►
From YouTube: 12/28/2022 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the eighth meeting of the 2021-2022 Interim. Please see the agenda for details.
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Good
afternoon,
everyone
welcome
to
the
eighth
meeting
the
eighth
meeting
of
the
legislative
commission
for
this
interim
I
again
want
to
welcome
those
who
are
joining
us
here
in
person
in
Las
Vegas,
those
who
may
be
joining
us
in
person
in
Carson,
City
and
anyone
who
might
be
watching
on
the
internet.
This
afternoon
we
have
seven
members
attending
here
at
the
Grant
Sawyer
building
in
Las
Vegas.
A
D
A
I
am
present,
I
think
that
means
we
have
everybody
here.
That
means
we
do
have
a
quorum.
I
will
admit
that
the
folks
up
in
Carson
City
are
really
really
small
on
our
screen
down
here.
So
Senator
gokichi
I
may
ask
you
to
to
help
me
with
managing
Folks
up
there
if
they
have
questions
or
helping
to
tally
the
votes
when
we
get
to
that
point,
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters
for
folks,
if
you'd
like
to
testify
to
today,
make
sure
to
State
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
before
testifying.
A
If
anyone
would
like
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
commission's
agendas
minutes
or
reports,
you
may
be
added
to
our
mailing
list
by
following
the
links
on
the
legislature's
website
or
by
providing
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
before
during
or
after
the
meeting.
The
information
regarding
where
to
send
those
comments
is
also
on
the
website
and
listed
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
A
That's
going
to
take
us
to
agenda
item
number
two
public
comment:
we'll
be
accepting
public
comment
at
this
time
from
persons
present
here
in
the
Grant
Sawyer
building
in
Las
Vegas,
then
from
those
up
in
Carson
City
and
then.
Finally,
anyone
wishing
to
provide
comments
by
phone,
if
you
prefer
to
wait
to
speak
until
later
in
the
meeting
there
will
be
a
second
period
for
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
meeting.
Please
remember
that
comments
will
be
limited
to
not
more
than
two
minutes
per
person.
A
I
will
be
timing,
so
I'll,
let
you
know
if
you
get
close
to
those
two
minutes,
and
so
we'll
start
here
in
Las,
Vegas
there's
anyone
who'd
like
to
provide
public
comment
would
ask
you
to
just
come
forward.
I
think
we
have
three
chairs
here
so
feel
free
to
go
ahead
and
and
fill
those
chairs,
and
then
please
just
remember
to
hit
that
microphone
button,
identify
yourself
for
the
record
and
provide
public
comments.
So
please
go
ahead.
E
Afternoon
for
the
record,
I'm
Kimberly,
Max
and
Rushton
r-u-s-h-t-o-n,
with
the
law
firm,
Cooper
Levinson
appearing
on
behalf
of
rad
Source
Technologies
specific
to
item
5c
in
CCR
12.065.
It's
the
Cannabis
board
regulation
prior
to
today's
meeting,
I
did
submit
written
comments
and
an
overview
of
Rad's
position
relative
to
this
regulation.
I
will
not
relabor
that,
but
it
simply
ask
the
commission
to
please
consider
pulling
the
regulation
and
referring
it
back
to
the
board.
E
Again
there
is
a
regulatory
history
that
explains
the
significant
Advocates
of
that,
but
in
brief,
it's
because
that's
where
individuals
would
go
to
look
for
indiv
for
information
about
their
cannabis
product,
pesticides
that
were
used
in
other
methods
of
treatment,
in
addition
to
referring
it
back
to
the
board
and
requesting
that
it
be
added
that
the
language
be
added
to
the
soil.
Amendment
versus
the
label
I
would
specifically
recommend
that
the
language
be
amended
to
say
for
your
health
and
safety.
F
This
Valley
water
district
in
support
of
administrative
regulation
r-109-22
the
Las
Vegas
Valley
Water
District
supports
n-depth's
effort
to
broaden
the
definition
of
disadvantaged
community
to
include
other
factors
such
as
disproportionate
economic
experiences,
environmental
and
health
issues
and
high
rates
of
unemployment.
This
revised
definition
will
allow
more
communities
in
need
to
qualify
for
principal
forgiveness
loans
to
make
water
systems
safe,
Reliant
and
reliable.
F
In
addition,
the
Las
Vegas
Valley
Water
District
supports
n-depth's
implementation
of
loan
origination
fees
for
loan
recipients
not
deemed
as
disadvantaged
as
Nevada
experiences,
an
influx
of
federal
aid
for
water
infrastructure
projects.
It
is
reasonable
for
the
recipients
to
financially
support
the
office
tasked
with
distribution
and
administration
of
this
this
assistance.
In
summary,
we
support
these
changes
to
chapter
445a
of
Nevada's
administrative
code
and
the
other
revisions
outlined
in
the
regulation.
Thank
you.
G
Hello,
my
name
is
Nick
pulis,
p-u-l-I-z,
I'm,
part
owner
and
operator
of
THC
Nevada
cultivation.
My
comments
are
related
to
item
5c
as
well.
I
firmly
oppose
the
new
label
requirements
proposed
here.
With
this
updated
label.
Language
I
have
a
question:
what
is
the
difference
between
pre-harvest
microbial
decontamination
and
post-harvest?
Why
would
a
bold
label
be
required
for
just
post
Harvest
treatment?
How
can
we
justify
the
post-harvest
treatment
as
any
different
and
or
more
important
for
the
consumer
that
is
needed
to
go
in
bold
letters
directly
on
every
product
label?
G
It
was
already
decided.
The
treatment
methods
were
to
be
disclosed
on
the
soil
amendment
by
yourselves,
the
legislator.
So
why
should
post-harvest
treatment
be
any
different?
This
is
very
misleading
to
the
consumer
and
will
result
in
unintended
consequences
of
reduced
sales
of
clean
lab
passing
taxable
cannabis.
There
was
testimony
from
a
retail
operator
that
the
additional
burden
and
risk
of
consumer
confusion
and
possible
loss
of
sales
from
the
new
label
may
cause
them
not
to
purchase
product
that
is
treated
post-harvest
since
I
believe
there's
no
difference
between
pre
or
post-harvest
treatment.
G
This
proposed
language
fits
perfectly
to
go
on
the
soil
amendment
with
the
other
decontamination
methods,
organicides,
fungicides,
pesticides.
This
is
the
whole
purpose
of
the
soil
disclosure
and
is
the
most
reasonable
place
to
put
the
information.
The
soil
disclosure
is
sent
out
to
the
dispensaries
with
every
single
order
and
is
available
at
the
dispensaries.
G
For
anyone
to
view
the
CCB
can
put
on
their
website
an
email
blast
or
tweet
to
inform
the
public
that
if
they
are
interested
in
information
on
the
Cannabis,
they're,
Pro
they're
purchasing
to
Simply
ask
the
dispensary
for
the
soil,
disclosure
or
lab
results.
If
this
label
is
approved,
it
will
significantly
and
negatively
impact
a
large
percentage
of
the
flower
that
is
sold
on
the
dispensary
shelves.
This
is
a
result
of
having
the
most
strict
lab
testing
standards
in
the
country.
Most
cultivators
need
to
do
some
form
of
treatment
to
pass
the
lab
tests.
G
Putting
this
information
on
every
label
will
scare
and
confuse
the
consumers,
as
they
are
trained
to
think
that
bold
labels
are
for
the
most
important
information
about
the
products
and
for
warnings
about
dangers
with
the
products
all
treatment
methods
we
use
must
be
approved
by
the
CCB
and
by
approving
them
the
CCB
is
saying
that
they
are
safe
to
use.
I
am
requesting.
This
regulation
be
sent
back
to
the
CCB
for
further
review
and
to
change
it
so
that
the
verbiage
is
placed
where
it
belongs,
which
is
on
the
soil
disclosure.
C
S-L-I-N-G-E-R-L-A-N-D
I
am
with
decops
and
v
a
Nevada
cultivator
based
here
in
the
county.
Many
of
my
comments
were
already
made
by
my
colleague
in
the
industry
who
just
spoke
just
to
Echo.
A
few
of
those
I
mean
what
we
were
talking
about
with
these
labeling
requirements
is
a
widely
used,
safe
and
previously
approved
treatment.
I
believe
the
proposed
labeling
requirements
will
create
confusion
and
misunderstanding
and
our
alarmist
and
we'll
do
more
harm
than
benefit,
as
previously
proposed.
C
In
addition,
they're
onerous
and
burdensome
on
the
industry
we're
talking
about
requirements
for
all
facets
of
the
industry,
producers,
cultivators
dispensaries
and,
as
a
result,
what
is
proven
safe
treatment.
Many
dispensaries
will
choose
not
to
likely
do
that,
given
the
additional
burden
that
that's
going
to
put
on
that
and
that's
an
outcome,
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
want.
C
Given
the
history
and
the
benefit
of
this
treatment
to
Echo,
my
colleagues
I
believe
if
some
kind
of
labeling
disclosure
is
required,
the
soil
amendment
is
the
appropriate
place,
is
available
for
consumers
available
on
requests
at
the
dispensary
and
is
where
similar
things
are
found
out
today
by
consumers
who
are
buying
cannabis,
whether
you've
used
pesticides
or
any
other
treatment.
If
a
consumer
is
interested
in
that
information,
they
exists
on
the
soil
amendment
today,
so
this
would
be
the
appropriate
place
to
have
a
similar
kind
of
disclosure
as
well.
C
So
I
asked
that
legislative
committee
to
please
reconsider
the
implementation
of
this
legislation,
maybe
burdensome
and
onerous
at
the
time
the
Cannabis
industry
is
going
through
many
growing
pains
and
struggling
today,
and
so,
let's
not
make
it
tougher
for
this
industry
to
be
able
to
succeed.
I
appreciate
your
time.
H
Hello
good
afternoon,
my
name
is
salpi
boyajian
I'm
going
to
spell
it
I
think.
That's
probably
the
right
thing
to
do
here.
B-O-Y-A-J-I-A-N
I'm,
also
here
speaking
on
item
5c,
without
repeating
everything
that
everybody
just
spoke
on.
I
think
what
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
to
do
is
how
do
I
make
sure
that
our
message
is
being
explained
correctly
and
coming
across
correctly,
knowing
that
this
audience
is
maybe
not
necessarily
the
all
the
experts
in
cannabis,
but
really
just
understanding.
H
Obviously
times,
we've
been
in
front
of
the
CCB
as
well
is
just
understanding
that
the
way
in
which
this
is
being
proposed
to
go
on
the
label
is
what
our
concern
is
number
one,
because
it's
allowing
for
potentially
the
misunderstanding
of
how
that
information
is
being
presented
as
if
it
is
something
negative
or
something
is
wrong
and
I
I
think
that's
one
of
the
key
factors
of
these
processes.
For
example,
what
is
a
radiation?
H
I
am
not
sure
if
everyone
in
the
the
group
here
knows
what
what
this
does
is
literally
for
the
health
and
safety
of
the
consumer
at
the
end
of
the
day,
to
ensure
that
the
flower
has
no
microbial
issues
in
it
and
it's
it's
basically
allowing
for
people
to
consume
product
that
is
fully
safe
once
it
is
fully
killed.
It
can
never
grow
again
in
that
flower.
There
are
other
cultivators
that
don't
eradiate
their
product
hands
down.
Absolutely
what
we've
found,
though
time
and
time
again
is.
H
If
you
go
and
test
any
of
that
flour,
that's
been
sitting
in
a
package
months
down
the
line.
Sometimes
flower
sits
on
shelves.
Sometimes
it
sits
at
home
if
there
is
any
sign
of
growth
and
these
other
cultivators
that
pass
testing
definitely
pass,
but
they
don't
pass
with
zero.
That
means
there's
some
level
of
it
in
there
and
when
you
put
it
in
a
sealed,
close
package,
what
happens?
It's
it's,
it's
microbials,
it's
mold
and
mildew.
It
fits
in
there
at
all.
H
It
is
going
to
grow,
but
if
it's
been
irradiated,
you
have
completely
killed
that
and
there's
no
chance
of
that
regrowing,
because
it's
completely
dead
at
the
genetic
level.
I
think
this
is
the
point
that
we've
been
trying
to
make
that
making
sure
that
the
way
in
which
we
go
about
this
is
not
misleading
the
consumer,
we're
all
about
informing
them,
educating
them
providing
the
information.
It's
not
a
secret.
Everyone
knows
who
has
the
machines
for
the
most
part
and
who
doesn't
we're
not
saying
anything
beyond
that?
H
But
the
way
in
which
it's
being
presented
to
the
end
consumer,
who
is
not
fully
Versed
and
educated,
is
where
this
is
potentially
going
to
be
a
negative
impact
on
all
of
the
I
would
say:
cultivators
all
levels,
producers
dispensaries
just
because
of
how
it
all
trickles
down
down
to
the
end
user.
So
that's
just
where
I'm
coming
from.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
I
really
appreciate
it,
and
at
least
I
could
say:
Happy
New,
Year,.
A
A
Okay,
I,
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward
in
Las
Vegas,
let's
go
up
to
Carson,
City
and
I
do
see
at
least
one
person
coming
forward
there.
I
cannot
tell
who
you
are
because
you're
very
small
on
my
screen,
but
when
you
get
to
that
microphone,
if
you
could
introduce
yourself
and
provide
public
comment,
please.
I
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
legislative
commission,
Brett
scalaria,
with
strategies,
360
sco,
lari,
I,
won't
get
up
and
repeat,
but
I
will
Echo
what
Miss,
Rushton
and
The
Operators
have
stated
already
and
wanted
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
background
prior
to
joining
strategies.
I
360
I
was
I
just
recently
joined
and
I
was
General
Counsel
for
trike
companies
for
almost
eight
years
tracks,
a
vertically
integrated
operator,
and
one
was
one
of
the
first
operators
to
use
the
radsource
technology
and
I
will
submit
to
you
that
I
lived
through
that
process
to
get
that
equipment
approved.
So
there
are
they're
already
consumer
protections
built
in
even
before
you
start
using
the
the
machine.
I
You
have
to
submit
an
equipment
request
with
the
CCB,
that's
reviewed,
and
then
that
is
approved
pending
a
final
inspection
there's
also
an
additional
step
on
these
types
of
equipment.
You
have
to
get
it
reviewed
and
certified
by
the
program
of
radiation
with
the
Department
of
Health
Services.
So
that's
an
extra
step
and
then
also
once
this
product
is
irradiated,
it
goes
through
its
final
testing
and
the
product
cannot
hit
those
shelves
or
be
offered
for
wholesale
until
you
get
a
final
pass
on
that.
I
So
there
are
two
very
key
consumer
protections
and
Public
Safety
things
built
in
even
prior
to
the
product
hitting
the
Shelf
and
I'll
just
leave
you
with
this.
The
industry
I
think,
is
grateful
that
you
are
listening
to
them
today.
The
alternative
that
has
been
offered
up
by
the
industry
and
supported
by
a
member
direct
at
CCB
is
a
good
alternative.
These
post-grow
treatments
can
be
included
on
that
soil
amendment.
I
A
A
K
L
Good
afternoon
Sarah
Yeager
this
and
members
of
the
legislative
commission,
my
name
is
Adam
Zarin,
that
is
a
d,
a
m
v,
a
r
r
I
n
and
I'm
the
director
of
state
government
Affairs
for
the
Leukemia
and
Lymphoma
Society.
Our
organization's
mission
is
to
cure
blood
cancers
and
improve
the
quality
of
life
patients
and
their
families.
As
you
continue
to
plan
for
the
upcoming
session,
we
want
to
thank
the
leadership
and
staff
of
the
legislature
for
the
transition
to
hybrid
meetings
and
on
behalf
of
blood
cancer
patients
and
their
families.
L
We
hope
you
will
continue
to
offer
remote
testimony
for
the
upcoming
legislative
session.
The
past
two
years
have
taught
us
the
value
of
an
accessible
and
responsive
government
government,
especially
as
we
continue
to
cope
with
ongoing
public
health
risks
for
several
reasons.
The
option
to
participate
via
a
virtual
platform
or
telephone
has
increased
Civic
engagement
for
patients
undergoing
treatment
for
blood
cancers
and
their
health
care
providers.
As
you
know,
those
undergoing
cancer
treatment
are
at
higher
risk
of
severe
disease.
L
Also,
their
providers
often
feel
they
cannot
step
away
from
their
patients
to
participate
in
government
processes
and,
finally,
those
living
in
remote
areas.
Nevada
can
quickly
join
without
completing
a
several
hour
round
trip,
which
is
why
telemedicine
has
been
so
successful,
virtual
or
remote.
Testimony
mitigates
all
of
these
challenges
again
on
our
behalf
of
our
patient
and
provider
Community,
we
respectfully
request
that
you
maintain
virtual
access
option
for
public
participation
throughout
the
2023
session.
We've
also
submitted
a
written
statement
to
this
issue.
A
K
Thank
you
chair
the
caller.
The
color
line
is
open
and
working,
but
there
are
no
other
callers
pushing
to
offer
a
public
comment
at
this
time.
A
Thank
you
BPS.
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
there
will
be
a
second
round
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
today's
meeting,
but
for
now
we'll
close
out
agenda
item
two
and
that'll.
Take
us
to
agenda
item
number
three
approval
of
the
minutes
committee
members:
you
will
have
found
in
your
packet
the
draft
minutes
for
the
September
27
2022
legislative
commission
meeting.
These
draft
minutes
are
also
available
on
the
legislature's
website.
I'll
first
ask
if
there
are
any
discussion
or
Corrections
on
those
minutes
and
if
not
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve.
A
N
A
F
A
A
That
takes
us
through
agenda.
Item
number
three:
we're
now
on
agenda
item
number
four,
which
is
our
sixth
Court
mandated
status
report
regarding
the
Nevada
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
technology,
fee
refund
project
I,
believe
we
have
Sean
sever
on
Zoom
with
us,
I
see
him
there.
He
is
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles.
When
you
are
ready,
please
go
ahead
and
provide
the
report
and
then
we'll
see
if
we
have
any
questions.
O
Thank
you,
chair
hello,
commission
members,
Sean
sever
from
the
Nevada
DMV.
Thank
you
for
the
chance
to
update
you
on
our
Tech
fee
refund
project
through
November
30th.
The
DMV
has
distributed
more
than
1.78
million
dollars
of
these
six
million
dollars
available
for
this
project.
O
The
DMV
started
issuing
refunds
by
sending
out
checks
to
businesses
on
February
22nd
of
this
year.
Over
61
000
business
refunds
were
issued
for
close
to
2.2
million
dollars
and
as
of
November
30th
44
767
business
refunds
have
cleared
for
more
than
1.6
million
dollars
or
74
percent
of
the
business
refunds.
O
A
Thank
you
for
the
update,
Mr
sever
commission
members.
This
is
an
informational
item
only
so
it
does
not
require
action
on
our
part,
but
we
do
have
a
chance
to
ask
any
questions
of
Mr
severs.
We'll
start
here
in
Las
Vegas.
Anyone
with
questions
I,
don't
see
any
questions
here
in
Las,
Vegas,
Senator
gokuchia,
how
about
up
in
Carson
City.
