
right.
So
give
me
a
second
here
to
regroup.
After
that
long
agenda
item.
A
Legislative
audits.
Yes,
so
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number
five
and
it
now
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
six,
which
is
the
legislative
audit
specifically
item.
6A
is
a
request
for
approval
to
continue
the
audits
currently
in
progress
pursuant
to
section
four
of
NRS
218e-205
I
believe
we
have
Dan
Crossman
division
chief
of
the
audit
division
in
Carson
City
with
us
to
present
this
item.
If
that's
the
case,
Mr
Crossman,
please
go
ahead
and
proceed.
L
Thank
you
chair
good
afternoon,
chair
Yeager
and
members
of
the
commission
for
the
record.
Dan
Crossman
legislative
auditor
I
have
two
items
for
consideration
today
for
the
commission
under
6A
and
6B
and
I
will
address
6A
first
under
agenda
item
six
you'll
see
in
the
packet
you'll,
see
a
letter
to
the
commission,
dated
today
requesting
permission
for
the
audit
division
to
perform
certain
audits.
L
The
first
paragraph
in
that
letter
does
pertain
to
this
first
item
schedule,
one
which
is
on
the
next
page
in
the
packet
lists
the
audits
we
currently
have
in
progress
pursuant
to
NRS
218e
205
we're
requesting
approval
to
continue
these
audits.
While
some
of
these
will
be
presented
at
a
meeting
before
the
start
of
the
2023
legislative
session,
some
will
not
be
able
to
be
completed
and
presented
before
that
time.
As
a
result,
we
respectfully
request
the
commission's
approval
to
continue
these
audits
under
six
agenda
item
6A.
Thank
you.
A
I
Wasn't
pertaining
to
this
one
particularly,
but
it
was
just
kind
of
on
the
general
concept
of
audits.
I'm
not
going
to
be
here,
but
I've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
with
different
individuals
on
the
opioid
settlement,
saying
that
somebody
ought
to
do
an
audit
of
the
contingency
fees
versus
how
much
money
per
hour
is
being
paid
and
I
guess
you
know
I
guess
this
is
just
a
request
to
try
to
have
that
added
to
the
next
agenda
to
try
to
have
that
formal
discussion.
A
Thank
you,
Senator
Sotomayor
I
think
you
know
for
item
6A.
We
obviously
have
to
limit
it
to
what's
in
front
of
us
in
terms
of
the
the
discussion,
but
you
know
your
request
certainly
is
noted.
So
I
guess:
let's
try
to
stick
with
6A
I
think
the
request
is
for
an
extension
of
time.
For
those
audits,
we
haven't
taken
a
motion
yet,
but
any
questions
for
Mr
Crossman
on
that
request.
A
Please
all
right,
so
we
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
krasner
I
like
to
try
to
get
a
second
from
the
Senate,
so
we'll
have
a
second
from
Senator
canizarro.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
B
A
Okay,
that
motion
does
carry
thank
you,
commission
members,
and
that
takes
us
to
item
6B,
which
is
a
request
for
approval
of
the
basic
audit
program
pursuant
to
NRS
218g
dot
120
Mr
Crossman.
Would
you
like
to
go
ahead
and
present
item
6B
for
our
consideration.
L
Thank
you,
chair
again
for
the
record
Dan
Crossman,
the
legislative
auditor
under
agenda
item
6B
pursuant
to
218
g120.
We
are
requesting
approval
of
our
biennial
audit
plan,
which
is
included
on
schedule.
Two
on
the
next
page.
Senator
settlemeyer
will
be
excited
to
see
that
the
opioid
crisis
response
is
actually
included
on
that
list
of
potential
audits.
For
us
to
to
consider,
the
proposed
audits
were
selected
using
a
risk
assessment
process
consistent
with
our
historical
practice.
L
This
assessment
includes
various
factors
that
includes
the
length
of
time
since
the
last
audit,
size
and
complexity
of
the
agencies
and
the
nature
of
issues
that
might
be.
We
might
be
aware
of
and
other
legislative
interests
that
have
been
expressed
with
agencies
on
our
audit
plan
that
have
multiple
divisions
or
programs.
It
is
possible
that
we
might
perform
just
a
single
audit
of
the
single
program
or
it's
possible.
We
could
perform
multiple
audits
within
each
agency
for
audits
that
are
noted
as
multi-agency
audits,
which
is
at
the
top
of
that
list
on
schedule.
L
Two,
the
specific
agencies
will
be
determined
at
the
time
of
the
audit,
based
on
a
specific
risk
assessment.
That'll
be
specific
to
the
objectives
defined
in
that
audit.
The
timing
of
the
audits
is
contingent
upon
availability
of
our
staff
and
is
obviously
impacted
by
additional
resources
or
additional
audits.
L
I
should
say
that
are
placed
upon
the
audit
division
by
either
the
legislative
commission
or
by
the
legislature,
but
we'll
do
our
darndest
to
complete
as
many
of
these
as
we
can
over
the
next
biennium
and
with
that
chair,
I'd
respectfully
request
permission
of
the
commission
to
or
ask
the
permission,
the
commission
to
approve
agenda
item
6B
our
biennial
audit
plan.
Thank.
A
A
A
So
much
paper
in
front
of
me
today
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
seven,
which
is
a
presentation
related
to
the
oral
history
project
and
I
believe
we
have
Mr
Nick,
Anthony,
division,
Chief
and
director
of
the
research
division
who
will
be
presenting
this
item
today,
I'm,
not
sure,
if
he's
there
in
person
or
on
Zoom,
but
Mr
Anthony,
whichever
manner
you're
joining
us,
please
feel
free
to
go
ahead
and
present.
A
M
You
thank
you,
chair
Yeager
and
members
of
the
commission,
Nick
Anthony
research,
director
of
the
research
division
appearing
today
as
nonpartisan
staff.
The
legislative
Council
Bureau
before
you
today
on
agenda
item.
Seven
is
an
informational
item
relating
to
the
Nevada
legislature's
oral
history
program
within
your
meeting
packet.
You
do
have
a
set
of
materials
there,
including
a
memo
from
myself,
along
with
a
fact
sheet
and
a
snapshot
of
what
the
current
legislative
oral
history
program
looks
like
on
the
website.
Just
by
way
of
brief
background,
the
oral
history
program
started
in
2007
via
legislative
appropriation.
M
That
session
we
went
out.
The
research
division
then
went
out
on
an
RFP
and
retained
outside
experts
to
conduct
17
oral
histories
of
former
legislators,
as
well
as
one
of
a
former
staff
member
since
the
2008-2009
interim
in
2015,
the
legislature
codified
the
oral
history
program
and
enshrined
it
as
a
duty
of
the
research
division
in
statute.
That's
why
I'm
here
before
you
today?
It
is
enshrined
in
Statute
in
218
a.350.
M
Thus
this
report
before
you
today,
largely
since
it's
been
in
statute,
the
way
it's
written
it.
The
oral
history
program
is
contingent
upon
available
funding.
There
has
not
been
any
additional
funding
allocated
to
the
program,
so
there
have
not
been
any
additional
oral
histories
completed
since
the
2008-2009
interim.
M
Thus,
before
you
is
a
policy
option,
should
the
commission
wish
to
move
forward
with
the
oral
history
program?
There
are
two
different
options.
One
Avenue
would
be
the
introduction
of
a
bdr
during
the
2023
session,
which
would
appropriate
funding.
The
research
division
would
then
go
again
to
an
outside
RFP
and
solicit
bids
and
find
an
available
vendor
to
conduct
those
through
a
professional,
non-partisan
setting.
The
other
option
would
be
for
the
commission
to
direct
the
research
division
to
conduct
oral
history's
via
our
own
internal
staff.
M
There
would
be
considerations
there
in
terms
of
expertise,
staff
time
travel
and
the
like.
So
with
that
Mr
chairman,
that's
the
current
status
of
the
report
based
on
commission
Direction,
the
research
division
would
be
pleased
to
return
at
a
future
day
and
lay
out
a
plan,
policies
and
procedures
which
would
then
be
up
for
legislative
commission
approval
at
that
time.
Without
a
stand
available
for
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Anthony,
any
questions
in
commission.
We
don't
have
a
really
a
specific
request
in
front
of
us.
As
Mr
Anthony
noted,
we
have
a
few
different
options
today,
which
I
think
range
from
requesting
a
bdr
directing
research
to
sort
of
do
this
on
their
own,
or
we
can
ask
them
to
put
together
a
proposal,
as
Mr
Anthony
just
said,
to
bring
back
to
a
future
commission
for
future
consideration.
A
But
before
we
do
any
of
those
things,
I
wanted
to
give
commission
members
a
chance
if
they
had
questions
about
the
program
that
you'd
be
able
to
ask
Mr
Anthony
those
questions.
So
any
questions
about
the
oral
history
project
that
seems
like
it's
been
stalled
for
a
little
while,
but
was
clicking
along
there
for
a
bit
earlier
well
years
ago.
So.
B
A
No
well
I'm,
not
sure
if
this
takes
a
motion
or
not
so
I'll,
ask
legal
counsel,
but
I.
Think
probably
you
know
given
that
for
I.