Anyone
have
a
question
from
Mr
sever.
A
Okay
and
Senator
Lang
I,
know
you're
on
Zoom.
So
if
you
ever
have
a
question,
just
unmute
pipe
up
and
we'll
go
ahead,
and
let
you
ask
that
question
or
just
raise
your
hand
and
I'll
be
able
to
see
you
soon.
Okay,
I
think
we,
it
doesn't
look
like.
We
have
any
questions,
but
thank
you,
Mr,
sever
for
being
here
to
present.
It's
always
good
to
see
you
and
we
hope
you
have
a
great
New
Year.
A
Thank
you
chair,
so
that
will
close
out
agenda
item
number
four
and
that's
going
to
take
us
to
agenda
item
number
five,
which
really
is
the
heart
of
today's
meeting.
We
do
have
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council,
Asher
Killian
with
us
in
Carson
City,
at
the
end
of
the
video
conference
today.
If
we
need
assistance
with
this
item
now,
I
know
some
of
you
are
attending
your
first
legislative
commission
meeting
today,
and
probably
some
of
you
wish
you
were
not
attending
today,
but
you
are
so.
A
A
If
the
regulation
that's
adopted
is
not
identical
to
the
one
that
is
approved
here
for
early
review,
the
regulation
would
have
to
come
back
to
the
legislative
commission
for
approval
in
the
same
manner
as
if
early
approval
had
not
occurred.
So
essentially,
this
is
a
way
for
an
agency
to
get
early
approval
before
they
go
through
the
hearing
process.
So
today
we
have
a
Department
of
Public
Safety
regulation
r164-22
for
early
review.
A
A
P
We
still
can't
hear
you
if
you
want
to
click
the
carrot
next
to
the
mute
button
and
pull
that
up
and
it
says,
select
a
microphone.
You
can
change
your
microphone
to
save
the
system
and
that
might
fix
the
problem.
P
Q
P
R
R
And
this
regulation
is
essentially
on
a
high
level,
just
allows
the
highway
or
a
highway,
as
defined
in
NRS,
to
be
classified
as
not
a
highway
when
it
is
closed,
either
on
an
extended
basis
or
on
a
temporary
intermittent
basis,
and
what
this
will
do
will
will
then
allow
during
special
events,
will
allow
advertising
to
be
placed
along
that
that
section
of
Highway,
that
is
either
temporarily
closed
or
closed
for
an
extended
amount
of
time
up
to
14
days.
That
is
just
a
really
high
level
view
of
it.
R
A
Out:
okay,
no!
That's!
Okay!
It's
hard
to
tell
from
here,
but
my
commission
members
were
telling
me
it
wasn't
on.
So
if
you
could
start
over,
please
absolutely.
N
Good
afternoon
legislative
commission
members,
Caroline
Bateman
c-a-r-o-l-I-n-e
last
name
is
b
as
in
boy
a
t
e
m,
a
n.
I
serve
as
the
general
counsel
for
the
Las
Vegas
Convention
and
visitors
Authority
and
with
me
in
Carson
City,
as
Scott
Gillis,
our
chief
partner
on
legislative
matters
and
with
Mr
decoco
and
the
Department
of
Public
Safety.
N
We
worked
together
to
prepare
to
propose
regulation
for
your
early
consideration
and
we'd
like
to
thank
chair
Yeager
for
granting
us
this
early
review.
We
know
it's
not
done
very
often,
so
we
appreciate
that
thank
you
to
Ms
Erdos,
Mr
Fernley
and
the
entire
LCP
staff
for
months
of
work
that
they
have
put
in
with
us
on
this.
Thank
you
to
director
kagliati
the
entire
team
at
DPS,
as
well
as
the
team
at
ndot,
which
has
provided
us
great
feedback
and
input,
specifically
chief
Deputy
attorney
general
Gallagher.
N
My
former
colleague,
who
has
been
a
great
partner
as
well
overview
on
this
project,
is
as
Clark
County.
The
last
few
years
has
hosted
some
pretty
major
events.
We've
had
the
event
organizers
reach
out
to
us
at
the
lvcva
on
numerous
occasions,
seeking
a
way
to
perhaps
Place
commercial
advertising
on
or
near
their
event
sites.
But
currently
existing
statute
prohibits
commercial
advertising
on
or
in
sight
of
Highways,
except
on
a
very
few
enumerated
structures
such
as
touchdown
structures,
monorail
stations,
Etc.
N
The
proposed
regulation
carves
out
an
exception
that
Mr
decoco
had
mentioned
that
would
allow
for
such
advertising
by
event,
organizers
on
structures
such
as
pedestrian
breaches,
bollards
lining
highways
Etc
when
roads
are
closed
to
vehicular
traffic
for
a
period
up
to
14
days.
If
an
event
organizer
sought
to
intermittently
open
and
close
a
road
to
vehicular
traffic,
it
would
have
to
obscure
that
advertising
in
a
way
that
the
Public
Authority
granting
that
commercial
advertising
would
deem
no
longer
constituted
a
hazard.
The
proposed
regulation
is
by
construction,
enabling
and
enabling
law.
N
It
will
allow
applicable
local
and
public
authorities
to
establish
the
parameters
for
such
commercial
advertising
during
special
events
if
they
choose
to
allow
it.
In
the
first
place,
most
authorities
have
existing
procedures
in
place
through
permitting
or
license
agreements
for
advertising
on
the
stately
statutorily
permitted
areas,
and
the
proposed
regulation
will
allow
authorities
to
consider
additional
advertising
areas.
N
Foreign
we
at
the
lvcva
are
obviously
very
excited
for
the
next
14
or
so
months
as
we
prepare
to
host
two
of
the
biggest
events
we
believe
in
the
state's
history
and
that's
the
inaugural
Formula
One
Las
Vegas
Grand
Prix
in
November,
and
then
the
Super
Bowl.
Just
a
few
months
later
in
February
of
2024,
the
proposed
regulation
will
provide
the
county
and
US
Day
online,
a
tool
as
we
pursue
additional
impactful
events
to
the
destination
and
work
to
keep
the
current
events
that
we
have
already
on
the
books.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
those
comments
and
thanks
for
the
work
on
this
regulation.
I
know
you
mentioned
a
lot
of
folks,
but
this
was
a
regulation
that
required
quite
a
bit
of
collaboration
between
agencies
and
so
thanks
for
making
that
happen.
Do
we
have
questions
here
in
Las
Vegas
for
our
presenters
on
this
regulation?
S
Thanks
Mr
chair
two
questions:
first
Scott,
is
it
Gillis
or
is
it
Giles
no
I
know
which
one
it
is
I
want
everybody
else
to
know
so
because
we
we
had
a
question
about
this.
So.
T
Thank
you
senator
for
the
opportunity
Scott
Gillis
with
the
Griffin
company
on
behalf
of
lbcva
here
today.
It
is
pronounced,
Gillis
and
I.
Thank
you
for
that
opportunity
to
clarify
okay.
S
I
just
want
to
get
that
clear
because
I
we
had
a
discussion
about
it
earlier,
I'm
sure
it's
Gillis,
but
I
heard
two
different
versions
in
the
in
the
testimony.
The
actual
serious
question
Mr
chair:
it's
commercial
advertising:
what
is
the
revenue
an
estimated
revenue
from
this
and
who
gets
the
revenues
to
go
to
the
county?
Does
it
go
to
the
ndot
I
mean
and
who
determines
what
the
the
amount
you
charge
is
for
this
commercial
advertising.
N
And
I'm
happy
to
take
that
question.
Mr
chair
through
you
to
Mr
Hanson
the
currently
existing
ordinances
down
in
Clark
County
provide
for
such
advertising
already,
as
I
mentioned,
on
monorail
stations,
on
the
touchdown
structures
that
are
on
either
side
of
escalators
on
the
strip
and
other
areas
in
Clark
County,
as
well
as
on
a
couple
of
other
structures,
and
the
public
authorities
will
actually
be
the
enforcing
agencies
regarding
size
limitations.
N
You
know
lighting
if
they're
LED
signs
any
other
restrictions,
they
believe
are
necessary
for
the
safety
of
the
public
safety
of
pedestrians
and
vehicles.
If
those
roads
are
opened
up
Etc,
so
in
terms
of
Revenue,
it
would
vary
obviously,
depending
on
what
event
organizer
we're
discussing.
It
could
be
anything
from
the
Las
Vegas
Marathon
when
the
streets
are
closed,
all
the
way
up
to
formula
one,
but
that
the
he's
assessed
would
be
determined
by
the
local
jurisdictions.
If
those
are
duplicable.
Parties,
RTC
also
has
advertising
opportunities
and
they
would
set
those
fees
right
now.
S
S
You
have
no
idea
what
the
revenue
could
be,
but
also
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
going
to
some
some
government
agency,
that's
in
charge
of
the
highways
or
something
and
not
back
into
the
pocket,
so
the
people
actually
putting
on
the
event,
but
I
didn't
I.
Didn't?
Where
does
the
actual
fees
I
mean?
Who
gets
whose
pocket
do
they
end
up
with
with
when
they're
done,
paying
their
bill.
N
So
the
licensing
fees,
if
the
the
local
authorities
or
the
public
authorities,
determined
to
go
that
route
would
be
assessed
and
collected
by
the
local
authorities,
as
they
are
the
enforcing
agents
that
may
or
may
not
be
tied
to
any
Revenue
that
the
event
organizers
would
collect
for
that
advertising
Senator
if
it
makes
sense,
at
least
on
a
formula
one
level.
It
is
not
advertising
that
they
would
sell
just
for
an
event.
They
have
events
all
over
the
world
throughout
the
year,
and
so
those
would
all
be
packaged
in.
N
But
that
would
all
be
determined
by
the
local
authorities,
depending
on
how
long,
for
example,
that
advertising
will
be
in
place
what
kind
of
event
it
is
how
how
impactful
it
might
be
in
terms
of
how
much
advertising
will
be
on
the
highways
Etc.
S
Okay,
so
it's
somewhat
indefinite,
it
sounds
like,
but
anyway
thank
you,
I
think
I'm
I'm
for
the
regulation.
It
seems
completely
reasonable,
but
just
want
to
make
sure
that
some
of
that
money
ends
up
back
in
the
pockets
of
the
citizens,
are
providing
the
highway
overpasses
and
stuff
and
not
going
into
the
pockets
of
the
whoever
the
big
promoters
are
behind
these
things.
Thank
you.
Mr,
chair.
A
A
N
A
Opposed,
please
say:
nay,
hearing
nobody,
saying,
nay,
I
think
we
have
a
unanimous
approval
of
agenda
item
5A.
So
thank
you
for
that
and
thank
you
for
our
presenters
for
being
here
as
well
today,
happy
New
Year!
Thank
you
very
much.
Happy
New
Year.
Okay,
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
five,
a
we're
now
going
to
go
to
agenda
item
5B
and
consider
a
different
type
of
Regulation.
This
is
a
request
by
the
State
Board
of
Pharmacy
to
continue
a
regulation
not
adopted
within
two
years
after
submission
to
the
legislative
Council.
A
U
Thank
you,
chairman
Dave
whis,
for
the
record,
the
executive
secretary
of
the
Board
of
Pharmacy
I'd,
like
to
thank
you
and
your
staff
for
putting
this
on
the
agenda.
I
do
apologize
for
the
timing.
It
is
correct
that
we
are
shortly
just
shortly
out
of
the
two-year
window.
This
is
a
regulation
that
came
to
be
during
covid
the
initial
part
of
covid.
The
board
did
waive
a
regulation
that
required
pharmacists
to
only
provide
pharmaceutical
care
in
a
pharmacy,
so
they
couldn't
do
it
through
Telehealth
or
anything
like
that.
U
Well,
we
did
that
waiver
through
covid.
We
noticed
that
it
seemed
to
be
a
safe
practice
and
it
would
be
something
that
would
extend
pharmaceutical
care
to
patients
and
allow
pharmacists
to
practice
at
different
areas.
We
October
29th
of
2020.
We
initiated
the
rulemaking
process
as
you've
seen
with
other
agencies
we've.
U
We
we
missed
seven
meetings
during
covid
for
reasons
that
were
related
to
we
had
to
miss
the
meetings
and
then,
secondarily,
we
had
three
bills
that
affected
this
and
through
the
last
legislative
session,
and
we
had
regulatory
rulemaking
that
we
had
to
do
on
that.
So
this
this
regulation
ended
up
being
having
to
wait
till
all
those
things
were
done.
The
board
has
completed
the
regulatory
process,
they've
completed
that
on
December
8th.
We
were
29
days
outside
of
the
two
years.
U
I
apologize
for
that
typically
I
would
just
remove
the
regulation
and
restart,
but
this
was
a
regulation
that
was
generated
from
the
industry
and
the
licensees
themselves.
It
did
does
provide
extra
pharmaceutical
care
and
more
opportunities
for
people
to
talk
to
Pharmacists
and
so
I
thought
it
was
worthwhile
to
at
least
ask
permission.
The
item
is
already
on
your
agenda
on
item
D.
If
you
were
to
allow
us
to
move
forward,
and
the
regulatory
process
is
complete
at
this
time,
I
can
answer
any
questions.
A
A
No,
that's,
okay,
just
to
make
it
clear
so
you're
asking
for
an
extension
of
time
because
you
missed
the
two-year
window,
but
this
regulation
is
actually
on
agenda
item
D
for
potential
approval
today,
assuming
that
this
commission
approves
your
extension
of
the
two-year
time
period.
U
A
A
J
Yeager
I
have
one
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
because
we
did
come
review
these
regs
and
and
go
to
go
to
public
hearing
on
them
during
the
pandemic,
did
we
have
adequate
participation
and
I?
Guess
that's
what's
concerning
me,
I
know,
you're
talking
about
a
crunch
time
frame,
but
realistically
did
the
consumer
base
have
the
ability
to
interact
as
well.
U
Yes,
yes,
sir,
my
Dave
whis
for
the
record
I
believe
they
did
I
will
I
would
point
out
to
you
that
I
don't
think
this
is
the
final
regulation
about
it.
I
think
that
the
industry
is
changing
and
in
the
future
there
might
be
more
things
that
we
could
do
to
broaden
this.
U
This
you
know
we
had
to
take
a
snapshot
and
move
forward
with
that,
so
that
we
could
at
least
have
the
people
do
this
now,
but
I
do
think
that
it's
likely
that
you'll
see
this
in
back,
we've
received
public
testimony
that
they
would
want
it
to
go
further
and
I.
Think
the
board's
supportive
of
that
we
just
need
to
go
through
the
regulatory
process.
J
Mr,
chair
Fallen,
but
by
me.
Well
that
does
give
me
some
pause.
I,
don't
mind,
saying
you're,
saying:
okay:
now
this
is
just
a
snapshot,
but
we
we
need
to
pursue.
We
need
to
go
farther,
maybe
it
maybe
we're
better
served
by
go
ahead
and
going
back
to
the
process
and
getting
it
right.
Thank
you.
A
I
think
feel
free
to
comment
on
that.
If
you
would
like
is
there
you
know?
Is
there
a
reason
to
approve
this
regulation
and
build
on
it
later
or
would
it
be
your
preference
to
start
the
process
over.
U
U
I
I
think
that
we
have
people
that
are
practicing
now
that
are
working
off
of
the
old
rules
that
were
during
the
the
emergency
and
I'm
concerned
that
if
we
stop
that
there
would
be
patient
care
issues,
I
do
believe
that
there
would
be
there's
always
room
for
improving
regulation.
I
think
that
that's
likely,
but
it
doesn't
mean
that
it's
going
to
happen
and
I
think
this
is
a
good
regulation
and
it
went
through
all
of
its
Paces.
V
You
Mr
chairs,
assemblywoman,
Dickman,
I
I,
just
wanted
to
say
that
normally
I'm
not
supportive
at
all
of
continuing
regulations
beyond
the
two
years,
but
but
it
just
seems
to
me
with
this
one.
We
are
already
doing
some
of
these
things
and
if
we
stop
doing
them
because
of
Staffing
shortages
and
so
on,
nevadans
are
going
to
suffer
and
not
be
able
to
get
their
health
care.
Would
you
say
that's
accurate.
U
S
S
When
then
speaker,
Kirkpatrick
requested
that
she
and
I
jointly
sponsor
a
bill
which
is
now
two
three
three
B
something
or
other,
because
at
the
time
we
were
having
regulations
that
were
brought
to
the
commission
four
or
five
years
after
that,
the
legislation
was
passed
that
got
the
enabling
abilities
to
the
bureaus
and
covet
obviously
seems
to
be
a
pretty
reasonable
reason
for
not
being
able
to
do
this
in
a
timely
fashion.
S
My
question,
though,
is
to
you
Mr
chair
actually,
and
that
is
we
also
have
r024-20,
and
one
of
my
questions
on
that
is.
That's
also
well
beyond
the
two-year
limit,
and
it
also
so
when
I
looked
at
it,
it
deals
with
AB
472
from
the
2017
session.
Have
you
guys
on
the
commission
been
kind
of
uniformly?
Just
if
it's
beyond
two
years
saying
you
got
to
go,
bring
it
through
the
process
again
or
have
you
guys
been
kind
of
looking
past
the
two-year
window
requirement.
A
I,
thank
you.
Senator
Hansen
and
I
could
certainly
have
legal
confirm,
but
I
think
it's
two
years
from
when
the
regulation
is
first
filed
with
the
LCB.
Is
that
right,
so
I
think
timing,
wise
r024-20
is
within
the
two-year
period
and
r164-20
is
not,
but
we
could
certainly
have
Mr
Killian
confirm
who's
up
in
Carson
City.
W
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Killian
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council,
so
it
is
two
years
from
the
date
that
the
regulation
was
initially
filed
with
us
for
drafting.
But
in
the
case
of
o2420,
the
legislative
commission
previously
approved
an
extension
to
the
two-year
period
for
that
regulation.
It
was
not
ready
to
be
heard
by
the
Legislative
commission
for
approval
at
that
time,
but
an
extension
was
previously
approved.
S
A
No,
no
problem,
Senator
and
clearly
I
didn't
remember
that
either
I
would
have
told
you
that
in
response
to
the
question,
but
that
sounds
like
a
good
explanation.
Thank
you
for
that.
Mr
Killian,
additional
questions
from
commission
members
for
the
Board
of
Pharmacy,
okay,
I,
don't
think
I
hear
any
additional
questions
and
so
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
the.
A
Okay,
I
think
we
have
a
motion
from
I
heard:
assemblywoman
Dickman
up
north
and
so
we'll
take
the
motion
there
and
Senator
canizarro
down
here
has
made
the
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
M
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
would
you
please
say:
nay:
okay,
I'm,
not
hearing
anyone
in
the
negative,
so
that
means
the
motion
is
approved
unanimously.
The
extension
is
granted
and
we
will
get
to
that
regulation
again
in
just
a
couple
of
agenda
items,
but
for
now
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
five
b
and
now
we're
going
to
go
to
agenda
item
5c
agenda
item
5c
is
a
review
of
the
Nevada
Nevada
cannabis
compliance
board
regulation
submitted
pursuant
to
NRS
6
678a.4605
through
10..