Think
for
a
number
of
us.
This
might
be
the
first
time
we're
hearing
about
this
program.
That
I
think
it
would
make
a
lot
of
sense
for
research
to
to
put
together
a
a
proposal
and
some
more
information
about
what
what
a
potential
build
draft
request
could
look
like
for
the
legislature.
A
A
So
does
that
sound
like
something
the
commission
would
be
willing
to
approve
to
Simply
ask
research
to
do
a
little
bit
more
planning
and
bring
us
back
something
a
little
more
concrete
that
we'd
be
able
to
look
at
and
approve,
emotion,
sure,
okay,
we
have
assembly
woman
howdegi
has
agreed
to
make
that
motion
so
again,
we're
not
agreeing
to
do
anything
other
than
consider
this
with
a
little
more
information
at
a
future
date.
So
do
I
have
a
second
on
that
motion.
M
Who
is
Mr,
chairman
and
we'd
be
pleased
to
return
in
a
future
agenda
with
with
additional
information.
A
A
H
Yes,
thank
you
item.
8A
is
basically
a
little
bit
confusing
and
I
apologize
for
that,
but
so
we
were
asked
by
this
body,
the
the
Kushner
minority
Affairs,
to
take
the
action
of
rescinding
the
appointment
of
Jose
melendras
to
an
additional
term
of
the
commission
on
minority
Affairs.
The
the
chief
Deputy
attorney
general,
who,
who
advises
this
body,
advises
that
the
the
the
term
that
we
that
this
commission
appointed
him
to
violates
the
statute.
H
What
happened
is
that
Melissa
Mr
Melendez
actually
served
like
a
few
months
of
the
person
before
him's
term,
because
that
person
had
left
early.
So
in
addition
to
the
two
years
that
he
just
served
of
of
his
what
they
call
his
second
term,
he
had
served
a
few
months
and
the
other
one
and
according
to
the
ages,
reading
of
the
of
NRS
232
0.852,
that's
not
legal.
H
So
what
they
have
asked
us
to
ask
you
to
do
is
to
rescind
your
action,
whereby
you
appointed
him
to
an
additional
term,
with
the
understanding
that
Mr
blenders
would
continue
to
serve
because
he
is
allowed
under
the
statute
and
and
again
the
the
chief
Deputy
Doug
agreed
with
this
that
he
he
had,
he
could
serve
until
a
successor
was
appointed
and
the
plan
would
be
not
to
appoint
a
successor
until
the
two
years
are
up
for
this
term.
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
questions
so
again.
The
motion
would
be
to
rescind
the
action
of
this
commission,
where
we
appointed
Mr
melendere
as
to
serve
a
new
term
on
the
commission,
acknowledge
that
he
has
agreed
to
continue
to
serve
until
a
new
member
is
appointed
to
replace
him
because
he
basically
stepped
in
to
fill
a
couple
of
months
of
someone
else's
term
and
I.
Don't
think
he
should
necessarily
be
penalized
for
that.
So
this
will
allow
him
to
serve
until
we
find
a
replacement
for
him.
A
A
If
there
is
anyone
opposed,
would
you
please
say,
nay
and
raise
your
hand?
Okay.
That
motion
carries
unanimously.
Thank
you
for
that,
commission,
members
and
Miss
Erdos,
and
now
we
move
to
item
8B,
which
is
appointment
of
an
additional
member
to
the
commission
on
minority
Affairs
pursuant
to
NRS
232.852
Ms
Erdos.
Please.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
the
commission
on
minority
Affairs
has
requested
that
this
body
Point
Jonathan
lau
and
that's
based
on
the
information
in
your
packet,
which
is
also
up
on
the
internet,
for
this
meeting,
but
explains
it
has
his
resume
and
everything
up
there,
and
it
also
explains
the
manner
in
which
these
folks
are
chosen
to
represent
various
different
minorities.
So
again,
the
the
the
action
seat
that
we're
seeking
today
would
be
a
motion
to
appoint
Jonathan
Lau
to
as
a
member
of
the
commission
on
minority
affairs.
A
A
Go
ahead.
Assemblywoman
krasner
will
give
you
the
motion.
I'll
give
the
second
to
Senator
Dennis
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Seeing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
and
raising
your
hand
I.
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
would
you
please
say,
nay
and
raise
your
hand?
Okay,
that
motion
carries
unanimously.
That
takes
us
through
Ida
agenda
item
eight
and
two
agenda
item
number:
nine,
which
is
approval
approval
of
early
session
hires
for
the
2023
legislative
session.
This
is
a
pretty
standard
agenda
item
for
us
at
this
time
of
the
interim.