A
If
we
approve
this
regulation
today,
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
May
file
the
regulation
with
the
secretary
of
state.
If
this
commission
objects
to
the
regulation,
the
board
is
required,
meaning
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
is
required
to
revise
the
regulation
and
resubmit
it
to
the
legislative
commission.
If
the
legislative
commission
approves
the
revised
regulation,
then
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
May
file
it
with
the
Secretary
of
State.
This
process
continues
until
the
legislative
commission
approves
a
revision
of
the
regulation
for
filing
with
the
secretary
of
state
8..
A
This
is
I
think
the
first
time
the
legislative
commission
has
pulled
a
cannabis
compliance
board
regulation
into
a
meeting.
So
if
this
doesn't
sound
familiar
to
you,
that's
probably
because
it's
the
first
time
we've
ever
done
it.
We
do
have
Tyler
kleimus
here
with
his
team.
He
is
the
executive
director
of
the
Cannabis
compliance
board,
he's
going
to
give
us
a
quick
overview
of
the
regulations
and
then
we'll
take
questions
and
decide
how
we'd
like
to
proceed
as
a
commission.
So
welcome
director
climas
and
please
proceed
when
you're
ready.
X
Thank
you
chair
members
of
the
commission.
My
name
is
Tyler
clymis
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
the
Cannabis
compliance
board,
and
we
are
happy
to
bring
you
a
little
taste
of
cannabis
land
here
today
at
the
ledge
commission,
I'm
joined
today
at
the
table
by
Kara
Cronkite
to
my
left.
She
is
the
chief
of
ccb's
audit
and
Inspection.
Division
to
my
right
is
Ashley
Balducci
she's,
a
senior
Deputy
attorney
general
for
the
Attorney
General's
office
and
Council
for
the
CCB.
X
Also
with
me
is,
is
Michael
Miles
behind
me
he's
the
deputy
director
of
the
CCP
so
before
you
today,
the
Amendments
that
you
are
looking
at
to
a
Nevada
cannabis
compliance
regulation,
12.065
broadens
the
list
of
methods
used
to
remediate
cannabis
products
that
have
undergone
some
form
of
treatment
post-harvest.
X
There
is
more
than
one
way
to
remediate
cannabis,
which
includes
radio
frequency,
ozone
and
irradiation,
to
name
a
few
and
all
are
used
in
an
effort
to
kill
or
reduce
microbial
contamination,
so
that
the
Cannabis
is
able
to
pass
required
testing
and
remain
safe
for
consumption.
Remediation
techniques
are
not
used
by
all
of
Nevada's
licensed
cultivators.
In
fact
of
the
160
plus
cultivators
in
the
state,
fewer
than
25
use
equipment
for
remediation.
X
The
amendments
to
nccr
12065
were
first
discussed
at
the
ccp's
December
2020
board
meeting
as
a
result
of
a
petition
filed
by
a
private
manufacturer
of
remediation
equipment.
Since
then,
the
board
has
held
to
public
workshops,
four
board
meetings
on
the
topic
issue,
two
electronic
solicitations
of
comments.
We've
held
numerous
informational
meetings
with
stakeholders
and
received
countless
public
comments
for
medical
patients,
members
of
the
public
and
Industry
stakeholders,
all
of
which
are
available
on
the
ccb's
website.
X
Where
this
amendment
sits
now
is
a
significant
change
from
the
current
language
of
Regulation
12065,
which
has
already
been
adapted.
The
original
adopted
language
of
12065
requires
a
redura
symbol
and
the
words
noticed
capitalized
in
front
of
the
disclosure.
It
also
requires
that
disclosure
to
be
affixed
on
the
actual
package
of
the
Cannabis
product,
not
just
included
as
part
of
the
label.
Now
this
language
simply
requires
disclosure
on
what
process
the
Cannabis
has
undergone
and
only
needs
to
be
included
on
the
label
which
can
be
sent
electronically
through
email
to
the
consumer.
X
It
can
be
included
on
a
QR
code
or
printed
and
dropped
into
the
bag
before
the
consumer
leaves.
A
label
is
already
required
of
each
cannabis
product
and
lists
a
number
of
product
specific
information.
So
this
would
add
an
additional
line
of
information
on
that
label
and
again
applies
to
only
approximately
15
percent
of
cultivators
in
the
state.
X
We
went
to
Great
Lengths
to
make
this
language
and
impact
one
that
is
neutral
and
because
it
was
important
to
us
to
have
experts,
drive
this
process
and
Analysis
I'm
going
to
read
into
the
record
briefly
the
following
statement
from
CCB
member
Dr,
Brian
Young.
That
I
believe
encapsulates
what
the
board
was
aiming
to
accomplish
by
passing.
These
amendments
from
Dr
Young
first
I
believe
it
was
the
right
regulation
for
improved
transparency
regarding
the
way
cannabis
is
handled.
X
I
also
believe:
there's
a
hundred
percent
support
from
the
consumers
based
on
feedback
from
public
comment,
provided
at
the
monthly
CCB
meetings
that
occurred
over
the
last
two
years.
As
our
mission
statement
States,
our
purpose
is
through
strict
regulation
of
all
areas
of
its
licensing
and
operations,
protecting
the
public
health
and
safety
of
our
citizens
and
visitors,
while
holding
licensees
to
the
highest
standards.
Transparency
and
labeling
of
the
product
is
important
to
fulfilling
this
mission
statement.
X
Dr
Young
has
read
over
2
000
pages
of
documents
provided
by
those
in
the
industry
and
read
greater
than
80
studies
and
papers.
Regarding
the
issue
of
DeCamp
decontamination
of
cannabis
from
my
research
I
believe
the
remediation
has
effects
on
the
Cannabis
product
that
warrant
further
labeling.
All
forms
of
remediation
can
affect
the
taste
of
the
product.
This
has
been
verified
in
studies
and
reaffirmed
by
public
comment
at
multiple
CCB
meetings.
Labeling
is
not
a
punishment.
It
provides
transparency.
The
FDA
requires
labeling
of
all
food
products
that
have
been
treated
with
radiation
for
decontamination.
X
This
is
also
the
practice
in
Europe.
Our
labeling
would
continue
this
practice
without
singling
out
radiation
as
the
only
way
to
decontaminate
I.
Think
Dr
Devlin
summed
it
up
in
his
op-ed
published
in
the
Reno
Gazette
journal
in
March
of
2021,
where
he
wrote
specifically
about
remediation
labeling
in
its
role
as
protector
of
all
nevadans
who
consume
cannabis
products.
The
CCB
has
an
opportunity
to
promote
consumer
education
and
transparency
through
its
product
labeling
requirements.
X
Consumers
should
have
a
choice
about
what
they
put
into
their
body:
Sean
Devlin
board,
certified
physician,
the
rgj
and
so
I'll
make
a
final
statement
before
we
open
it
up
for
any
questions.
The
commission
has
I
just
want
to
say,
commission
putting
this
disclosure
back
to
the
soils.
Amendment
simply
reduces
transparency.
X
A
Thank
you,
executive
director,
climates
I'm,
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
I
just
had
a
couple
that
I
think
were
based
more
on
the
public
comment.
We
heard
at
the
beginning
just
wanted
to
confirm
a
few
things,
because
I
was
not
there
at
the
meeting,
but
was
it
a
unanimous
vote
of
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
to
approve
this,
or
was
it
something
other
than
that.
X
A
Great
and
then
we
heard
a
little
bit
that
and
I
just
wondering
if
you
can
confirm
I,
think
we
heard
some
testimony
that
we
would
be
the
first
or
only
state
requiring
this
kind
of
a
disclosure
on
the
product.
Do
you
know
if
that's
true,
based
on
interactions
with
I
think
you
mentioned
overseas,
but
I'm
particularly
interested
in
jurisdictions,
the
United
States
thank.
X
You
chair
for
the
question:
Tyler
Clements
for
the
record
and
and
I'll
have
Kara-
maybe
talk
a
little
bit
about
that,
but
I
will
tell
you,
from
my
perspective,
I'm
very
engaged
with
cannabis.
Regulators
Across,
the
Nation
through
some
of
our
Regulators
Association
I,
can
tell
you
obviously
there's
going
to
be
differing
opinions
here,
our
perspective
and
and
those
who
are
opposing
it.
But
the
reason
that
it's
not
is
because
folks
are
looking
to
us
to
Nevada
we've
had
those
conversations
about
what
we're
doing
with
labeling
on
remediation,
some
states
didn't
even
know.
X
Remediation
was
occurring.
I've
personally
passed
this
language
on
to
multiple
other
states
and
they're,
looking
at
at
us
and
I
think
and
and
I
more
than
think
that
we
have
an
opportunity
to
lead
as
the
state
of
Nevada
in
these
labeling
requirements
and
making
sure
that
consumers
have
the
information
that
they
need.
I
would
like
to
have
Kara
just
briefly
talk
about
I,
believe
Canada
has
some
noticing
and
labeling
requirements.
Y
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
question.
Canada
does
have
a
law
they're
the
only
federal
laws
for
cannabis
at
this
time
that
have
been
approved
and
they
do
require
that
products
be
labeled
as
irradiated
treated
with
radiation
or
treated
by
radiation,
along
with
the
international
radiation
symbol.
So
we
believe
that
this
is
in
line
with
what
federal
requirements
will
require
in
the
future.
A
Thank
you
and
we'll
open
up
for
additional
questions.
I
have
one
from
Senator
Harris
down
here
in
Las
Vegas.
Z
The
chair
are
there
any
known
adverse
health
effects
associated
with
any
of
these
treatments.
X
I
probably
should
defer
to
you,
but
I
can
answer
this
one.
Thank
you
senator
for
the
question
Tyler
climbs
to
the
record.
No,
and
and
and
no
part
of
this
process
is
the
CCB
or
the
boards
or
any
part
of
our
discussion,
indicating
that
this
process
is
unsafe.
It's
it's
quite
the
opposite.
Remediation
likely
likely
makes
the
product
safe.
It
does
make
the
product
safe,
not
necessarily
safer
than
product
that
doesn't
undergo
remediation,
but
it
does
make
it
safe.
X
We're
simply
approaching
this
from
a
public
information
standpoint
and
we
hear
through
public
comments
of
medical
patients
and
consumers
that
simply
want
to
know,
and
they
want
it
on
the
label
and
that's
why
we're
here
think
of
milk.
That's
been
pasteurized
on
the
Milk
Carton.
It
says
this
milk
has
been
pasteurized
right
because
it's
there
and
so
people
are
aware
of
it,
doesn't
mean
that
it's
bad
pasteurization
is
likely
not
bad,
but
it's
very
similar
to
that.
Z
Are
they
under
the
impression
that
there
are
health
effects
and
so
they're
asking
you
to
make
sure
that
this
is
known
or
do
they
have
other
reasons?
Why
they've
been
asking
for
this
to
be
put
on
the
label?
Are
you
are
you?
Has
there
been
any
discussion
about
why
they
want
to
see
it.
X
Sure
and
definitely
carry
you
may
want
to
jump
in.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
Tyler
Clements
for
the
record,
I
I
think
you
could
assume
that
it's
it's
both
right.
Some
people
want
to
seek
Out
remediated
product,
but
others
depending
on
the
type
of
remediation
right,
because
there's
different
types,
there's
irradiation
that
uses
radiation.
There's,
there's
ozone
there's
different
types,
and
so,
if
you
are
a
medical
patient,
maybe
you've
had
that
discussion
with
your
physician
and
there
is
a
a
certain
type
of
remediation
or
product.
That's
been
remediated
that
you
want.
X
That
would
be
beneficial
or
maybe
not,
but
again
all
we're
hearing
is
that
they
want
to
know
and
they
want
it
front
and
center
and
and
included
on
the
label.
So
they've
got
that
information
and
those
tools
available
to
them.
Y
Cara
Cronkite
for
the
record.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
add
is
we
have
heard
from
medical
patients
and
consumers
like
that.
It
may
impact
the
terbium
profile,
which
is
thought
to
have
a
lot
of
the
medicinal
benefits
for
cannabis,
as
well
as
the
flavor,
and
some
have
stated
that
they
would
view
it
as
a
positive
other
people
have
just
stated
that
they
just
want
to
know.
A
AA
I
think
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
and
thank
you
guys
for
the
presentation,
I'm
I'm
new
to
the
ledge
commission.
So
first
meeting
and
I'm,
not
a
user
of
the
marijuana
or
the
medical
marijuana
but
I
do
understand
the
concerns
from
the
medical
aspect
where
people
would
want
to
know.
I
know
when
I
get
a
prescription.
They
give
me
a
little
supplement.
Sometimes
it
says
an
explanation
of
X,
Y
and
Z,
but
this
proposed
regulation
would
actually
put
it
on
the
product
rather
than
a
supplement.
That's
given
out.
X
Thank
you
for
the
question
some
women
Tyler
climbus
for
the
record,
and
that
was
a
great
example,
so
think
of
that
pamphlet.
You
get
from
CVS
when
you
get
prescription,
they
send
you
home
with
a
book
right,
that's
included,
that's
actually
what
this
regulation
and
part
of
the
compromise
originally
the
regulation
had
it
mandated
on
the
actual
package
should
be
on
the
product.
Now,
it's
simply
and
it's
a
little
bit
confusing,
is
included
on
the
label
which
is
defined.
I
could
send
it
to
you
as
a
QR
code
or
as
an
email.
X
I
could
have
a
QR
code
that
you
scan
and
get
that
information
or
I
can
put
it
in
a
packet
and
and
include
it
in
your
in
your
bag.
So
it
is
not
required
to
be
actually
on
that
that
product
and
again,
that
was
part
of
the
compromise
that
we've
gone
through
over
the
last
two
years.
During
this
process.
AA
J
Mr,
chair
Senator
Garcia
for
the
record,
I,
guess
I'm
just
concerned.
This
is
again
I
I
haven't
done
ledgecomm
and
others,
then,
as
an
alternate
for
the
last
five
or
six
years.
So
it's
been
a
while
but
I.
Typically,
we
don't
see
this
much
public
testimony
against
a
reg.
You
know
and
trying
to
push
it
forward.
So
is
it
the
fact
of
of
how
and
and
how
they
are?
You
know,
I
I've
got
calls
on
this.
Before
we
even
came
to
the
meeting.
J
You
know
that
they
were
going
to
use
a
radioactive
symbol
that
would
be
on
the
so
exactly
what
are
they
proposing
and
because
some
of
this
stuff
clearly,
especially
if
you're
talking
recreational
marijuana,
could
impact
the
market
Mr
climbs.
Could
you
tell
me
exactly
what
what
you're
talking
about
as
far
as
the
labeling.
X
Sure,
thank
you
senator
for
the
question.
Tyler
climas
for
the
record
and
I've
got
to
tell
you
I
mean
that
is
part
of
our
job
right,
so
we
have
to
balance
the
health
and
safety
of
consumers,
but
also
the
economic
interests
of
the
marketplace
right.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
market
here
for
us
to
regulate,
and
so
we
take
that
into
consideration.
It's
also
why
this
has
been
a
two-year
process
with
you
know
countless
opportunities
for
public
input.
X
But
to
answer
your
question
Senator
exactly
what
goes
on
this
label
that
can
be
included
with
the
product
is
simply
the
following
statement.
This
product
has
undergone
treatment
using
the
method
of
treatment.
That's
been
approved
and
there's
an
option
because
again
we're
not
indicating
that
this
is
a
this
makes
product
unsafe.
You
have
an
option
to
say
this
product
has
been
treated
with
fill
in
the
blank
method
of
treatment
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
microbial
contamination.
J
Then
I
guess
now
this
was
explained
to
the
industry
and
these
people
that
are
coming.
You
know
here
today
in
public
comment
and
have
reached
out
to
us
over
the
last
10
days.
I
mean
do
they
understand
that
Tyler
that
there
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
confusion
here.
X
The
thing
is
in
our
telecast
for
the
record:
I
know
that
they
do
I
mean
we've
had
a
number
of
conversations
in
the
same
individuals
who
provided
public
comment,
have
been
providing
public
comment
and
engaging
with
board
and
and
board
staff.
Since
the
very
beginning,
I
mean
if
we
say
the
marker
of
a
good
policy
decision
is,
is
a
compromise.
X
Where
not
everybody
gets
their
way,
then
I
think
that's
the
exact
spot
that
we're
in
and
I
think
that
this
balances
it
I
feel
that
this
balances,
the
interest
of
both
cultivators
and
again
Senator
I
point
out
that
we're
talking
about
an
industry
that
there's
only
15
percent
that
are
that
are
utilizing
this
and,
and
so
yes
to
answer
your
question.
I
do
believe
they
know
that.
X
Z
Thank
you,
chair,
I'd,
like
to
make
a
motion
to
object
and
that
the
information
be
required
to
be
put
in
the
soil
amendment
as
opposed
to
the
product
itself.
A
We'll
go
ahead
and
give
assemblywomano
II
just
because
we
like
to
have
a
senate
assembly.
If
we
can
so
we
have
a
motion,
we
we
have
a
second
open
it
up
for
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Q
F
B
A
Sorry,
yes,
thank
you.
Let
me
clarify
that
because
this
is
a
unique
procedure,
so
the
motion
is
to
object
with
the
direction
that
the
information
should
be
placed
on
the
soil
amendment.
So
if
that
motion
passes,
what
would
happen
under
the
statute?
Is
the
regulation
would
go
back
to
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
and
they
would
have
the
ability
to
rework
it
pursuant
to
the
direction
that
we
provided.
A
If
they
did
that
it
would
come
back
to
us
for
approval
if
we
wanted
it
to
or
if
they
decided
not
to,
then
the
regulation
would
not
be
enacted.
So
essentially
the
statute
requires
us.
We
can't
just
vote
a
regulation
down.
We
have
to
object
with
Direction
and
instruction.
So
that's
what
the
motion
was
is
that
is
that
clear
assembly,
woman
Dickman?
Yes,
thank
you!
Okay,
sorry,
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
new
procedure
and
I
guess
you
know
before
I.
Take
any
other
discussion.
A
I'll
just
say
the
concern
that
I
have
is
generally
the
things
that
we
have
on
the
label
relate
to
safety
concerns
the
strength
of
the
THC.
The
fact
that
you
shouldn't
be
Opera
rating
heavy
machinery,
the
fact
that
it
is,
in
fact
a
I,
don't
know
if
we
call
it
a
cannabis
product,
but
they
tend
to
be
more
on
the
the
public
safety
side
of
the
equation.
A
I'm
just
concerned
that,
with
the
testimony
we've
heard
that
this
is
not
a
public
safety
issue,
because
if
it
were
I,
don't
think
these
methods
would
be
approved
by
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
and
that
I
think
there's
just
too
much
too
much
of
a
possibility
that
consumers
misunderstand
the
information
and
and
read
from
that
that
this
product
is
somehow
unsafe
or
dangerous.
I'm
concerned
about
that
being
on
the
actual
label.
A
I
do
agree
with
I
think
some
others
who,
who
mentioned
that
that
you
know
this
information
is
available
upon
request
for
consumers
who
would
want
that
information.
So
for
that
reason,
I'll
be
supporting
Senator
Harris's
motion
before
we
take.
The
vote
did
want
to
give
anyone
else
a
chance
to
comment.
I
keep
looking
at
Senator
Hammond,
but
I
don't
know
if
he
wants
to
comment
or
not
I
guess
not.
A
All
right
is
there
go
ahead.
Assemblyman
hafeman.
AA
A
Y
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question.
Cara
Cronkite
for
the
record
soil
amendment
reports
are
really
more
unique
to
cannabis.
Soil
amendments
are
typically
approved
by
the
USDA
or
the
Department
of
Agriculture
to
be
applied
to
a
specific
crop
and
then
Growers
are
required
to
track
them.
Typically,
this
tracking
log,
which
we
call
soil
amendment
report,
is
only
available
to
the
regulators
and
and
that's
the
that's-
that's
typical
in
the
United
States
for
any
crop.
Y
We
require
that
they
provide
access
to
soil
amendment
reports
to
all
consumers
upon
request,
and
this
is
our
way
of
going
above
and
beyond
what
is
typically
available
with
other
consumable
Goods
they're,
not
something
that
most
consumers
are
typically
aware
of.
For
example,
if
you
were
to
purchase
an
Apple
at
a
grocery
store,
you
would
not
see
a
soil
amendment
report
or
even
be
able
to
access
that
at
the
grocery
store.
So
we
do
have
those
available.
The
soil
amendment
reports
include
anything
that
is
applied
pre-harvest
to
the
soil
or
the
crop.
Y
While
it's
growing,
this
would
be
your
pesticides,
herbicides,
fungicides
nutrients,
anything
to
that
effect
and
then
anything
on
the
label
is
going
to
be
things
that
the
consumer
should
be
aware
of.
Thc
content,
CBD
CBN,
the
terpene
profile,
many
medical
patients
are
looking
for
specific
terpenes,
and
so
we
require
that
they
put
the
top
three
terpenes
on
there.
They
also
disclose
on
the
label
items
such
as
the
method
of
extraction.
So
if
the
product
was
extracted
with
butane,
you
would
see
that
appear
on
the
label,
not
on
the
soil
amendment
report
and
then
that
label.
AA
I
appreciate
the
answer:
I
think
I,
understand
kind
of
I'm,
not
exactly
sure.
J
S
Thanks
Mr
chairman,
my
question:
is
this:
as
a
maybe
it's
changed
a
little
legislative
commission.
Normally,
if
a
regulatory
body
brings
a
a
potential
regulation
like
this
to
the
body,
we
normally
don't
have
the
authority
unless
they
violated
the
intent
of
the
original
Law.
To
go
back
and
basically
say
we
want
you
to
do
this
in
the
law,
as
anybody
suggested
that
the
Cannabis
board
is
out
of
compliance
with
the
NRS
that
gives
them
the
authority
to
bring
this
regulation
forward.
A
Thank
you
Senator
and
I
will
hand
that
one
over
to
Mr
Killian,
because
when
we
created
the
Cannabis
compliance
board,
we
put
a
very
unique
procedure
in
the
law
with
respect
to
the
legislative
commission.
So
I
think
the
answer
is
no.
No
one's
accusing
them
of
violating
NRS,
but
Mr
Killian
I
think
can
explain
the
process
that
we're
going
through
right
now.
W
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
Ashford,
Kelly
and
Chief
Deputy
legislative
Council.
So,
yes,
there
is
a
unique
regulatory
process
that
applies
to
the
CCB
and
it's
enacted
in
NRS,
678a
460..
The
relevant
part
is
that
the
legislative
commission
or
the
subcommittee
to
review
regs
can
object
to
a
regulation.
That's
been
adopted
by
CCB,
but
if
it
does
so,
it
must
do
so
on
the
basis
that
it
either
does
not
conform
to
the
statutory
authority
pursuant
to
which
it
was
adopted,
or
it
does
not
carry
out
the
intent
of
the
legislature
in
granting
that
Authority.
W
If
the
legislative
commission
objects
on
that
basis,
then
the
we
send
a
letter
to
the
agency
stating
what
the
basis
of
the
objection
was,
and
the
agency
then
has
60
days
to
revise
the
regulation
and
return
it
to
the
legislative
commission
for
further
proceedings.
My
understanding
of
the
motion
being
brought
up
is
not
necessarily
that
the
regulation
does
not
conform
to
the
statutory
Authority
granted
to
the
CCB
and
that
the
CCB
has
statutory
Authority
per
678,
a
450
to
adopt
regulations
relating
to
labeling,
but
rather
that
this
particular
legislation
does.
S
Thanks
Mr
chair.
Well,
if
that's
the
case,
we
need
to
get
down
on
the
record
that
we
feel
that
the
Cannabis
board
has
not
following
the
intent
of
the
entire
legislative
body,
not
just
the
legislative
commission,
then
so
frankly,
I
I,
like
the
idea
of
kicking
it
back
to
them
and
letting
them
rework
this
to
try
to
please
more
of
the
constituency
base.
That
obviously,
is
not
happy
with
the
regulation.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
Senator.
We
do
have
a
motion
and
we
have
a
second
and
we
are
on
the
discussion
of
the
motion.
So
before
we
take
the
vote,
any
further
discussion.
A
Okay,
seeing
no
further
discussion
again,
the
motion
is
to
object
and
send
the
regulation
back
to
the
Cannabis
compliance
board.
All
of
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
aye
aye.
A
A
S
Well,
Mr
chairman
objection
is
like
I
said
earlier:
I
just
I
just
think
that
I
don't
see
any
evidence
being
presented
that
the
Cannabis
board
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
NRS
authorities
that
we
gave
them.
So
that's
my
only
concern
on
that's
the
only
reason
it's
a
to
object
to
it.
I'm
fine
with
sending
it
back
I
think
they
should
rework
it,
but
I
think
you
got
to
be
careful
about
exten
becoming
a
separate
legislative
body
here
at
the
LC.
A
A
Okay,
so
that
takes
us
to
agenda
item
5D,
and
this
is
where
the
bulk
of
the
regulations
live,
that
we
will
be
considering
today,
so
we
have
I
believe
54
different
regulations
submitted
for
approval
under
NRS
233b.067.
These
regulations
are
all
contained
in
the
binders
provided
to
all
the
members
today
and
also
posted
on
the
Nevada
legislature's
website,
as
is
our
usual
practice
I'm
going
to
let
you
know,
the
regulations,
I
have
previously
been
asked
to
hold
for
questions
and
then
after
I
identify
those
I'll
ask
commission
members.
A
If
there
are
other
regulations,
you
would
like
me
to
pull
for
discussion
once
we
pull
all
of
those
out
we'll
take
one
motion
and
approve
the
remaining
regulations
before
coming
back
to
each
of
the
regulations
that
have
been
pulled
one
at
a
time
to
discuss
each
of
those.
So
if
you
have
your
sheet
in
front
of
you,
I'll
just
go
through
an
order
and
tell
you
the
ones
that
have
been
pulled
so
far
for
discussion.
A
The
very
first
one
r024-20
has
been
pulled
for
discussion
and
I'm
going
off
of
the
sheet
that
is
was
in
the
binder
and
I.
Think
it's
the
same
one,
that's
in
the
packet,
but
we'll
skip
forward
a
few
regulations.
The
next
one
to
be
pulled
is
r075-21.
That's
75-21,
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles.
A
A
Next
up
r037-22
State
Board
of
Health,
that's
r037-22,
I'm
skipping
ahead
a
few.
The
next
one
would
be
R
82-22,
the
Nevada
state
board
of
Veterinary
medical
examiners.
Again,
that's
r082-22
going
to
the
next
page
towards
the
bottom.
There.
The
next
one
would
be
r092-22.
That's
the
committee
on
the
local
government
Finance
again,
that's
r092-22!.
A
A
And
then
there's
a
group
of
three
that
we're
going
to
pull
that's
R,
104-22,
State,
Environmental,
commission,
R
104-22,
then
we're
going
to
pull
the
next
two
in
the
list
as
well.
Our
109-22,
which
is
State
Environmental,
commission
and
r112-22
State
Environmental
Commission,
we'll
Skip
One
and
we'll
go
to
the
next
page
at
the
very
top.
We'll
pull
our
115-22
from
the
State
Environmental
commission.
Again,
that's
r115-22,
we'll
skip
a
few,
and
the
next
one
for
polling
is
r163-22.
The
commissioner
of
insurance,
that's
r163-22,
going
to
the
next
page.
A
The
final
one
that
I
have
is
about
halfway
down
r183-22
from
the
State
Fire
Marshal,
that's
r183-22.
So
those
are
what
I
have
so
far
that
I've
been
notified
before
the
meeting
or
during
the
meeting.
That
members
would
like
to
discuss
and
I'll
ask
if
there
are
any
additional
ones
to
be
pulled
and
I'll
start
here
in
Las
Vegas.
Would
anyone
like
any
of
the
other
regulations
to
be
pulled
for
discussion
I'm,
not
seeing
anyone
here
in
Las
Vegas
how
about
in
Carson
City
any
additional
regulations
to
be
pulled
for
discussion.
A
S
S
V
Was
pulled
by
the
physical
therapist
board.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
have
confirmed
that.
Thank
you
for
the
reminder
on
that.
So
our
124-21
was
withdrawn
by
the
board,
so
that
will
not
be
considered
today
at
all.
It
will
not
be
in
front
of
the
commission,
so
I
apologize
for
that,
but
go
ahead
and
scratch
that
one
off
on
your
list
and
we'll
likely
see
that
at
the
next
legislative
commission
meeting
after
some
issues
get
worked
out
any
anyone
else
with
anything
to
pull.
A
Okay,
I
don't
hear
anyone
else
with
any
of
them
to
pull
so
I.
Don't
think
I
have
to
go
through
that
list
again,
unless
Council,
no
Miss
Erdos
told
me
I,
don't
have
to
go
through
that
list
a
second
time
so
at
this
time,
I'd
be
looking
to
take
a
motion
to
approve
the
remainder
of
the
regulations
that
have
not
been
pulled.
A
A
A
So
all
of
those
regulations
are
approved
before
we
normally,
we
start
at
the
top,
but
I
did
want
to
go
ahead
and
a
few
of
the
four
of
the
regulations
that
were
pulled
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
list
those
we
can
take
together
with
one
motion
after
we
just
have
assemblyman
hafen
make
a
statement
on
the
record,
so
we're
going
to
examine
our
104-22,
which
is
State
Environmental
commission,
at
the
same
time
as
r109-22,
also
from
the
State
Environmental
commission,
r112-22,
the
same
agency
and
r115-22
and
I.
A
Believe
you
had
a
statement
that
you
wanted
to
make
before
we
took
a
motion
on
this
item.
AA
Oh,
thank
you.
Mr
Speaker
I
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
that,
in
my
private
capacity,
I
am
employed
as
the
general
manager
of
trump
utility
company,
which
is
a
corporation
wholly
owned
by
hrd
Inc
hrd
Inc
is
a
Nevada
corporation,
which
majority
stock
ownership
is
held
by
members
of
my
family
related
within
the
third
degree,
and
myself.
AA
Therefore,
I
have
a
significant
peculinary
interest
in
my
private
employment
for
the
utility,
my
Associated
stock
ownership
and
my
co-owners
of
HRT
Inc,
which
are
relatives
within
the
third
degree
and
the
utility
as
my
employer
pursuant
to
NRS
281
a
these
regulations,
the
four
that
were
listed
propose
increased
certain
fees
to
water
utility
companies
such
as
Pahrump
utility
company.
Therefore,
in
an
abundance
of
caution,
I
will
be
abstaining
from
these
four
items.
Thank
you.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
any
opposed,
nay
and
any
abstentions
abstain.
So
we
have
an
abstention
from
assembly
Manhattan.
Everyone
else
voted
in
favor,
so
those
four
regulations
are
approved
a
little
bit.
It
knocked
a
little
little
group
out
for
us.
So
at
this
time
we'll
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
top
of
the
list,
and
we
will
start
with
consideration
of
r024-20
Division
of
Child
and
Family
Services
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services.
A
S
Actually,
pardon
me
thank
you.
Mr
chair,
part
of
it
was
answered.
One
was
how
come
we're
hearing
it
when
it's
more
than
two
years
old.
Two
question
was
why
now
for
a
bill
that
was
passed
in
2017?
Are
we
just
getting
the
regulations
and
I
had
a
couple
other
little
questions,
one
of
me
so
I
don't
know
if
those
really
questions
that
for
you
guys
to
answer,
but
because
there
was
an
extension
given
I
wasn't
aware
of
that.
AB
AB
The
last
time
that
this
regulation
was
enacted
was
in
1996.,
so
the
passing
of
ab472
required
regulations
to
be
done
at
with
Knack
62h.
However,
due
to
the
size
of
the
regulation,
it
was
a
complete
rewrite
that
took
the
state
close
to
two
years
to
rewrite
it
before
it
was
submitted
to
LCB
for
for
the
process.
S
Well,
that's
a
good
explanation
seems
completely
reasonable.
The
other
question
just
maybe
because
of
the
size
of
it
and
the
because
it
hasn't
been
updated
since
96,
it
seemed
excessively
onerous
when
I
went
through
the
list.
It
was
like
good
grief.
You
guys
have
to
list
stuff
that
was
never
required
in
the
past
and
broken
down
about
50
different
categories
and
I
got
the
distinct
impression
that
it
was
almost
like.
S
So
I
don't
know,
do
you
want
to
I
mean
that's
just
a
kind
of
a
general
statement
after
reading
this
thing,
it
was
kind
of
like
the
whole
anti-cop
thing
came
down
on
your
head
too,
and
you
guys
have
to
now
jump
through
some
really,
in
my
opinion,
excessive
Hoops
to
to
supply
all
sorts
of
information.
Then,
in
the
past
you
certainly
weren't
required
to
supply.
AC
And
thank
you
for
the
question
chair
through
you
to
you:
Senator
Hanson,
Cindy,
pitlock,
administrator,
Division
of
Child
and
Family
Services.
AC
Thank
you
for
noticing
that
I
I
don't
know
that
I
agree
or
disagree,
but
I
can
certainly
say
that
all
of
the
stakeholders
participated
in
two
public
workshops
and
three
public
hearings,
and
we
really
had
great
engagement
and
all
came
to
a
consensus
of
what
we
really
wanted
to
see
in
a
regulation
moving
forward.
It's
our
pleasure
to
provide
information
and
Reporting
information
to
this
body
and
any
other
body
that
is
entitled
to
that
information.
Is
it
onerous
I
don't
know?
AC
Maybe
it
is
maybe
it
isn't,
but
we're
happy
to
serve
and
I
think
this
was
a
a
process
that
was
embraced
by
teams
and
teams
of
people
that
we
all
came
to
consensus
and
we're
happy
to
move
it
forward.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
this
body
for
granting
us
the
extension
on
September
the
27th,
because
covid
really
did
get
us
and
we're
happy
to
move
it
forward.
Well,.
AB
Leslie
biddleston
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
use
NRS
62a.030,
so
that
is
still
the
interest
that
defines
child
okay,.
S
I
was
just
wondering
because
you
know
we
talked
child.
My
mind
is
a
little
kid
once
you
hit
16
17
18
call
him
a
child
I
understand
for
legal
reasons,
but
mentally
for
somebody
that
reviews
these
regulations.
In
many
cases
you're
dealing
with
some
fairly
hardened
Criminal
Kids.
You
know
that
are
17
and
a
half
18
right
on
that
border.
So
thank
you.
Mr,
chair
for
your
Indulgence.
A
A
R024-20
is
approved
that
takes
us
to
the
next
regulation
for
consideration,
which
is
r075-21
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles,
and
hopefully
we
have
somebody
with
us
to
speak
on
that.
I
can't
tell
there
I
see
someone
coming
to
the
table
in
Carson,
City
and
I'm,
not
sure
who
had
a
question
on
this
one
I,
don't
think
it
was
anyone
in
Las
Vegas,
but
hopefully
with
somebody
in
Carson
City.
AD
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
for
being
here,
I,
actually,
not
not
so
much
a
question
as
I
do
want
to
clarify
the
the
regs
are
lowering
the
fees.
If
I've
got
that
right,
they
dropped
it
down,
which
I
think
is
a
good
thing.
I
wasn't
a
fan
of
this
bill,
but
I
I
I
do
see
that
the
fees
have
gone
down,
so
am
I
correct
on
that
they
went
from
ten
to
two
dollars
for
the
inspector
and
then
the
from
a
third
to
a
fourth
time
for
registration.
Is
that
correct.
AE
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Martin
Heffner
with
the
research
and
project
management,
division
of
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles.
Yes,
Assembly
women
are
correct.
AD
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Additional
questions.
Before
we
take
a
motion.
I,
don't
hear
additional
questions.
I
would
take
a
motion
move
to
approved.
We
have
a
motion
from
Assembly
women,
Royal
Marino,
a
second
from
Senator
candizarro.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Hearing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye.
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
okay
motion
carries
r0175
-2-1
is
approved,
thank
you
for
being
here
that
takes
us
next
to
r077-21
the
director
of
the
State
Department
of
Agriculture,
who
I
think
looks
like
we
have
on
Zoom.
So
thank
you
for
joining
us
and
I
again.
I
think
the
question
was
from
either
Senator
or
assemblywoman
Hanson,
so
we'll
go
up
there
for
the
question
on
this
regulation.
S
Actually,
Senator
Hanson.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair
on
the
pest
control,
stuff,
I'm.
Sorry,
somebody
there
yeah
the
question
I
had
was
in
the
regulations
you
have
to
have
this
license.
Is
there
an
exemption
and
I
couldn't
find
it
for
federal
people,
specifically
wildlife
services?
I
noticed
you
in
there
I
mean
you
mentioned:
I
saw
an
existing
regs.
There
were
several
things
that
I'm
just
wondering.
Are
we
sure
that
we're
not
overlapping,
trying
to
make
the
federal
guys
get
state
licenses
or
something
with
this.
AF
Good
afternoon
for
the
record
Megan
Brown
Nevada
Department
of
Agriculture
I'm,
the
Deputy
Administrator
for
the
plant
health
and
compliance
Division
I
also
have
Brett
Allen,
who
is
the
program
manager
for
that
program?
If
there's
more
specific
questions
that
you
have
Senator,
there
is
regulation
for
operators
and
licensees
for
government
operators,
so
that
could
be
County
government
or
federal
BLM
forest
service.
That
type
of
thing
that
would
do
applications
if
they
were
going
to
be
using
restricted
use.
Pesticides
is
that
is
that
what
you're,
asking
or.
S
AG
Hello,
Brett
Allen
for
the
record
correct.
We
we
just
updated
the
testing
standards.
It's
still
the
same
certificate
it'll
still
allow
those
applicators
to
to
do
that
type
of
treatment
with
just
that
state
regulation.
Again
we
just
adopted
the
new
federal
standards,
so
they
will
only
have
to
get
the
state
certificate
and
it
still
will
allow
them
to
to
use
that
product.
S
Okay,
so
I'm
just
a
little
confused
on
what
this,
what
this
is
intended
to
do
normally
so
in
the
past,
they've
always
had
to
get
a
state
license
to
to
do.
You
know:
Predator
control,
type
things.