A
There
is
a
replacement
page
for
this
item
provided
to
members
and
to
the
public
and
I
believe
Miss
Erdos
is
here
she's.
Obviously,
here
with
me,
but
she'll
be
able
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have
about
this
request
from
our
staff.
Let
me
find
agenda
item
here.
We
go
okay,
so
you
should
have
that
in
your
packet.
Any
questions
for
Miss
Erdos
about
the
early
session
hires
for
the
upcoming
legislative
session.
A
If
there
is
anyone
opposed,
would
you
please
say,
nay
and
raise
your
hand?
Okay
motion
carries
unanimously.
We
are.
We
are
whipping
right
through
this
thing,
so
just
a
couple
more
items
to
go.
That'll
take
us
next
to
agenda
item
number
10,
which
is
an
informational
item
only
from
our
LCB
director
Miss
Erdos.
It's
a
status
report
of
our
legislative
Capital
Improvement
projects,
which
those
of
you
have
been
to
Carson
City.
Lately,
you've
seen
evidence
of
the
work
that's
being
done.
A
H
Well,
there
is
quite
a
bit
going
on
actually
and
I
would
just
like
to
note
at
the
beginning
of
this
presentation
that,
because
of
the
supply
chain
issues
as
well
as
labor
issues,
these
things
have
gone
a
little
slower
than
we
thought,
but
but
actually
everything
is
is
seeming
to
work.
Well,
the
roof
replacement.
H
If
you,
if
you
recall
you
used
to
look
at,
you,
would
see
gravel
on
the
roofs
of
the
other,
like
over
the
over
the
chambers
and
all
of
the
roofs
had
gravel
roof
gravel
on
the
top
with
a
layer
of
tar
and
that
way
of
of
providing
a
roof,
just
plain
leaks
in
a
cement
building.
So
we
have
like
bladders
big
huge,
which
is
a
big
tarp
hung
on
the
first
floor
rooms,
A
lot
of
them,
because
there's
so
many
leaks,
and
so
instead,
so
all
of
the
gravel
was
removed.
H
There
were
actually
big
cranes
out
there,
all
the
gravel
was
removed
and
and
instead
there's
a
heavy
layer
of
really
amazing
material.
That
will
keep
us
dry
and
will
not
allow
it's
all
sealed.
So
it's
supposed
to
be
for
30
or
40
years.
You
will
not
have
water
coming
down
the
walls
on
the
inside
of
the
building.
H
H
What
we're
calling
the
Upper
pedestrian
Plaza
is
the
on
the
west
side
of
the
building,
where
the
main
interest
is
across
there
and
there's
a
picture
there,
that
you'll
see
that
has
red
sort
of
lines
in
it
and
what
that
is
is
the
hydronic
heat
that
will
keep
us
from
having
to
throw
salt
down
and
use
shovels
and
have
equipment
to
get
the
snow
and
ice
off
when
you
are
trying
to
go
into
the
building.
H
So
this
is
estimated
to
pay
for
the
hydronics
to
pay
for
itself,
based
on
all
the
deterioration,
which
is
why
we're
placing
in
the
first
place
the
the
of
the
concrete
within
the
first
year
or
two.
So
we
hope
that
is
the
case,
and
then
it
keeps
our
sidewalks
clear
and
this.
What
you
can't
see
in
this
picture
is
that
it
goes
all
the
way
out
to
the
street
so
that
access
from
the
front
will
be
complete
and
then
access
from
the
back
will
be
complete.
H
The
rest
of
the
sidewalks,
which
are
we
are
mostly
replacing
in
the
whole
Mall.
It
goes
all
the
way
over
to
that
wrought
iron
fence,
that's
by
the
capital,
the
rest
of
that
won't
be.
We
just
are
doing
it
for
access
to
the
building
and,
if
there's
bad
weather
between
now
and
then
we'll
have
to
complete
it
after
the
lunch
life
session.
But
but
the
access
to
the
building
will
be
complete
by
the
time
session
starts.
H
H
H
You
know
that
you're
really
hot
or
really
cold,
but
but
the
main
thing
is
that
this
will
be
a
much
more
cost
effective
to
work
on,
and
it
also
tells
us
what
the
boiler
is
doing,
which
is
a
good
thing
to
know
on
the
next
page,
the
exterior
Restorations
and
the
renovation
project,
which
is
to
basically
get
rid
of
the
stained
material
on
the
outside
of
the
building,
which
is
a
result
of
all
the
water.
H
That's
gone
down
because
it's
the
outside
layer
is
separated
from
the
layer
right
from
the
building
itself
and
so
water
drains
down
there.