AG
S
Next
question
on
on
the
pesticides
themselves:
for
example,
in
the
Reno
Sparks
area,
there
are
a
bunch
of
little
pest
control
companies
that
go,
and
you
know,
kill
pigeons
and
skunks
and
raccoons,
and
people's
attics
and
stuff
like
that.
S
Is
there
anything
in
this
that
would
require
them
to
get
a
license
from
you
guys,
I
mean
after
reading,
I'm,
not
sure.
What's
the
definition
of
pests,
pesticides
and
whether
or
not
it
applies
to
vertebrae
like
you
know,
skunk
or
a
pigeon
or
something.
AG
Yes,
they
do
have
to
get
licensed
with
Department
of
Agriculture
to
do
that
type
of
work
that
custom
Pest
Control
work
for
hire.
They
must
study
and
get
qualified
primary
principles
which
are
usually
the
business
owners.
They
must
get
a
background
check
as
part
of
the
the
state
regulations.
They
must
be
licensed
through
us
to
show
competency
that
they
know
what
they're
doing
with
those
chemicals.
AG
So
so
so
yes,
a
pesticide
is
a
substance
or
a
mixture
of
substances
used
to
treat
to
mitigate
control
or
destroy
any
pests,
and
yes,
they
need
to
get
licensed,
and
that
did
not
change
mostly
what
changed
through
through
r077-2-1,
where
the
the
testing
standards
and
again
we're
just
meeting
that
Federal
Regulation.
That
was
recently
updated.
So
in
the
past,
yes,
they
were
required
to
get
licensed.
That
is
still
the
same.
Testing
standards
did
were
adjusted
a
little
bit
and
that's
where
we're
meeting
that
Federal
requirement.
Okay,.
S
I
know
I
was
I
was
unclear,
it's
already
an
existing
pattern,
so
I
wasn't
aware
of
that.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
adding
a
new
layer
of
of
laws
and
so
forth
that
we
have
to
get
so.
That's
all
my
questions
thanks
Mr
chair.
A
A
That
takes
us
next
to
our
129-21,
the
commission,
for
common
interest
communities
and
condominium
hotels
and
committee
members.
I
will
alert
you
if
you
didn't
notice,
I
think
the
original
materials
we
received
a
while
back
had
an
incorrect
version
of
the
regulation,
and
so
there
should
be
a
correct
version
on
your
desk
and
I
believe
that
was
emailed
to
commission
members
as
well.
A
So
you
just
want
to
make
sure
you're
working
off
of
that
one
when
it
comes
to
the
questions
and
again,
I
believe
I'm,
not
sure
who
it
was
I
think
it
was
someone
in
Carson
City
who
had
a
question
so
when
you're
ready
just
please
go
ahead
and
ask
the
question:
we
have
our
presenter
down
here
in
Las
Vegas.
If
you
can't
tell
on
the
screen.
A
S
Mr
chair
everybody's
kind
of
got
the
same
feelings
about
it.
I
think
a
couple
of
questions.
One
would
be
just
a
general
statement:
the
HOA
regulation.
S
There
are
3
600
HOAs
now
in
Nevada,
with
600
000
units
Mr
chair,
as
you
know,
since
you
and
I
chaired
the
chair
of
Judiciary,
the
HOAs
are
the
issue
from
hell
when
it
comes
to
us
and
I
want
to
put
a
little
plug
into
since
you're
going
to
be
the
speaker.
Congratulations
that
we
make
a
concerted
effort
to
push
this
back
down
to
the
county
and
City
levels
where
it
properly
belongs.
S
A
Yeah
Senator,
we
do
have
someone
down
here
in
Las
Vegas.
So
if
you
have
questions
you
can
go
ahead
and
ask
them
and
we'll
see
if
we
can
get
them
answered.
Okay,.
S
Well,
that's
the
first
question:
is
anybody
from
the
ombudsman's
office
here
and
what
is
the?
What
is
the
current
Staffing
level
of
that
office?
Because
if
you
have
600
000
units
to
look
after
and
3
600
separate
homeowners
associations,
you
got
a
big
project
on
your
hands.
AH
Good
afternoon
Mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
sharat
Chandra
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division,
so
the
ombudsman's
office
rolls
under
the
Nevada
real
estate
division.
So,
as
the
administrator
I
can
answer
those
questions,
so
the
ombudsman's
office
is
staffed.
AH
So
the
Staffing,
as
you
probably
already
know,
comes
from
a
door
fee
that
we
collect
per
unit
and
as
the
associations
grow,
so
does
you
know
some
of
the
revenue
coming
in,
but
what
we
try
to
do
is
be
be
cognizant
of
how
much
we
collect
and
how
much
we
have
budgeted
for
Staffing
and
all
those
yes,
it
is
a
lot.
But
again
you
have
to
understand.
AH
There's
you
know,
like
you,
said:
600
000
people,
but
the
issues
are
kind
of
you
know
limited
to
when
people
have
problems
with
their
associations
or
those
kind
of
things,
and
so
the
ombudsman's
office
is
the
way
we
look
at.
It
is
like
a
filter.
The
ombudsman's
office
uses
whatever
resources.
They
have
whether
looking
at
the
regulations
of
the
statutes
and
helping
them
navigate
through
them,
working
with
the
associations
working
with
the
community
managers
and
kind
of
resolving
those
problems,
and
if
there's
something
that
happens,
that
is
serious
enough.
AH
Then
that's
referred
to
the
compliance
section
and
we've
got
a
compliance
section
with
a
chief
and
four
five
compliance
section:
investigators
that
take
those
matters
further.
So
that's
really
kind
of
how
that
works
and
we've
also
got
an
ADR
program,
and
we
also
got
an
informal
conferencing
program
so
and
then,
of
course,
there's
a
seven
member
cic
commission
that
eventually
would
decide
on
some
of
these
disciplinary
actions
if
it
does
get
to
the
commission.
So
it
is
a
lot
of
work.
AH
It's
a
lot
of
triage
and
we
appreciate
the
the
support
but
yeah
we've
got
competent
staff,
but,
like
any
other
state
agency,
I
think
right
now
we're
struggling
with
Staffing
and
that
the
vacancy
rate
is
reflective
that
but
other
than
that
we're
we've
added
one
or
two
positions
in
the
last
session,
and
so
we
may
eventually
look
to
it,
but
right
now,
I
think
we're
okay.
Thank
you.
S
Thanks
for
that,
and
the
only
problem
with
your
answer
is
it's
not
600
000
people,
it's
six
hundred
thousand
units
with
probably
an
average
of
What
two
to
three
people,
so
you're
talking
well
over
a
million
million
people
that
you
guys
get
to
deal
with
the
HOA
issue.
So
it's
a
it's
a
very
large
problem
and
I
I'm
Mr
chair
my
biggest
my
biggest
concern.
Frankly,
is
you
just
these
guys
are
overwhelmed
and
then
so
much
of
that
falls
back
on
us
because
they
have
to
get
our
approval
and
we
meet
for
four
months.
S
A
Senator
Hansen
I
will
say
we
have
some
of
our
County
folks
down
here
in
the
audience,
and
I
was
trying
to
gauge
their
reaction
to
your
suggestion,
but
they
are
very
Poker
Face
about
how
they
feel
about
that
suggestion.
So
there's.
A
A
A
A
V
Thank
you.
So,
in
reading
this
I
was
a
little
founded
a
little
disconcerting.
Some
of
the
wording
changes
because
I
think
they
substantially
changed
the
threshold
for
involuntary
medication
of
citizens,
where
it
used
to
say,
is
unable
to
care
for
him
or
himself
or
herself.
V
It's
being
changed
to
is
that
serious
risk
of
incurring
injuries
and
so
on?
It
just
seems
to
me
that
that
removes
a
requirement
and
replaces
it
with
you
know,
potentially
a
hypothetical
situation
whereby
just
about
anyone
could
be
Force
medicated
and
I
would
just
like
to
understand
why
this
language
change.
AI
Foreign
chair
and
members
of
commission,
this
is
Joe
Malay
for
record
I'm,
Deputy
Administrator
at
the
division
of
public
and
Behavioral
Health.
So
what
this
proposed?
The
changes
who
are
around
these
regulations
were
actually
that
those
individuals
that
have
been
actually
court-ordered
admitted
to
a
public
or
private
mental
health
facility
is
for
the
administration
of
medication
to
them.
AI
What
the
clarifying
language
that
you
just
mentioned
really
did
was
clarify
for
the
providers
exactly
what
is
a
criteria
for
administration
of
medication,
so
it
actually
gave
more
definition
to
what
harm
to
self
or
others
would
include
before
it
was
felt
it
was
too
generalized
and
actually
that,
being
too
generalized
of
language
would
mean
that
those
client
rights
may
come
into
question,
so
it
had
to
have
clarifying
language
of
what
actually
serious
harm
to
self
or
others
really
included.
V
Well,
thank
you
for
that
explanation.
I
would
just
say,
though,
that
is
at
serious
risk
of
is
pretty
open
to
someone's
interpretation
as
opposed
to
is
these
things.
AI
V
AI
I
I
think
what
I
can
offer
to.
You
is
the
explanation
that
the
team
of
evaluators
psychiatrist,
ecologists
and
others
for
the
treatment
team
of
someone
who
is
on
court
ordered
they
must
provide
testimony
to
why
this
individual
needs
involuntary
administration
of
medication
and
also
why
they
meet
the
criteria
for
a
court-ordered
admission
to
a
facility.
So
it
also
not
only
is
it
a
clinical
decision,
but
it
has
to
be
Court
approved
as
well.
A
Thank
you
and
I
think
that
was
just
going
to
be
my
clarifying
question
and
I
think
you
answered
it,
but
just
just
so
it's
clear
we're
not
through
this
regulation
you're
not
changing
the
necessity
to
have
judicial
approval
for
this
process.
You're.
You
know
perhaps
trying
to
clarify
what
the
standard
is,
but
the
individual
in
question
is
still
going
to
have
the
due
process
of
a
court
hearing
and
a
Judicial
determination.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Assemblyman
Haven,.
AA
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
I,
just
when
the
statute
came
forward
to
Health
and
Human
Services
I
had
some
concerns
with
the
involuntary
medication
of
of
individuals,
because
the
the
original
language
in
the
res
regulations,
I
think,
was
unclear,
and
you
know
the
portions
that
Were
Striking
is
unable
to
care
for
him
or
herself
and
and
now
we're
actually
giving
a
little
bit
of
a
better
definition
of
of
what
those
circumstances
are.
AA
I
think
that
the
practitioners
need
that
and
so
I
do
appreciate
the
fact
that
we're
we're
making
it
to
where
you
know
it's
a
serious
risk
based
on
complete
neglect
and
so
I,
just
just
want
to
clarify
that
we're
really
making
this
more
stringent
and
clarifying
it
again.
I
had
serious
concerns
when
this
came
forward
during
the
Health
and
Human
Services
committee,
because
it
was
it
wasn't
very
clear,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
that.
AA
AI
I'm,
like
for
the
record,
yes,
that's
exactly
the
intent
and
during
public
Workshop
when
we
met
with
the
Nevada
Psychiatric
association,
the
providers
really
did
request
for
more
clarification
on
on
specificity
of
what
neglect
and
safety
and
reducing
harm
to
self
or
others
really
meant,
and
so
this
helps
with
that
language.
AI
We
also
had
advice
from
the
Nevada
disability
advocacy,
Law
Center
and
the
Nevada
ACLU
on
that
as
well,
that
it
really
did
help
Define
and
clarify
what
would
help
you
know
harm
to
stop
for
others.
When
we
met.
AA
A
If
there
is
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
nay,
okay,
I
think
we
had
a
nay
from
assembly,
woman,
Dickman
I
think
that's
the
only
one
I
heard
if
there's
another
Nay,
please
let
me
know:
okay,
not
hearing
anyone
that
motion
does
pass
so
r009-22
is
approved.
Thank
you
to
our
presenters
for
being
here.
That'll
take
us
now
to
r037-22.
This
is
also
a
State
Board
of
Health
regulation
and
I.
Believe
assemblywoman
Hanson
had
a
question
on
this
one.
A
Once
we
get
our
presenter
here,
I
can't
tell
if
there's
someone
in
Carson
City
or
on
Zoom.
So
if
you're
here
for
that
regulation,
here
we
go
looks
like
we
have
zoom
firing
up.
Thank
you
for
being
here.
Thank
you
for
your
patience.
Assemblywoman
Hanson.
Did
you
have
a
question
on
this
one.
A
AD
AD
A
Right:
okay,
no
problem
at
all.
Let
me
just
ask:
are
there
any
other
questions
on
this
regulation?
A
A
If
there
is
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
okay
motion
carries
r037-22
is
approved
and
thank
you
to
our
presenter
for
your
patience
this
afternoon.
A
A
S
Thanks
Mr
chair
it
was
it
deals
with
section
14.
where
they
changed
the
definitions
of
what
is
considered
Chiropractic
services
that
are
allowed
to
be
performed
by
I,
guess
a
non-veterinarian.
What's
the
reason
for
this
change
in
regulations
seems
like
it's
getting
much
more
onerous
on
people
that
want
to
do
Chiropractic
on
horses
or
whatever?
What's
the
reasoning
behind
it.
AJ
Thank
you,
Jennifer
Pedigo
I'm,
the
director
with
the
Nevada
Veterinary
board.
The
definition
was
the
the
update
to
the
changes
were
brought
to
us
by
animal
chiropractors.
They
wanted
a
more
accurate
description
of
their
practice.
The
previous
definition
was
very
short
and
specific
to
the
treatment
that
was
included
specifically
musculoskeletal
disorders.
The
intent
was
just
to
update
it
more
in
line
with
the
practice
of
animal
Chiropractic.
It
doesn't
change
any
of
the
licensing
requirements
or
anything
like
that.
S
S
S
AJ
Thank
you,
Jennifer
pedico
again
for
the
record.
The
intent
of
that
and
the
clarification
changes
that
were
made
in
this
section
are
based
in
the
creation
of
the
mobile
clinic
definition.
So
when
it
was
first
created,
the
intent
was
that
or
the
idea
was
that
they
would
be
full
service
mobile
clinics.
What
happened
in
actuality
was
as
more
popular
now
it's
a
sole
vehicle
that
travels
two
locations:
homes,
ranches
Etc,
to
give
Services.
The
reason
for
the
deletion
is
not
that
it's
an
exemption
and
I'm
sorry
I'm
still
trying
to
find
it.
AJ
As
I'm
speaking,
you
said
section
13,.
AJ
So
again,
that
that
doesn't
change
or
it
doesn't
eliminate
the
requirement
that
a
veterinarian,
who
has
a
solely
mobile
practice,
has
to
receive
a
registration
with
our
office.
It
just
clarifies
later
in
the
additions
that
the
treatment
cite
versus
with
a
vehicle,
a
truck
is
different
from,
say,
a
full-service
mobile
clinic.
J
Mr
chair,
if
I
could
follow
up
on
that
Senator
greikachu,
just
maybe
I,
can
clarify
it
a
little
bit.
How
clearly
this
would
not
most.
These
vets,
you
know,
have
a
vet
back
on
which
would,
if
I,
if
they're
doing
preg,
testing
or
field
work
again.
This
would
not
impact
them
at
all.
This
is
only
to
the
extent
that
they
are
using
this
mobile
unit
as
a
treatment
center
as
well
a
treatment
site
and
so
technically
you're
not
supposed
to
spay
and
neuter
on
the
tailgate.
S
J
Again,
maybe
I
should
abstain
from
voting
on
this
particular
egg,
but
no
I
I
think
that's
the
clarification.
Clearly
they
all
run
betpacks
and
what
and
again
I
think
as
you
get
farther
into
it.
Clearly,
if
it's
something
that's
necessary
to
save
the
life
of
the
animal,
then
again
it
can
be
done
with
a
vet
pack
and
not
not.
J
You
know,
actually
violate
this
law.
For
this.
A
Well
so
far,
Senator
gokichia
has
the
quote
of
the
meeting,
I,
think
technically
no
spaying
or
neutering
on
the
back
of
the
tailgate
in
case
you
weren't
listening
any
any
questions
and
if
not
I
would
take
a
motion.
A
Was
that
a
motion
to
approve
foreign?
We
have
a
motion
to
approve
from
assembly
woman,
Monroe
Marina.
We
have
a
second
from
Senator
canizarro.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Hearing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
all
right
motion
carries
r082-22
is
approved.
Thank
you
for
being
here
to
answer
questions
and,
let's
make
sure
I
get
on
the
right
page.
A
J
I
believe
it
was
pulled
right
at
the
end.
On
the
last,
at
least
that's
what
I
had
we
tried.
He
tried
to
pull
it.
I
know
he
requested
it
School
our.
D
S
Chair
we'll
go
to
92.
the
eight.
The
88
was
a
real,
simple
question.
So
I
don't
know
if
the
if
the
regulatory
people
are
still
here
for
that
one
or
not,
but
my
apologies
I
thought
we
did
pull
it.
You
want
to
go
to
r092
22
all
right.
Let
me
jump
to
that
real
quick
and
that
one
was
but
oh,
is
that
the
music
therapy,
one
smokers.
S
there
I
got
it
I
got
it
I
got
it.
My
apologies
trying
to
remember
what
I
was
asking
here
holding,
oh,
that
this
is
the
one
Mr
chair,
I'm,
not
sure,
if
the
an
agency,
guys
here
or
not,
this
is
the
one
where
they
they.
If
they
have
money
in
the
in
a
school
account
that
it
has
to
be
transferred
back
to
the
state,
if
it's
greater
than
16.6
threshold
is
that
from
statute
or
what
are
the
16.6
come
from.
A
W
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
Asher,
Killian,
Chief,
Deputy,
legislative
Council.
Yes,
it's
NRS,
37,
1213,
subsection,
one
that
requires
budgeted,
ending
fund
balance
or
any
amount
of
money
that
exceeds
16.6
percent
of
the
budget.
Inning
fund
balance
of
a
school
district
to
be
transferred
to
the
education
stabilization
account
in
the
State
education
fund
and
I
believe
this
regulation
is
just
making
the
regulations
of
the
local
government
finance
committee
match
that
statutory
requirement.
Okay,.
A
A
S
Yes,
thanks
Mr
chair,
this
has
been
a
pet
issue
of
mine
from
the
beginning
of
this,
the
idea
that
we
actually
have
to
license
people
to
do
music
therapy
in
a
doctor's
office.
I
know
assemblywoman
Dickman,
for
example,
is
a
phenomenal
heart
player.
But
if
she's
not
licensed,
she
could
be
under
this
new
regulation,
she
could
be
potentially
prosecuted
for
practicing
music
medicine
without
a
license.
I
mean
the
I
oppose
this
I'm
going
to
vote
no
on
this
simply
because
this
is
ridiculous.
S
S
If
somebody
wants
to
come
to
a
doctor's
office
and
play
music
and
they
somehow
don't
have
the
proper
licensing
which
shouldn't
exist
in
the
first
place,
I
think
it's
an
embarrassment
to
the
state
that
we
actually
license
and
force
people
to
do
this
and
then
punish
people
who
play
musical
instruments
in
a
doctor's
office,
for
example,
just
crazy.
So,
thank
you.