Basically,
we've
completed
the
conceptual
designs
and
we're
trying
to
evaluate
the
best
way
to
go
forward
with
this
project.
H
The
East
security
Plaza
is
that's
between
the
building
and
the
legislative
building
and
the
parking
garage
there
and
that
will
replace
going
through
security
in
a
garage,
because
it's
highly
recommended
that
it
be
that
that
where
you
go
through,
security
is
directly
attached
to
your
building.
So
this
will
accomplish
that.
H
If
it's
not
completed
before
session,
this
will
be
an
ongoing,
we'll
we'll
have
to
finish
it.
So,
instead
of
using
the
that
entrance
coming
out
of
the
garage
going
into
this
covered
area
and
into
the
building
through
security,
the
access
will
be
on
the
north
side
of
the
building
sort
of
lines.
Up
with
the
where
you
go
to
the
Capitol
across
the
mall
there.
So
you'll
go
come
out.
You'll
come
straight
out
of
the
parking
garage
through
that
exit.
H
That
looks
right
at
the
at
the
Supreme
Court
building
and
walk
straight
up
to
that
building.
That's
in
the
center
of
the
north
side
of
the
legislative
building,
and
there
will
be
a
Nifty
new,
concrete
ramp,
replacing
those
stairs
right
there,
which
are
always
icy
because
they're
on
the
north
side
of
the
building,
but
the
ramp
will
be
completely
Ada.
H
H
The
parking
garage
is
I.
Think
many
of
you
knew
that
we
were
worried
about
having
about
being
able
to
save
it,
and
so
we
are
very
pleased
to
say
that
it's
basically
done
the
only
thing.
That's
not
done
right
now
is
the
striping
and
recoating
on
the
very
top
of
the
garage.
So
it's
open
today,
it
opened
yesterday,
actually
the
the
basement
and
the
the
second
layer
level.
So
third
level
will
be
in
about
a
week.
H
The
Community
Committee
room,
countertops
have
been
all
replaced,
and
so
for
those
of
you
who
ever
got
your
clothing
caught
as
I
did
as
you
move
up
toward
the
microphone,
because
there
was
a
piece
of
whatever
that's
called
formica
or
whatever.
That
would
grab
you.
These
are
solid
and
they
have
no
seams,
so
they're,
smooth
and
and
we
shouldn't
wreck
anyone
else's
suits
or
sweaters,
so
hopefully
they'll
last
a
long
time
as
well.
H
H
The
Senate
majority
leadership
was
done
last
interim
this
time
the
assembly
leadership
area
was
done.
It's
that
leadership
Suite
as
you
walk
in
there,
and
while
we
were
doing
that,
there
were
a
lot
of
changes
or
or
basically
things
that
we
were
able
to
do
to
improve
it.
So,
besides
the
the
mitigation
and
removal
of
the
asbestos
when
we
replaced
this,
so
there
were
some
leaks
in
the
roof
there
and
we
couldn't
access
them
very
well
until
we
got
the
asbestos
taken
out.
H
So
basically,
we
had
to
also
replace
all
the
ceiling
tiles,
so
they
got
replaced
with
Nifty
Neato
new
ones
that
are
sound,
reducing
and
they
actually
look
a
little
bit
better
too.
There
was
again
because
leak
there
was
repainting
and
replacement
of
the
grid
that
holds
those
ceiling
tiles.
The
lighting
was
replaced
as
well,
so
it's
got
LED
lighting
with
different
spectrums
and
and
different
controls.
H
You
can
dim
them,
and
things
like
that,
and
and
actually
as
it
turns
out
the
the
new
lights
are,
are
the
LED
lights
are
less
expensive
than
all
the
the
other
lights
were,
so
it's
it's
I,
think
very
nice
and
we'll
probably
start
going
that
direction
in
the
future,
as
well
as
we
remodel.
H
There's
there's
there's
also
a
reconfiguration
of
the
HVAC,
because
it
was
one
of
those
things
where
you
turned
the
temperature
up
in
it
and
it
and
it
increased
or
decreased
in
a
different
room
than
you
were,
and
so
that's
all
been
fixed,
and
then
we
also
put
some
of
the
of
the
connections
for
the
Electrical
on
EPS
power
so
that
it
won't
be
totally
dark
in
there
when
we
lose
power.
H
The
other
thing
that
we
had
planned
to
do
this
last
interim
was
this:
was
abatement
of
the
Senate
minority
on
the
second
floor
there
at
minority
area
and
that
had
to
get
pushed
back
again
data
materials
and
labor
to
next
time.
So
we'll
finish
that,
then.
H
The
next
thing
is
the
exterior
Granite
replacement
project.
You
might
remember
that
again,
because
water
leaked
behind
between
it
and
it's
mounting.
We
had
cracked,
we
had
cracked
granite
and
I'm
happy
to
say
only
one
piece
fell
off
and
it
didn't
hit
anybody.
H
So
we
were
pretty
lucky,
but
we
are
replacing
that
in
addition
to
that,
Granite
the
where
it
says
Nevada,
state
senate
that
and-
and
it
says,
Nevada
say-
assembly
on
the
other
side-
those
were
removed
and
cleaned,
and
then
we
had
the
opportunity,
since
we
were
doing
the
concrete
to
also
light
those
So.
H
Eventually,
when
this
is
all
done
and
you
drive
by
the
front
of
the
legislative
building,
the
the
name
will
be
lit
up
with
energy
efficient
lighting,
so
the
door
entry
security
system
upgrade
which
we
had
really
hoped
to
get
done
this
time
because
of
the
key
issues
and
anyway
the
contract
was
executed
and
about
80
percent
of
the
product
is
here,
but
the
other
20
is
not
here
and
we
don't
think
it'll
be
come
in
time
to
do
it
for
the
for
this
session,
so
it'll
be
done
immediately
following
session.
H
So
this
time,
you'll
still
use
the
same
key
cards
and
and
keys
to
get
in.
The
next
item
is
on
page
five
of
the
handout.
That's
the
legislative
research
Library
in
the
legislate,
building
and-
and
you
have
you-
can
ask
questions
of
Nick
on
this
too,
because
he
worked
on
the
design
of
this.
H
What
you're,
looking
at
in
this
picture,
is
that
is
a
computer
generated
model
of
what
you'll
have
there,
but
where,
where
the
sort
of
beige
octagon
there
is,
it
says
it's
the
entry,
and
that
is
basically
well
that's
the
elevator.
But
then
the
next
thing
that's
glassed
up
there.
H
That
does
say
the
library
enter
in
entry
is
basically
right
across
the
hall
from
the
gift
shop
and
so
the
glass
matches
up
and
then
and
the
all
the
angles
match
up
to
so
the
symmetrical
with
the
the
area
across
the
hall
from
that.
But
this
will
allow
for
I
think
about
half
or
so
of
the
of
the
materials
that
you
might
want
to
look
at
in
the
library
list
of
History's
historical
books
and
things
like
that.
H
So
that
legislators
will
be
have
a
much
more
quicker
access,
because
it'll
be
downstairs
as
well
as
as
part
of
the
library
staff
will
be
here
to
be
able
to
answer
questions
as
well
and
we
believe
that'll
be
done
the
same
time.
We
married
that
to
the
east
security
project
because
there
was
a
lot
of
savings
to
include
them
both
together,
so
that'll
be
done
at
the
same
time
as
that
as
the
pop-out
for
the
security
on
the
east
side
of
the
building.
H
But
then
we
have
three
things
to
report
that
we're
really
done
with,
which
is
feels
very
nice.
The
UPS
lighting
project-
I,
don't
know
if
you
remember
this,
but
the
emergency
exit
lights
weren't
on
UPS.
So
when
you
had
an
emergency
and
the
power
was
out,
the
X
exit
arrows
didn't
light
up,
so
we
that's
been
fixed.
H
Then
we
replace
the
two
cooler
cooling
tires
that
cooling
towers
on
the
roof
that
were
totally
disintegrated,
and
then
we
did
get
a
new
generator,
because
ours
is
like
50
years
old,
but
the
the
chips
and
everything
didn't
come.
So
that
will
be
a
project
that
we
finish
right
after
the
2023
session.
H
So
that's
what
I
have
for
you
today.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Miss
Erdos,
it's
exciting
to
see
some
of
these
projects
coming
together
and
I'm
glad
we
could
save
the
garage
that
was.
It
was
a
little
dicey
there
for
a
moment.
This
is
an
informational
item
only
so
we
don't
have
to
approve
anything,
but
this
is
a
chance
for
commission
members
to
ask
any
questions
you
have
about
the
information
presented.
Do
we
have
any
questions
down
here
in
Las
Vegas
go
ahead,
Senator
Dennis!
Thank
you.
So.
I
H
Yes,
that
is
where
the
area
where
the
the
kitchen
and
the
and
that
facility
was
where
you
could
get
coffee
and
stuff.
Okay,.
A
L
A
E
Just
a
just
a
comment:
you
know
I'd
just
like
to
thank
director
Erdos,
you
know,
I,
think
a
lot
of
people
don't
realize
the
amount
of
work
that
you
have
to
put
in
to
get
all
this
stuff
done.