Mr
chair.
A
Well,
thank
you.
Senator
Hanson
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure
if
there
was
a
question,
but
I'll
certainly
give
our
our
presenter
a
chance
to
respond
to
those
or
offer
any
insight.
You'd
like.
AK
Hello
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Leticia
medarelle
and
these
regulations
were
moved
forward.
The
first
portion
were
because
of
a
requirement
622.087,
although
I
believe
that
the
second
being
referenced
are
the
other
sections
and
nrs640d.010
was
a
legislative
declaration
that
noted
the
practice
of
music
therapy
is
hereby
declared
to
be
a
learned,
Allied,
Health
profession,
affecting
public
health
safety
and
Welfare
and
subject
to
regulation
to
protect
the
public
from
the
practice
of
music
therapy
by
unqualified
and
unlicensed
persons
and
from
unprofessional
conduct
by
persons
who
are
licensed
to
practice
music
therapy.
A
Okay,
why
don't
we
go
to
assemblyman
Hansen
if
it's
a
follow-up,
we'll
go
to
you
first
and
then
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
Dickman
next
assembly.
S
AK
AK
Ahead,
the
penalty
portions
are
not
I'm.
Sorry,
the
penalty
portions
are
not
in
dress
in
those,
they
are
actually
address
in
NRS,
640d.220
talks
about
penalties
and
then.
AK
So
an
NRS
640d
.230
says
a
person
who
violates
the
provisions
of
this
section
is
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor
so
that
criminal
charges
that's
statutory
requirement
and
then
I
believe
that
there
are
also
penalties
and
regulations.
That
I
wanted
to
point
out
the
statutory
sections
and
let
me
find
the
penalty
in
the
regulation.
Real
quick.
AL
AK
It
would
be
an
existing
regulations,
not
in
not
being
changed
here
so
I'm
just
gonna
look
up
the
ministry
code
here
for
the
penalties
in
the
Administrative
Code,
but
you
saw
that
the
misdemeanor
was
actually
a
statutory.
S
Okay-
well,
that's
fine
I!
Just
you
know
so
in
theory,
if
assemblywoman
Dickman
was
playing
her
harp
in
my
doctor's
office
and
somebody
who
was
licensed
came
and
complained
about
it,
they
could
actually
file
a
complaint
with
the
Attorney
General's
office
or
the
local
district
attorney
and
being
somewhat
of
a
independent
Spirit.
She
refuses
to
get
licensed
before
she
wants
to
play
her
harp
in
a
doctor's
office.
She
could
face
what
a
misdemeanor
six
months
in
jail
thousand
dollar
fine.
This
is
crazy.
S
So,
anyway,
I'm
sorry
I
don't
mean
to
you
know,
be
harsh
on
you.
It
wasn't
NRS
that
got
passed,
but
it's
just
crazy.
I
mean
this
is
really
really
out
there.
You're
going
to
punish
people
potentially
have
an
attorney
general
and
district
attorney
going
after
somebody
for
playing
music
in
in
a
medical
office.
Crazy
thanks,
Mr,
chair.
AK
N
A
Was
I
was
just
going
to
note
that
I
had
a
chance
to
look
up
the
legislation
assembly,
Bill
330
sponsored
by
assemblyman
Ellison,
and
it
was
unanimously
approved
by
both
houses
of
the
legislature,
so
I
certainly
understand.
There
may
be
an
issue
with
the
regulation,
but
I
don't
know
that
any
of
this
was
raised
at
the
time
that
the
bill
was
heard
and
passed.
But
now
you're
here.
S
S
S
Ellison
and
it's
unanimous
well,
there's
some
confusion
on
this
then,
but
bottom
line
is
I.
Definitely
do
not.
If
I
did
it
was
a
big
mistake
and
we're
going
to
absolutely
go
back
and
redress
that
nobody
should
get
in
trouble
for
playing
musical
instruments
in
a
doctor's
office.
Sorry
I
have
to
get
a
license
for
that
matter.
AD
Mr
chair,
it's
assembly,
woman
Hanson.
If
I
could
ask
a
clarification
question:
yes,
the
bill
you're
addressing
is
assemblyman
Ellison's
I
thought
that
was
an
occupational
licensing
bill.
As
my
memory
in
my
memory
somewhere,
there
was
an
original
music
therapy
bill,
I
wasn't
an
elected
official,
then
I
think
it
was
like
in
2013
when
musical
therapy
was
originally
licensed.
Maybe
we
could
ask
legal
to
look
that
up.
AD
If
that's
what
this
goes
back
to
originally,
because
I
know
it
did
not
start
in
2021,
so
it
looks
like
it
was
SB
190
in
2011
and
I
think
that
was
maybe
what
Senator
Hansen
was
referring
to.
So
in
regards
to
that
legislation
and
the
regs
addressing
musical
therapy.
That
I
think
is
what
I'm
having
an
issue
with.
J
A
V
Ahead,
thank
you,
I
sort
of
do,
although,
although
some
of
it
was
clarified
with
Senator
Hansen's
questioning
but
I,
don't
see
the
connection
in
this
bill
to
this
bill
to
music
therapy.
Isn't
this
General
occupational
training
and
Licensing?
Why
is
this
reg
so
specific
to
music
therapy
and
then
my
other
question
kind
of
would
be
an
exact
definition
of
what
music
therapy
is.
I
mean
I
I
play
the
harp
at
nursing
homes
a
lot,
but
I
don't
claim
to
be
treating
them
medically.
V
AK
Sorry
with
Christian
mother,
all
for
the
record,
so
nrs622.087
so
I
want
to
clarify.
There's
two
components
here
and
the
component
addressed
by
ad330
is
the
first
section:
it's
not
the
parts
about
the
complaints
where
the
concerns
were
expressed
so
I
think
there
was
a
little
confusion
there
and
then
62.087
does
note
that
each
regulatory
body
shall
adopt
regulations
to
effectuate
the
purposes
of
this
section,
and
so
we
were
required
to
move
the
regulations
forward
regarding
that
which
is
addressed
in
section
one.
But
you
are
correct.
AK
P
AK
Therapy
is
defined
in
the
statues
as
well,
and
so
Music
Therapy
Services,
Music
Services,
a
licensee
is
authorized
for
to
provide
for
something
to
nrs640d.150
and
so
there,
yes,
somebody
just
plain
music
wouldn't
be
considered
music
therapy.
So
the
authorized
services
are
listed
in
sequoi,
d.150
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
me
to
read
them
to
you,
but
there
they
are.
That
would
provide
guidance
on
that.
M
M
AA
You
Mr
chair
and,
if
I
understand
correctly
section
one
is
coming
from
assembly
Bill
330,
which,
which
was
passed
unanimously
in
both
houses,
but
the
it
sounds
like
the
concern
is,
is
coming
from
sections
two
and
three
which
I
believe
we
heard
is
coming
from
much
older
legislation
and
so
I'm
just
curious,
I
I
think
somebody
might
have
mentioned
as
early
as
2013.
Why
we're
hearing
this
now,
almost
10
years
after
that
legislation
was
approved.
AK
In
existing
language,
NAC,
640.200
and
8640
640.210
do
is
that
exist,
so
this
is
an
amendment
to
existing
language.
So
it's
not
new
language.
Being
I
mean
the
changes
are,
but
it's
not
the
whole
New
Concept
there,
so
NRS,
Victoria
d,
dot,
160
complaints,
says
deal
with
complaints
and
having
to
deal
with
complaints,
and
so
the
original
language
had
noted
upon
receipt,
a
complaint
that
a
person
is
engaging
in
the
practice
of
music
therapy
without
a
license.
AA
Mr,
chair
I
apologize
for
all
the
questions.
I
am
new
here,
just
a
quick
follow-up
and
then
I'll
relieve.
So
if
I,
if
I
understand
correctly,
we
are
going
from
a
basically
a
cease
and
desist
which
we're
saying
you're
guilty.
You
have
to
stop
to
a
now.
The
agency
is
going
to
investigate
and
assume
they
are
innocent
until
proven
guilty,
and
so,
if
I,
if
I,
am
understanding
correctly
section
two
now.
S
Go
ahead.
Sender
thanks.
Mr
chair
section,
two
definitely
deals
with
music
there.
In
fact:
the
existing
law
upon
receipt
of
a
complaint
that
a
person
is
engaging
in
the
practice
of
music
therapy
without
a
license,
then
it
goes
through
all
the
steps.
So
section
two
is
all
about
music
therapy,
while
section
one
does
deal
with
the
bill
from
2021.
The
other
section
goes
much
further
back.
The
original
bill,
I,
remember,
being
opposed
to
is
actually
by
Mo
Dennis
and
I
swear
that
I,
don't
think.
S
I
was
in
the
Senate
at
the
time,
so
it
might
have
been
2017
somewhere
right
around
there,
but
anyway,
I
don't
know
I,
just
I
don't
want
to
beat
this
thing
to
death,
but
I
just
think.
The
whole
concept
is
really
odd
that
we
would
actually
come
up
with
a
with
a
mechanism
to
punish
people
for
playing
musical
instruments
without
a
license.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I'm,
going
to
perform
CPR
right
now,
bring
this
thing
back
to
life
I
like
to
ask
just
a
clarifying
question,
because
it
sounds
like
we're
stuck
on
the
difference
between
somebody
playing
music
in
a
doctor's
office
and
somebody
practicing
therapy.
There
is
a
difference
between
those
two
am
I
correct.
AK
Yeah
yeah
there
is
a
difference
and
the
authorized
Services
in
the
NRS
Health
explain
more.
What
music
therapy
is
so
just
playing
music
is
not
music
therapy.
D
Okay,
so
my
good
friend
Senator
Harris,
shows
up
at
my
doctor's
office
and
she's
playing
the
Qatar
and
beatboxing
and
that's
okay.
Right
I
mean
no
one's
gonna
get
in
trouble
for
that
no
one's
going
to
come
in
and
investigate
and
say
what
are
you
doing?
They
may
criticize
her
abilities,
but
not
necessarily
get
her
in
trouble.
AK
So
I
hope
nobody
in
the
doctor's
office
would
complain.
If
we
received
a
complaint,
we
would
do
an
investigation
to
make
sure
that
you
know
that
wasn't
the
practice
of
music
therapy
and
that's
why
the
regulation
was
amended
to
cause
that
investigation
instead
of
just
directly
going
to
the
direct
cease
synthesis.
So
hopefully
we
don't
get
a
complaint.
A
Z
Mr
chair
I'd
just
like
to
make
sure
the
record
reflects
Senator,
Hammond
and
I
are
not
good
friends.
Thank
you.
Q
AD
J
AD
Mr
Mr,
chair,
I,
was
really
trying
to
I
was
getting
there.
I
was
almost
there
until
we
had
the
the
final
clarification
on
what
is
music
therapy.
If
a
person
can
be
investigated,
I
thought
we
were
there
that
a
person
who
plays
in
an
office
not
necessarily
practicing
music
therapy,
but
it
sounds
like
they
could
be
investigated
if
there
was
a
complaint,
so
yeah
I'm
gonna
have
to
be
a
no
on
this.
It's
still
a
little
too
wonky.
For
me,
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
let's
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote,
so
all
of
those
all
of
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
if
you're
opposed,
please
say,
nay,.
AM
A
Nay,
okay,
I
think
I,
think
I
heard
Nays
from
Senator
Hanson
assemblywoman,
Hanson,
Senator,
gokuchia,
assemblywoman,
Dickman
I
think
those
are
the
only
Nays
I
heard,
but
can
someone
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong?
Okay,
all
right?
So
after
all
that
discussion,
the
motion
does
carry
eight
by
a
margin
of
eight
to
four.
The
regulation
R
94-22
is
approved.
Thank
you
for
being
here
to
answer
all
of
our
questions.
A
Okay,
commission.
We
have
I,
think
a
few
more
regulations
to
get
through
and
then
the
rest
of
the
agenda
so
onward
we
go.
The
next
up
is
r163-22.
This
is
the
commissioner
of
insurance,
a
regulation,
Reviving
Provisions
related
to
Medicare,
supplement
policies
and
I.
Think
our
question
on
this
one
is
from
assemblywoman
houdegi.
Yes,.
AM
It
is
sure
thing
much
and
this
regulation
carry
during
the
last
legislative
session
ab250
and
so
I
just
wanted
some
clarification
from
the
commissioner's
office.
If,
by
approving
this
regulation,
it
will
bring
Clarity
to
how
Insurance
Insurance
Producers
get
paid,
it
was
my
intent
when
I
introduced
ab250
that
insurers
get
paid
Insurance
Producers
get
paid
as
a
renewal
so
that
they
would
be
incentivized
to
help
senior
citizens
on
fixed
income,
get
into
cheaper
supplement
plans,
and
so
could
you?
Let
me
know
if
this
regulation
does
that
I
know.
AM
AN
AN
What
would
be
called
new
business
commission
where
it
says
it
can
be
no
more
than
200
percent
of
compensation,
that's
paid
on
second
year
and
then
part
three
of
that
section
of
code
discusses,
what's
called
a
renewal
and
again
that
section
of
code
puts
on
a
cap,
and
it
currently
says
that
a
producer
should
not
accept
compensation,
that's
greater
than
the
compensation
for
Renewal
that
would
have
been
paid
by
replacing
insurer
on
renewal.
AN
So
it
it
limits
the
amount
of
of
compensation
that
can
be
paid,
but
there
is
no
minimum
amount
of
what
that
would
be.
So
this
would
not
address
the
issues.
I
know,
producers
that
are
having
where
some
carriers
have
been
dropping.
The
commission
level
on
these
birthday.
Replacements
we've
heard
some
down
to
one
percent
and
it
would
not
impact
this
because
the
the
current
code
does
not
set
a
minimum
amount
of
compensation.
It
just
says
the
maximum
amount
is
it
can't
be
paid
more
than
what
would
be
considered
in
a
normal
renewal
compensation.
AM
Okay
and
Mr
one
more
question
so
then
I
know
that
there's
a
discrepancy
in
how
insurance
companies
are
paying
for
the
the
policy
of
someone
switches
from
a
gap,
one
Gap
policy
to
another.
AM
AM
AN
Something
on
how
to
get
again
Nick
stosik
for
the
record.
Currently,
to
my
knowledge,
this
is
the
only
part
anywhere
in
Nevada
law
that
actually
addresses
compensation
to
producers
and
again
this
comes
from
federal
law,
which
is
really
designed
to
make
sure
that
agents
aren't
encouraged
to
replace
policies
because
they
can
make
a
higher
level
of
compensation
there's
nowhere
else
in
Nevada
statutes
where
there
is
a
specific
amount
or
a
minimum
amount
of
of
compensation
that
exists.
AM
A
A
Hearing
no
discussion,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
aye
aye
any
oppose
n
a
okay
motion
carries
r163-22
is
approved.
Thank
you
for
being
here
and
commission.
I
realized
I
skipped
over
one
that
we
should
have
pulled
through
and
slightly
out
of
order,
we're
going
to
go
back
to
that
regulation,
but
the
good
news
is
I
think
we
only
have
two
more
to
discuss,
but
we'll
go
back
now
to
r096-22.
A
S
Thanks
Mr
chair
I'm,
trying
to
go
back
here,
real
quick,
the
question
I
had
is
something
to
say
fire
Marsh
number
one
do
you
have
any
is
this
in?
Why
are
you
guys
dealing
with
endangered
Flora?
Is
that
something
that
normally
is
in
your
I
mean
I
thought
fire
wardens
dealt
with
fires,
but
apparently
you
guys
do
with
plant
communities
and
endangered
species
as
well.
AO
Afternoon,
chair
and
commission
members,
my
name
is
Ryan
Shane
for
the
record
I'm
a
Deputy
Administrator
with
the
division
of
Forestry,
and
yes,
we
deal
with
range
lands,
forests
and
watersheds
throughout
the
state,
including
the
protection
of
all
Native
Flora
within
those
areas,
and
so
the
regulations
in
which
we
most
edited
in
this
proposed
regulation
have
to
do
with
the
list
of
fully
protected
species.
Those
are
the
most
protected
species
that
we
deal
with.
S
S
That
allegedly
was
on
the
endangered
species
list
and
it
was
a
Pioneer
I
believe
and
anyway
they
shut
down
the
entire
project
and
fenced
this
all
off
and
I'm
in
an
economically
depressed
County
here
and
over
20
acres
of
Buckwheat
that
had
a
very
slight
genetic
difference
from
some
other
types
of
Buckwheat.
In
the
meantime,
I
should
add
that
it
got
down
to
10
acres,
because
apparently
the
roots
of
this
particular
buckwheat
is
very
good
and
the
ground
squirrels
and
the
Gophers
are
reading
it
and
that's
why
it
was
disappearing.
S
The
question
is:
every
Basin
in
Nevada
I
mean
literally,
everyone
has
some
slight
genetic
variation,
I've
seen
it
in
snakes
and
horny
toads
lizards,
slight
variations.
Is
it
possible
for
somebody
who
wants
to
basically
block
a
project
to
go
into
a
valley,
any
interested
person
and
force
you
guys
to
do
an
investigation
of
five
acres
of
Buckwheat
or
Lizards
or
whatever,
with
a
slight
variation,
Genetically
speaking
and
potentially
call
those
things
endangered
species?
Well,.
AO
For
the
record
running
chain,
with
division
of
Forestry,
Senator
Hansen,
thanks
for
the
question,
the
statute
requires
us
to
prevent
species
from
going
to
going
extinct,
and
so
there's
a
series
of
regulations
and
statutes
that
pertain
to
this
thing.
AO
No
doubt
any
any
law
or
regulation
could
probably
be
misused
by
somebody
for
ill
harm
to
another
person.
If,
if
it's,
you
know
not
developed
well
or
handled
well
by
the
agency
handling
the
regulation,
in
this
case
to
honor
our
statutory
requirement
to
prevent
Extinction
of
a
rare
plant,
we
are
to
collect
information
and
we
don't
want
to
restrict
the
where
that
information
comes
from
necessarily.
AO
But
it
is
upon
us
to
validate
that
information
before
we
act
upon
our
ability
to
change
the
regulation,
add
or
remove
a
species
from
the
regulation
the
way
it's
written
now,
so
you
know
ill
intent.
We
hope
to
detect
that
and
get
down
to
the
facts
and
make
good
decisions
for
projects
that
support
our
economy
as
well
as
those
plants
that
are
out
there
that
we're
charged
with
protecting
I
hope,
I
answered
your
question.
If
I
didn't
you.
S
Did
what's
the
typical
turnaround
time
on
on
if,
for
example,
I
file,
a
complaint
like
I'm
talking,
Eye
and
Ear
down
in
Esmeralda,
County,
Silver,
Peak
range
and
I
find
a
slight
genetic
variation
of
Buckwheat
and
I
come
to
the
State
Fire
Marshal's
office
or
State
Fire
Warden.
Excuse
me:
what's
your
typical
turnaround
time
from
the
time
I
investigate
it
to
the
time
that
you
actually
make
a
ruling
and
and
secondly,
in
that
window
of
time,
will
you
stop
a
project
like
eye
near
from
going
forward.
AO
For
the
record
drying
chain,
with
Nevada
division
of
Forestry
Senator
Hansen,
that
time
frame
is
pretty
variable.