I
mean
this
just
isn't
just
a
minor
one
minor
project
man,
it
sounds
like
the
whole
building
in
the
parking
garage
was
about
to
collapse
and
she
saved
it.
E
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
Assembly
been
very
well
stated.
I
know
she's
been
working
hard
on
this
for
a
long
time.
So
it's
going
to
be
nice
to
see
some
of
these
improvements.
Additional
questions.
A
Okay,
don't
see
additional
questions
so
that
closes
agenda
item
10.
Just
a
couple
more
to
go.
Next
is
agenda
item
11,
which
is
consideration
of
a
legislative
commission
resolution
celebrating
the
111th
anniversary,
the
national
day
of
Taiwan
and
recognizing
the
37th
anniversary
of
the
sister
State
relationship
between
the
state
of
Nevada
and
Taiwan,
and
we
have
Miss
Erdos
here
again
with
us
to
present
this
item.
H
I
think
the
the
text
is
in
your
packet
and
it's
on
the
website
for
the
public.
This
is
a
traditional
resolution
that
this
body
will
do
usually
each
year,
so
it
can
be
presented
at
the
celebration
of
the
11th
of
this
time.
It'll
be
the
111th
anniversary
of
their
national
day
and
it
will
be
presented
this
year
in
Foster
City
at
the
at
their
celebration.
H
A
It's
correct,
I
think
it's
October
6th
right
this
year
in
Foster,
City
they'll
be
doing
the
celebration,
so
we
do
need
to
take
a
motion
on
this
one,
but
any
questions
before
we
take
a
motion.
You
can
find
that
resolution
to
find
the
I
guess.
It's
a
legislative
commission,
yeah
resolution,
it's
in
the
very
back
of
the
packet,
if
you're,
following
along
on
the
very
last
tab.
So,
okay
I,
don't
see
questions.
How
about
a
motion
to
approve
Senator,
Dennis,
okay,
assembly
move
and
krasner
will
give
you
the
second
Senator
Dennis
made
the
motion
here.
A
A
If
there
is
anybody
opposed,
please
say,
nay
and
raise
your
hand
as
well.
Okay,
I,
don't
hear
any
Nays.
That
means
it
does
prove
the
motion
does
carry
unanimously,
and
that
takes
us
to
our
final
item
on
the
agenda
today,
which
is
item
12.
Our
second
round
of
public
comment,
as
stated
before,
you
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
public
comment.
We'll
start
down
here.
A
In
Las,
Vegas
and
also
you've
been
down
here,
you
can't
really
tell
someone's
behind
that
pole,
but
I
don't
see
anybody
I
think
we
have
I,
think
we've
run
out
of
audience
here
in
Las
Vegas
and
it
looks
probably
the
same
in
Carson
City.
But
if
I'm
wrong
about
that,
please
come
forward
to
give
public
comment.
No
in-person
public
comment:
can
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment.
G
Hello,
my
name
is
from
North
Las
Vegas
I
am
a
mother
of
a
child
born
with
China
muscular
atrophy
and
I'm
very
disappointed
in
the
decision
of
not
implementing
SMA
in
terms
of
newborn
training
panel.
My
son
Aiden
was
born
in
January
of
2021
with
SMA
a
very
genetic
disease
that
causes
debilitating
muscle
loss
and
is
usually
fatal
by
children
by
the
age
of
two,
if
not
diagnosed,
in
a
timely
matter,
because
Nevada
is
one
of
the
only
two
states
that
does
not
speak
for
SMA,
we
did
not
receive
our
sense.
G
Sma
diagnosis
for
another
23
days
after
birth,
and
these
23
days
my
son
stops
blowing
on
his
own,
was
no
longer
to
breathe
without
assistance
and
lost
all
moving
in
his
body.
He
was
weak
and
he
was
tired.
He
was
only
two
weeks
old
when
we
didn't
know
if
he
was
going
to
make
it
to
see
the
next
day.
There
are
three
treatments
for
SMA,
although
they
do
not
reverse
all
damage
caused
before
taking
the
treatment.
G
It
is
still
crucial
that
SMA
is
added
to
the
newborn
screening
panel
to
start
treating
these
babies
as
soon
as
possible.
Aiden
is
doing
better
since
getting
a
treatment
at
one
month
old.
He
can
now
sit
independently,
has
decent
upper
body
strength
and
no
longer
requires
permanent
ventilation
or
G2
for
feeding.
He
loves
Mickey,
Mouse
and
playing
with
his
toy
cars,
and
he
is
striving
to
be
the
best
that
he
can
be.
However,
he
lost
so
much
strength
before
getting
his
diagnosis.
G
This
could
have
been
prevented,
hotter
speed
screen
for
SMA,
so
he
everything
could
have
moved
faster.
There
have
been
already
fatal
cases
of
children
with
SMA
passing
away
in
Nevada
due
to
late
estimate,
diagnosis,
and
there
are
much
more
than
just
three
people
born
with
SMA
in
the
state
of
Nevada.
While
approval
of
newborn
screening
regulation
will
not
directly
benefit
Aiden
today,
it
will
help
other
Nevada
families
with
children
born
with
SMA.
More
than
60
000
Nevada
residents
are
SMA
carriers
according
to
cure
SMA
organization.
G
If
both
crimes
or
SMA
carriers,
every
child
they
have
together,
have
has
a
25
chance
of
being
diagnosed
with
SMA.
It
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
I
respectfully
ask
that
you
approve
the
newborn,
creating
regulation
immediately.
The
screen
for
spinal
muscular
atrophy
to
help
save
future
babies.
Newborn
screening
will
give
future
Nevada
residents
born
with
estimator
the
shadow
life
and
success.
Thank
you.
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
BPS
and
before
we
adjourn
I,
did
want
to
hand
it
over
to
Senator
Dennis.
To
make
a
remark.
E
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
because
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
have
another
meeting
before
November
I
just
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity.
This
say
that
it's
been
an
honor
and
a
privilege
to
have
served
on
this
commission,
probably
at
least
10
years,
even
previously
chaired
this
commission
and
so
I
I
think
it's.
E
We
do
a
lot
of
great
work
that
people
don't
understand
sometimes
in
this
commission,
so
I
just
wanted
to
thank
everybody,
especially
staff
that
just
makes
it
you
know,
run
smoothly
and
gives
us
all
the
things
that
we
need
to
do.
So.
Thank
you
very
much
for
allowing
me
to
to
even
be
part
of
this.
So
thank
you.
A
Well,
you're
most
welcome
Senator
and
certainly
appreciate
your
years
of
service,
not
just
on
this
commission
but
in
the
legislature
as
a
whole.
So
if
this
is
indeed
the
last
time
we're
together
as
this
commission,
we
obviously
wish
you
the
best
and
I
hope
that
you
do
not
make
yourself
a
stranger
in
the
legislative
building,
because
if
nothing
else,
you
have
some
Capital
Improvement
projects
that
you
need
to
come
check
out
and
see
how
they
look
so
Mr.
A
I
Yeah
go
ahead.
Senator
Dennis's
comments,
I'm
sad
to
see
the
last
time.
I'll
see
all
of
you.
It's
sad
to
see.
I
won't
be
working
with
Mo
I.
Think
me
and
you've
served
the
entire
legislative,
calm
history
together
on
this
committee,
I've
been
on
14
years.
So
in
that
respect,
good
to
see
you
all
and
have
a
good
one.
B
B
But
it
has
been
a
true
pleasure
to
serve
with
both
of
you
over
the
last
few
years
and
appreciate
that
you
have
such
a
dedication
to
the
people
of
Nevada
and
to
making
sure
that
this
state
is
a
good
one
to
live
in
and
I
just
will
miss
you
both
very
much
so
I'm,
sad
that
it's
the
last
meeting
and
we'll
definitely
miss
you.
A
Thank
you,
and
you
know,
before
I
adjourn
two
I
do
want
to
recognize
that
my
colleague,
assemblyman
Roberts,
will
not
be
coming
back
to
the
legislature,
but
I
want
to
remind
him
that
he
does
still
have
years
of
legislative
service
available.
So
perhaps
this
is
not
the
end
of
the
road
for
him,
but
certainly
wish
you
the
best
as
well,
and
thank
you
for
your
service,
not
just
during
the
session.
But
you
know
on
this
interim
committee.
I
would
say
that
sometimes
people
decide
not
to
run
and
they
they
kind
of
check
out.
A
E
A
Great
fantastic:
well,
thank
you
to
everyone
for
getting
us
through
this
meeting
today
it
was
the
I
think
the
biggest
agenda
we've
had
since
we've
been
doing
ledge
commission
and
we
got
on
quicker
than
some
other
meetings.
A
So
that's
a
testament
to
your
hard
work
and,
of
course,
so
thank
you
to
the
staff
who
does
the
real
work
behind
the
scenes
to
make
sure
that
we
are
here
and
ready
to
do
this
so
I'm,
not
sure
if
we'll
see
you
again
before
the
election,
we'll
see
how
things
shape
up,
but
you
know,
if
not,
we
will
see
you
all
on
the
other
side
and
I
hope.
Everyone
has
a
really
great
rest
of
the
day
and
a
really
great
rest
of
the
week,
and
with
that,
this
meeting
is
adjourned.