What
we
did
is
we
expanded
the
time
frame
for
us
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
we
would
pursue
action
to
90
days
from
30.
So
we
don't
have
to
make
a
rash
decision
and
we
can
have
plenty
of
time
to
gather
the
facts
to
protect
this
any
any
species.
AO
Under
this
regulation
it
either
has
to
go
through
emergency
regulation,
amendment
process
which
is
afforded
in
statute
or
it
can
go
through
temporary
or
it
can
go
through
permanent.
So
it's
a
challenging
situation
with
these
plants
being
listed
within
the
regulation,
but
that
also
affords
us
a
calmness
and
deliberation
upon
which
we
can
act
I
think
decisively
in
such
a
way
that
we
protect
people
from
ill
harm.
AO
The
time
frames
can
be
variable
because,
like
you
said
now,
people
are
using
genetics,
and
so
you
have
to
send
these
things
off
to
a
lab
and
and
get
things
analyzed.
So
you
know
some
species
are
cut
and
dry
in
terms
of
there's
not
much.
You
know
Financial
or
other
social
impacts,
economic
Etc
and
they're.
Not
going
to
inhibit
land
use
and
it's
a
very
small
area,
those
are
pretty
easy
to
analyze
and
make
a
decision
on,
and
so
they
follow
the
the
natural
regulatory
process.
S
I
got
it
well.
Thank
you,
Mr
chair
one,
one
final
question,
and,
and
that
is
the
genetic
component,
do
you
guys
have
some
sort
of
a
because
it
seems
to
be
exceptionally
vague?
You
know
even
scientists
are
always
debating
over.
What's
a
species
and
so
forth,
what
is
the
standard?
Is
there
some
genetic
difference
level?
S
For
example,
if
you
had
a
plant,
a
buckwheat
in
Newark
Valley
and
you
go
three
valleys
over,
you
know:
Reese
River,
Valley
and
the
buckwheat
has
a
slight
genetic
variation,
even
though
most
of
us
look
at
it
and
think
it's
a
very
similar
plant,
but
you
do
find
a
genetic
difference
because
of
who
knows
how
many
thousands
years
of
of
living
and
adopting
adapting
in
two
different
things?
AO
For
the
record
rain
chain,
with
Nevada
division
of
Forestry
Senator
Hansen,
thank
you
for
the
question
again.
No
by
no,
no
doubt
there
is
a
genetic
standard
within
a
scientific
community
at
Nevada
division
of
Forestry.
We
rely
on
our
partners
at
Nevada
division
of
natural
heritage,
as
our
technical
scientific
body
within
the
department
and
within
the
state,
in
terms
of
Botany
to
help
us
make
those
kind
of
decisions.
I
do
not
know
the
genetic
standards
for
deviation
between
species
personally
certainly
be
happy
to
find
that
answer
for
you.
AO
What
I
can
say
is
it's
a
double-edged
sword?
We
may
you
know.
In
the
old
days
species
were
determined
by
physical
morphological
characteristics.
You
could
see
with
your
eye
or
microscope
today
with
genetics.
You
can't
see
those
things
physically
or
with
microscope,
and
so
you
get
this
chemical
registry
back
right.
This
is
what
you're
talking
about,
because
a
plant
may
be
three
valleys
over
and
experienced
history
in
a
different
way.
It
could
be
physically
just
slightly
different
and
some
people,
the
old
way
under
under
the
physical
determination,
may
think
that
was
a
different
species.
AO
S
Well,
that's
actually
something
positive
for
me
anyway,
all
right!
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
You
guys
have
a
rough
job.
Trying
to
you
know,
please
everybody
and
on
those
kind
of
these
kind
of
situations
scare
me
because
there's
there
there's
a
relatively
vague
factor
and
there
are
people
with
big
dollars
who
can
draw
you
through
lawsuits
and
everything
else,
trying
to
prove
what
is
and
isn't
an
endangered
species
and
hold
up
entire
economies,
and
especially
in
rural
areas.
So
it's
a
big
concern.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair.
M
A
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
nay,
okay,
I
think
I
have
an
A
from
Senator
Hansen.
That
was
the
only
one
I
heard.
If
there's
anyone
else.
Who
is
an
a
please
just,
let
me
know:
okay
well,
the
record
will
stand
with
one,
nay
being
Senator
Hansen.
The
motion
does
carry
our
096-22
is
approved
and
commission
that
takes
us
to
I
believe
our
final
regulation
under
agenda
item
five
D,
which
is
our
183-22,
the
State
Fire
Marshal
regulation,
revising
Provisions
relating
to
fireworks
and
fees
and
I
do
see.
A
AA
I
actually
have
a
number
of
questions
Mr
chair,
if
that's
all
right,
I
I
been
looking
at
the
agenda,
it
talks
about
related
to
fireworks,
and
yet,
when
I
actually
go
to
the
regulations,
there's
a
lot
of
this
regarding
child
care
facilities,
which
I
I
guess
is
okay,
maybe
legal
could
give
us
an
opinion
on
whether
or
not
that's,
okay
or
not.
AA
But
my
question
regarding
the
child
care
facilities
has
to
do
with
the
change
in
the
fees
currently
there's
a
I
believe
a
22
dollar
fee,
and
now
we're
changing
the
fees
based
on
zip
codes
and
I'll.
Just
give
an
example,
my
community
that
I
live
in
and
represent
half
of
has
three
zip
codes,
89048-89060
and
89061,
and
all
three
are
now
being
charged.
AA
Different
fees
varying
from
bear
with
me,
I
believe
the
lowest
fee
is
180
and
20
cents,
and
then
it
goes
up
from
there
to
200
and
change,
and
so
I
just
curious.
Why
a
y,
the
the
large
increase
from
twenty
two
dollars
to
in
some
cases
over
200,
and
also
why
the
variance
between
zip
codes.
AP
Good
afternoon
Mike
dizak
your
Nevada
State
Fire
Marshal,
for
the
record
I
can
answer
those
questions,
so
the
child
care
Authority
doesn't
come
from
the
Nevada
State
Fire
Marshal
statutes
actually
comes
from
the
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
and
it
was
established
back
in
the
80s
with
a
fee
of
22
dollars
and
at
the
time
the
fire
marshal
division
was
General
funded
and
those
fees
hadn't
been
addressed
for
an
inspection.
It
basically
required
the
fire
marshal
to
do
the
inspections
on
these
facilities.
AP
Oops.
When
I
became
Fire
Marshal.
In
the
last
legislative
session,
we
were
taken
completely
out
of
General
funds.
We
are
fee
based.
AP
One
of
the
things
we
had
to
look
at
was
the
fact
that
22
dollars
I
can't
even
pay
an
inspector
to
do
an
inspection
in
Carson
City
and
because
of
the
massive
size
of
the
state.
We
have
to
do
these
inspections
all
over.
So
we
had
to
come
up
with
some
way
of
saying
between
the
Carson
City
office
and
the
Las
Vegas
office,
where
the
inspectors
are
housed.
How
are
we
going
to
provide
for
the
service
conduct
the
inspection
in
a
way
that
it
basically
acceptable
since
can't
do
anything
for
for
free?
AP
We
have
to
at
least
recover
our
costs.
So
I
also
point
out
that
during
our
entire
Workshop
process,
we
had
no
adversarial
reactions.
In
fact,
I
can
provide
it
to
you.
I
got
an
email
from
one
of
the
group,
CARE
people
I
said
you
know
you
guys
have
to
charge
more
than
22
dollars
and
you
guys
do
such
a
great
job.
I'm
gonna
have
to
send
her
a
note
back,
but
it
was
a
very
nice
letter
and
what
was
the
the
other
part
of
that
question?
AP
The
variance
is
not
for
the
Child
Care
inspection.
It
is
for
the
plan
review
So
the
plan
review.
If
you
request
an
alternate
means
or
methods
or
a
variance.
There
was
no
mechanism.
We
I
have
to
assign
an
engineer
or
a
plan
reviewer
to
go
back,
look
at
it
football
codes
and
then
sit
down
with
me
and
say
really
isn't
an
acceptable
standard
or
we
could
do
it
if
they
do
this.
That,
of
course,
as
you
know,
all
that
costs
time
and
resources.
AP
N
AP
Was
confusing,
but
there's
no
fireworks
regulations
in
here.
It's
simply
to
set
the
fees
in
a
place
where,
where
we
can
do
the
inspections
and
not
come
up
short
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year,
thank.
AA
You
and
I
definitely
definitely
appreciate
the
the
explanation
and
understand
that
the
need
for
now
that
you're
no
longer
general
fund
I
didn't
I,
wasn't
aware
of
that.
So
I'm
I
appreciate
that
explanation.
It
still
doesn't
answer
my
question
on.
AA
You
know
why
two
zip
codes
are
joining
each
other
in
the
same.
Community
have
I'm
just
looking
at
eight
nine
zero,
six
zeros,
237
and
89061
is
180.
I
didn't
know.
If
there
was,
you
know
fire
rating
included
in
some
of
this
or
additional
travel
time.
I
mean
those
are
adjoining
in
the
same
Community,
just
kind
of
confused
me
why
we
would
charge
the
discrepancy
in
the
fees
when
the
locations
are
adjoining
in
the
same
community.
AP
Thank
you.
Thanks
for
the
question
again:
Mike
dizak
State
Fire
Marshal.
AP
AP
They
wanted
a
a
set
standard,
so
we
had
to
come
up
and
develop
something
that
was
reasonable
and
and
while
they
may,
the
the
area
codes
may
show
a
line,
the
zip
codes
they
may
show
a
line
there
could
be,
depending
on
the
size
of
that
it
could
be
measured
from
the
from
the
center.
From
the
from
the
end
and
and
again
it's
something
that
it's
not
easy
to
do.
We
have
to
apply
it
throughout
the
state.
AP
It
costs
me
more
money
to
go
to
you
know
Ely
than
from
either
place
than
it
does
to
do
it
in
in
Douglas
County,
or
you
know
the
different
parts
of
Clark
County,
and
so
unfortunately,
my
my
architect
of
this
design
got
caught
up
in
the
Southwest
Airlines
he's
not
here
just
to
to
be
more
specific
in
how
he
I
test
him
with
coming
up
with
a
reasonable
means
to
measure
this,
and
it's
it's
just
based
on
on
the
proximity
to
our
costs,
especially
with
the
escalating
fuel
costs
and
and
other
costs.
AA
Thank
you
and
thank
you.
Mr
chair.
A
J
Chair,
if
I
would
just
a
clarification
now,
because
they
are
in
fact
this
rate
set
by
the
by
the
ZIP
code,
then
then,
in
fact,
that
would
give
you
you
would
know
what
that
rate
is
going
to
be.
We
could
actually,
you
could
actually
look
at
the
book
and
if
it
is,
you
know
what
I
see
a
number
of
them
are
are
very
similar.
I,
don't
know
where
the
ZIP
code
is
but
Eureka's
Falls
in
line
with
looks
like
20
others.
J
AP
Thank
you,
Senator
gogachia,
Mike
dzak
for
the
record.
Yes,
it's
for
the
for
the
inspection
of
child
cares.
Not
the
plan
review.
J
Actually,
I
can
see
an
advantage
to
have
this
actually
do
be
extended
out
to
plan
review.
There's
not
many
Child
Care
Facilities
out
there,
but
anyway
it
would
give
us
something
to
look
forward
to
going
forward.
I'd
like
to
have
some.
You
know
some
security
and
how
much
it's
going
to
cost
if
you're
doing
just
plan
reviews.
So
thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair.
A
A
AA
Yeah
Mr,
chairman
and
I
I
definitely
appreciate
the
Fire
Marshal's
time
today
and
explanation.
I
just
would
like
to
know
a
little
bit
more
information
and
maybe
the
fire
marshal
and
I
can
follow
up
later
on
the
discrepancy.
I
mean
we're
we're
not
talking
about
you,
know:
Miles
and
Miles,
we're
literally
talking
about
a
five
minute
drive
and
a
50
increase,
and
so
I
I
can't
support
this
at
this
time.
I
do
understand
the
need
for
the
increase
in
fees,
but
at
this
moment
I
will
be
a
no
on
this.
A
A
Anyone
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
nay,
okay,
I,
think
I
have
Nays
from
assemblyman
Haven,
Senator,
Hammond
and
I
didn't
hear
any
Nays
from
up
North,
but
can
someone?
Let
me
know
if
I'm
wrong
about
that?
Please,
okay,
all
right
so
I
think
motion
carries
by
a
margin
of
ten
to
two.
That
means
regulation
r183-22
is
approved,
thank
you
to
our
folks
from
the
State
Fire
Marshal
for
sticking
with
us
this
afternoon
and
into
what
is
almost
the
evening.
Commission
members
that
takes
us
through
give
me
a
second
here.
A
It
takes
us
through
agenda
item
5D.
We
still
have
a
number
of
agenda
items
left
to
consider
so
we'll
try
to
get
through
those
as
quickly
as
we
can.
Next
up
is
agenda.
Item
number
six.
This
is
request
to
approve
for
approval,
to
submit
three
names
to
the
governor
for
appointment
or
reappointment
of
one
member
to
the
Nevada
Commission
on
nuclear
projects.
A
We
could
take
questions
or
if
there
is
a
motion
to
approve
the
three
names
submitted,
you'll
find
those
in
your
packet
under
item
six
questions:
emotions
move
to
approve;
okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
from
assemblywoman
Monroe
Moreno.
We
have
a
second
from
Senator
canizarro.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion.
AI
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
okay,
motion
carries,
we
will
send
those
three
names
to
the
governor
under
item
six.
That
now
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
seven,
which
is
review
of
recommendations
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission.
We
have
the
chair
of
the
sunset
subcommittee,
who
is
also
a
legislative
commission,
member
assemblywoman,
Sandra
houdegi
here
with
us,
and
she
has
come
down
to
the
table
here
in
Las
Vegas
and
she
will
present
their
recommendations
assemblywoman.
First,
thank
you
for
your
work
on
this
subcommittee.
AM
Thank
you,
chair
Yeager
for
the
record.
I
am
Sandra,
houdeki
I
represent
Assembly
District
41,
and
today
I
am
here
as
the
chair
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
to
present
the
subcommittee's
recommendations
for
legislation.
I
want
to
thank
my
colleague
who
sat
on
the
committee
with
me.
Senator
Lang
we
had,
we
did
have
a
series
of
meetings
and
I
think
we
did
good
work.
AM
I
am
going
to
skip
giving
you
the
background
on
the
sunset
subcommittee
because
you
can
find
an
abstract
of
it
in
your
meeting
materials,
but
I
will
go
over
a
summary
of
the
recommendations
approved
by
the
subcommittee
at
its
meetings
on
March,
April,
May
and
June
over
the
course
of
six
meetings.
This
interim
the
subcommittee
reviewed
18
entities
and
received
reports
from
several
entities
reviewed
last
interim.
The
recommendations
for
legislation
from
the
subcommittee
relate
to
15
boards,
committees
and
commissions.
Nine
entities
were
reviewed
and
recommended
for
continuation
with
statutory
revisions.
AM
Five
entities
were
reviewed
and
recommended
for
termination,
and
one
entity
was
reviewed
and
recommended
for
termination
with
functions
transferred
to
another
entity.
Most
of
these
recommendations
were
requested
by
the
respective
boards
committees
and
commissions.
In
addition,
the
sunset
subcommittee
identified
four
legislative
recommendations
that
addressed
broader
concerns
identified
during
the
interim.
AM
These
recommendations
address
member
vacancies,
the
diversity
makeup
of
individuals
appointed
to
boards
and
commissions
reports
to
the
legislative
commission
concerning
the
review
of
Occupational
licensing
applicants,
criminal
history
and
the
appointment
of
the
chair,
and
vice
chair
of
the
subcommittee
I,
will
briefly
explain
the
requests
for
Bill
drafts
representatives
for
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
entities
should
be
available
for
any
detailed
questions.
Along
with
the
subcommittee's
policy
analyst
Cesar
malgarejo
and
the
subcommittee's
council
Eileen
O'grady
first
chair
I
would
like
to
start
with
the
nine
committees
that
were
recommended
for
continuation
with
statutory
revisions.
AM
The
first
was
the
merit
award
board.
The
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
Amanda
chapter
285
of
NRS
to
remove
language
prohibiting
an
award
to
be
paid
out
of
the
state
general
fund.
Further,
the
subcommittee
requested
to
appropriate
three
thousand
dollars
from
the
2023-2025
biennium
to
fund
the
administration
of
the
board
and
recommended
creating
an
award
account
funded
with
25
000
of
General
funds
that,
if
unused
by
the
end
of
the
biennium,
will
revert
to
the
state
general
fund.
AM
During
our
hearing
during
the
board's
review,
the
representatives
from
the
division
of
human
resources
of
the
Department
of
administration
stated
that
without
a
budget,
the
board
did
not
have
the
funds
for
its
operations.
Nor
could
it
fund
employee
Awards.
The
second
board
that
we
reviewed
and
recommended
continuation
with
statutory
revisions
was
The
Advisory
Council
for
family
engagement.
AM
The
subcommittee
did
not
approve
this
recommendation
because
it
would
have
removed
legislative
oversight.
Instead,
the
subcommittee
recommended
that
the
council
notify
the
appropriate
pointing
authority
to
fill
the
vacancies
and
again
that
was
60
days
before
a
vacancy
became
vacant
or
30
days
after
such
a
position
becomes
vacant.
The
third
committee
was
the
committee
for
Statewide
alert
system.
AM
Again,
the
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
continuation
with
changes
to
Nevada
revised
statues
to
amend
NRS
432.350
to
decrease
the
total
number
of
committee
members
from
15
to
11.,
by
decreasing
from
five
to
three
the
number
of
members
appointed
by
the
governor
who
represent
local
law
enforcement
agencies
and
state
law
enforcement
agencies.
The
subcommittee
further
recommends
requiring
the
committee
to
submit
to
the
governor
a
list
of
persons
qualified
for
membership
as
representatives
of
local
and
state
law
enforcement
agencies,
with
consideration
given
to
whether
the
member
of
the
committee
will
reflect
the
demographic
diversity
of
Nevada.
AM
During
the
review
of
the
committee,
its
Representatives
reported
difficulty
meeting
Quorum
due
to
several
several
member
vacancies.
The
fourth
committee
we
reviewed
was
the
committee
on
testing
foreign
intoxication.
The
subcommittee
voted
continuation
with
changes
to
Statue,
as
requested
by
the
Department
of
Public
Safety,
to
recommend
legislation
to
amend
nrs484c.600
through
484c.640,
to
expand
the
role
of
the
committee
to
evaluate
and
make
recommendations
on
other
types
of
impaired
driving,
substance,
detection,
Technologies
and
techniques.
AM
The
department
further
stated
that
DUI
technology
continues
to
change
and
new
resources
have
become
available,
which
creates
an
opportunity
for
this
Committee
of
technical
experts
to
advise
the
state
on
additional
best
practice
practices
and
methodologies,
Beyond
solely
devices
to
test
a
person's
breath
to
determine
the
concentration
of
alcohol
in
a
person's
breath.
The
fifth
was
the
appeals
panel
for
industrial
Insurance.
AM
The
panel's
last
hearing
was
on
August
1st
2018.
sixth,
was
the
credit
union
advisory
Council.
The
subcommittee
voted
continuation
and
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
amend
NRS
672.290,
to
delete
Provisions
that
entitle
members
of
the
council
to
receive
a
salary
and
to
provide
that
the
council
may
meet
at
least
once
every
six
months.
AM
During
the
meeting,
the
commissioner
of
financial
institution
stated
that
the
Nevada
Credit
Union
link
would
like
the
council
to
remain
but
recommended
that
NRS
672.290
be
amended
to
eliminate
the
language
authorizing
the
salary
and
the
meetings
be
held
regularly
at
least
once
every
six
months.
The
seventh
committee
was
the
medical
laboratory
advisory
committee.
AM
The
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
continuation
and
to
recommend
legislation
to
require
the
committee
to
one
meet
at
least
once
per
year
and
two
review
member
vacancies
annually
and
if
a
vacancy
exists
submit
a
letter
to
the
office
of
the
governor
with
a
recommendation
to
fill
the
vacancy.
During
its
review,
the
members
of
the
subcommittee
and
representatives
of
the
committee
discuss
the
committee's
membership
vacancies
and
its
meeting
schedule.
The
Committee
reported
that
it
had
not
met
since
October
12
2016.
AM
Those
were
the
nine
committee's
boards
and
commissions
that
were
recommended
for
continuation
with
changes
to
the
revised
statutes
next
year,
I
would
like
to
go
over
the
five
entities
that
were
recommended
for
termination.
The
first
committee
recommended
for
termination
was
the
advisory
committee
to
the
Juvenile
Justice
oversight.
Commission
the
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
terminate
the
committee
representatives
for
the
Committee
reported
that
all
six
positions
have
remained
vacant
for
two
years
and
that
the
committee
has
not
held
any
separate
meetings
since
its
creation.
AM
The
reason
we
recommended
this
for
termination
was
that
there
is
a
bdr
to
consolidate
some
duplicate
agencies.
The
Supreme,
Court
and
governor's
office
have
been
working
on
a
bdr
to
consolidate
the
Juvenile
Justice
oversight,
commission
with
a
commission
that
exists
under
the
Supreme
Court.
So
this
advisory
committee,
which
is
just
an
advisory
committee
to
the
actual
Juvenile
Justice
oversight
commission,
is
pretty
much
obsolete.
AM
AM
The
council
reported
several
challenges
experienced
over
the
years,
including
obtaining
the
necessary
number
of
appointments
and
meeting
Quorum
scheduling,
Council
meetings
with
stem
teachers
who
have
busy
schedules
both
during
the
day
and
after
school,
and
there
is
zero
funding
allocated
to
provide
substitutes
for
for
the
teachers.
There's
difficulty
meeting
the
statutory
requirement
to
hold
twice
yearly
in-person
meetings,
there's
a
lack
of
clear
Mission
and
Regulatory
Authority
for
the
council
and
rigid
statutory
duties
of
the
council,
such
as
holding
region-wide
recognition,
events
for
students
in
northern
and
southern
Nevada.
AM
Ultimately,
the
office
of
science,
innovation
technology
recommends
terminating
the
council.
We
also
had
testimony
for
them
The
Meta
Department
of
Education,
saying
that
as
of
2020
during
covid
with
the
blue
ribbon
commission
that
was
created.
A
lot
of
the
functions
of
this
Council
have
been
assumed
by
the
Blue
Ribbon
commission.
So
there's
no
need
for
this
Council
any
longer.
The
Third
organization
recommended
for
termination
is
the
competency-based
education
Network.
AM
The
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
terminate
the
network
Nevada's
Department
of
Education
recommended
terminating
the
network
since
the
superintendent
of
public
instruction's
Blue
Ribbon
commission
for
a
globally
prepared
Nevada
and
the
relevant
nde
programs
are
currently
carrying
out
the
charge
of
the
network.
In
addition,
Representatives
noted
that
the
network
has
accomplished
all
of
its
duties
pursuant
to
Bill
ab110
and
submitted
its
final
report
to
the
superintendent
of
Public
Instruction,
the
networks.
The
Network's
final
report
was
submitted
to
the
governor
and
the
legislature
on
August
23rd
2022,
so
it
has
completely
fulfilled
its
function.
AM
Number
four
was
a
subcommittee
on
patient-centered
medical
homes.
The
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
amend
NRS
439519,
to
remove
the
specific
Authority
for
the
advisory
Council
on
the
state
program
for
wellness
and
the
prevention
of
chronic
disease
to
appoint
a
subcommittee
to
study
patient-centered
medical
homes
from
statue.
During
the
review
of
the
committee
on
patient-centered
medical
homes,
staff
of
the
division
of
public
and
Behavioral
Health
of
DHHS
confirmed
that
the
subcommittee
was
already
formally
dissolved.
AM
Staff
further
reported
that
the
Civil
committee
was
not
effective
in
conducting
a
study.
This
was
largely
due
to
the
inability
to
meet
quorum.
The
fifth
was
a
committee
on
anatomical
Dissection.
The
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
remove
the
authority
of
the
Nevada
system
of
higher
education
to
establish
such
a
committee.
During
the
review
of
the
committee
and
in
the
sunset
subcommittee
review
form,
the
Committee
reported
their
inability
in
meeting
the
duties
outlined
in
NRS.
AM
451.360-451.470
and
recommended
terminating
the
committee
or
consolidating
it
with
other
entities,
another
entity
we
had
difficulty
primarily
in
the
duty
of
retaining
bodies
at
Nevada
system
of
higher
education.
They
are
just
not
equipped
to
do
that.
The
sunset
subcommittee
also
learned
that
the
medical
schools
in
the
state
operate
under
willed
body
donor
programs
pursuant
to
the
revised
Uniform
Anatomical
Gift
Act.
AM
Those
were
the
five
entities
that
were
recommended
for
termination
chair
now,
I
will
go
over
the
one
entity
that
was
recommended
for
termination
with
functions
transferred
to
another
entity,
the
commission
on
educational
technology.
The
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
terminate
the
commission
and
transfer
its
duties
to
the
Nevada
Department
of
educate
education
and
at
Sunset
subcommittee
review
form.
The
representatives
of
the
commission
recommended
repealing
the
Commission
in
favor
of
the
State
Board
of
education's
recent
work
with
the
nde's
Nevada
digital
learning,
collaborative
according
to
the
representatives
from
nde.
AM
The
commission
has
not
met
since
2018
due
to
several
member
vacancies.
Those
were
the
boards
and
commission
entities
that
were
reviewed
for
continuation
termination
and
termination
with
their
functions
transferred
to
another
entity.
But
out
of
the
sunset
subcommittee
chair,
there
were
further
legislative
recommendations.
The
first
was
the
subcommittee
voted
to
recommend
legislation
to
amend
chapter
232a
of
NRS
to
declare
as
public
policy
of
the
state
of
Nevada
that
accept,
as
otherwise
required
by
law.
AM
Regarding
the
restrictions
on
criminal
histories
of
applicants,
each
legislative
interim
assembly,
Bill
319,
a
bipartisan
measure
enacted
in
2019,
authorized
a
variety
of
professionals
to
petition
a
regulatory
body
to
find
out
whether
his
or
her
criminal
history
disqualifies
him
or
her
from
obtaining
a
certificate
license.
Permit
qualification
or
registration
I
believe
the
intent
of
this
measure
was
to
give
those
with
a
past
criminal
conviction
the
opportunity
to
explore
and
establish
a
suitable
career
and
make
a
better
life
for
themselves
and
their
family
among
other
Provisions.
The
bill
requires
fires.
AM
The
subcommittee
to
review
certain
regulatory
bodies
to
determine
what
are
the
restrictions
of
an
applicant's
criminal
history
are
appropriate.
In
addition,
a
variety
of
regulatory
bodies
are
required
to
maintain
statistics
related
to
criminal
history,
reviews
and
Report
these
statistics
on
a
quarterly
basis
to
the
legislature.
Interestingly,
the
information
requested
by
the
subcommittee
is
substantly
substantially
sustainably
the
same
as
the
information
required
to
be
submitted
on
a
quarterly
basis.
AM
Each
legislative
interim
I
believe
the
subcommittee
is
in
a
better
position
to
request
this
information
and
can
hold
regulatory
bodies
accountable
for
not
submitting
the
required
reports.
Thank
you,
Mr
chair.
These
recommendations
for
legislation
represent
considerable
work
by
the
subcommittee.
This
interim
and
I
appreciate
the
consideration
of
the
legislative
commission
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and,
as
I
noted
earlier,
we
should
have
representatives
from
all,
or
mostly
all
of
the
commissions
board
and
entities
here
for
questions,
as
well
as
our
policy
analyst
and
legal
counsel.
A
Well,
thank
you
so
much
assemblywoman
I
can
tell
that
your
committee
did
a
lot
of
work
in
the
interim
just
based
on
the
depth
and
breadth
of
those
recommendations.
Thank
you
for
providing
us
with
that
report.
Before
we
consider
taking
any
action.
Are
there
questions
from
commission
members
for
subcommittee,
chair,
houdegi
anyone
here
in
Las
Vegas
and
how
about
in
Carson
City
or
on
Zoom
I,
see
Senator,
Hansen,
I
think
raising
his
hand.
Please
go
ahead.
S
Okay,
so
that
that's
how
ironic
is
that
they're
not
enough
cops
to
fill
the
three
five
positions
in
the
state
kind
of
there's
something
there's
something
funny
about
that
one!
Okay,
that
was
my
only
question.
Thank
you.
AD
Yes,
chair
I
could,
unless
Other
Woman
on
the
termination
of
I'm,
sorry
I'm
scrolling
here
the
termination
of
some
of
the
Committees
you
had
the
I
just
had
a
question,
even
though
there's
termination
of
the
Council
on
science,
technology,
engineering
and
Mathematics
and
the
one
below
competency-based
education,
Network
I,
looked
at
what
those
requirements
are
for
those
individuals
to
be
a
part
of
that
are
those
appointed
by
the
governor
I'm,
not
sure
of
the
process.
Even
though
we're
recommending
termination
I
want
to
understand
the
process.
AM
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
I
am
actually
going
to
Ping.
Our
policy
analyst
says
Cesar
malgarejo
to
help
with
that
question,
and
we
actually,
we
should
have
a
representative
here
as
well
from
the
Department
of
Education,
who
should
be
able
to
answer
that
question.
If
Mr
malgarejo.
AL
Y
for
the
record
committee
policy
analyst
share
through
you
to
assemblewoman
Hansen.
If
you
could
just
repeat
the
question
real
quick,
are
you
talking
about
all
of
the
entities.
AD
Thank
you
just
the
on
number
11
and
12
The
Advisory
Council
on
science,
technology
and
engineering
math
and
the
competency-based
education
networks
are
those
typically
appointed
I
know
they
have
to
have
certain
requirements
to
be
on
there,
but
I
want
it
and
then
I
have
a
follow-up
foreign.
Q
Good
evening
this
is
Dave
Brown
Camp
I'm,
the
director
of
the
office
of
Standards
instructional
support
and
the
competency-based
education
Network
resided
through
my
office
with
a
staff
member
Mary
holsclaw.
All
the
members
on
that
Network
have
they
do
have
their
requirements.
As
this
everyone
noted,
they
are
appointed
some
by
the
parent
or
PTA
Association
at
the
schools,
the
schools
themselves
that
were
in
the
pilot,
so
they
would
designate
their
representatives.
None
of
them
came
from
the
governor.
The
superintendent
did
have
one
on
pointy.
That
was
their
designate.
AM
AD
AD
AM
For
for
both
Assembly
women,
when
the
Nevada
Department
of
Education
came
to
testify,
a
lot
of
the
functions
of
both
of
the
Committees
have
been
had
been
absorbed
by
the
Blue
Ribbon
Commission.
AD
Okay,
so
really
more
just
a
statement:
I
I'm,
a
little
I
know
it's
very
hard
to
staff
these
the
Committees.
These
subcommittees
and
I
I
noticed
that
when
we
mentioned
the
one
about
the
science
and
technology,
engineering
and
Mathematics,
one
of
the
reasons
listed
was
had
to
be
in
person.
I
was
just
hoping-
and
it's
probably
mood
at
this
point,
but
just
for
the
record,
we
have
the
opportunity
to
do.
Zoom
I
would
hope.
I,
don't
know
if
that
has
to
be
enabled
somehow
to
allow
those
committees
to
do
that.
AD
If
that
would
help
I
being
on
the
education
committee
and
on
the
interim
education
committee,
I've
I've
made
it
very
vocal
that
I
have
very
grave
concerns
about
our
our
according
to
the
Nevada
report
card
at
nde,
our
proficiency
rates
in
math
and
in
Reading
language
arts
and
so
getting
rid
of
these
entities
and
maybe
not
and
trying
to
find
other
ways
to
facilitate
them
to
meet
rather
than
just
recommending
termination.
AD
If
did
you
already
explore,
if
there
were
other
avenues,
maybe
have
less
people
I
really
love
the
idea
of
having
outside
state
agencies,
people
who
are
in
the
trenches
being
able
to
have
the
the
input
that
we
need,
and
so
not
having
these
and
having
them
be
absorbed
by
a
state
agency.
Causes
me
a
little
bit
of
discomfort.
AM
Thank
you,
assembly,
woman
and,
and
we
did
I
mean
the
main
function
of
the
The
Advisory
Council
on
stem
was
to
increase
student
interest
in
stem
right
so
that
there
was
more
participation
in
science,
technology
and
Mathematics
and
and
from
the
hearings
of
the
Nevada
Department
of
Education
said
that
one
of
the
things
that
was
positive,
that
came
out
of
covid
was
the
Blue
Ribbon
commission
and
the
Blue
Ribbon
commission
is
doing
this,
and
so
basically
keeping
both
entities
in
existence
was
just
was
duplicating
efforts.
AM
And
so,
as
a
committee,
we
decided
to
again
because
the
advisory
Council
on
stem
hadn't
met
in
a
couple
years
and
it
was
having
trouble
meeting.
Quorum
I
was
having
trouble.
I
didn't
have
a
clear
Mission
other
than
to
gain
student
interest,
and
they
couldn't
have.
They
didn't
have
the
funding
that
they
needed
to
get
substitute
teachers,
whether
it
was
in
person
or
via
Zoom,
to
give
teachers
the
time
off
to
participate.
AD
A
A
So
hearing
no
additional
questions.
If
I
could
make
a
suggestion
to
the
committee,
I
mean
we,
we
have
bdr
requests
as
a
legislative
commission
and
you
know,
obviously
anything
we
request
as
a
commission
would
have
to
go
through
the
session
in
the
normal
bdr
and
Bill
hearing
process.
But
you
know
in
looking
at
these
recommendations.
I
certainly
think
it
makes
sense
to
to
recommend
legislation
be
drafted
to
sort
of
carry
out
some
of
these.
A
Some
of
these
recommendations
now
I,
don't
think
it
would
make
sense
to
have
19
different
bdrs,
but
in
looking
at
how
these
might
be
grouped,
I
think
and
I
cleared
this
with
legal
as
well.
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
do
I,
guess
six,
separate,
bdr
requests
and
just
so
I
can
lay
those
out
items.
One
through
nine
would
be
grouped
with
item
15.
A
So
those
are
essentially,
you
know,
making
statutory
changes
to
existing
committees
with
the
one
being
terminated
in
in
transferring
the
function
so
I
think
that
could
be
one
build
ref
request,
then
10
through
14
could
be
a
separate
Builder
F
request
where
those
five
committees
are
being
suggested
for
termination
and
again
that
would
have
to
be
vetted
and
voted
on
by
the
legislature
as
a
whole
and
then
I
think
16
through
19
would
probably
each
be
its
own
build
draft
request
because
they'll
seem
to
be
pretty
concrete
items.
A
So
if
the
committee
is
okay
with
that
and
willing
to
support
that
motion,
I
certainly
would
would
take
a
motion
to
advance
six
bdrs
in
the
way
that
I
described
them.
And
hopefully
we
don't
have
to
repeat
that.
But
before
I
took
a
motion,
I
just
wanted
to
generally
get
a
sense
from
the
committee.
If
there's
anyone
that
has
any
real
objection
to
taking
one
motion
to
accomplish
the
advancing
of
those
six
bdrs
to
session.
M
A
AD
No
discussion:
okay,
I'm!
Sorry,
it's
a
zombie
woman
Hanson,
just
just
to
let
you
know,
I
really
do
appreciate
that
we
have
this
Sunset
committee
subcommittee,
I
I,
like
the
idea
that
we
have
to
visit
and
kind
of
make
things
efficient
and
if
we're
not
utilizing
things
I'm
all
for
that,
so
I
really
want
that
to
be
on
the
record
and
I.
AD
Think
less
is
more
so
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
your
efforts
and
I
appreciate
the
intent
of
what
the
sunset
subcommittee's
original
origination
was
for
and
and
the
work
that
they
do.
So.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
those
comments,
appreciate
it.
So
we
have
a
motion.
We
have
a
second
all,
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
and
if
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
okay,
the
motion
carries
so
we
will
request
those
six
Bill
draft
requests
on
behalf
of
the
legislative
commission
again,
thank
you,
chair,
houdegi,
I
know
that
was
a
lot
of
work
just
based
on
how
much
information
was
in
the
report.
So
thank
thanks
to
you
and
your
committee
I
know.
Senator
Lang
was
on
that
committee
as
well.
We
appreciate
it.
A
Okay
committee,
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number,
seven
we're
going
next
to
agenda
item
number
eight,
which
is
a
presentation
relating
to
the
oral
history
project.
We
did
have
a
presentation
about
this
at
a
prior
meeting
and
I
think
we
had
asked
Mr,
Nick,
Anthony,
division,
Chief
and
director
of
the
research
division
to
come
back
today
and
present
some
more
concrete
information
about
this
for
potential
approval.
So
if
we
have
Mr
Anthony
with
us,
if
you'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
make
your
presentation,
please.
AQ
Thank
you,
Sherry
Yeager
and
members
of
the
commission.
I
am
Nick
Anthony
research,
director
of
the
research
division
pleasure
to
be
with
you
this
late
afternoon,
Cherry
Yeager
is
correct.
Commission
members
will
recall
from
the
September
meeting
there
was
an
item
on
the
Nevada
legislature's
oral
history
program.
It
is
statutorily
administered
by
the
research
division
pursuant
to
NRS,
as
was
discussed
at
that
time.
AQ
The
oral
history
program
was
last
completed
in
2007
there
were
18
legislative
oral
histories
completed
at
that
time
through
an
outside
independent
consultant,
they're
available
they're
online
they're
housed
within
the
research
library
and
several
libraries
throughout
the
state.
It
makes
an
excellent
statement,
piece
kind
of
capturing
the
life
and
stories
of
prominent
legislators
over
the
years
since
2007.
The
oral
history
program
has
largely
lied
dormant
due
to
the
fact
that
the
statute
calls
for
subject
to
available
funding.
AQ
Therefore,
at
the
last
legislative
commission
meeting,
I
was
tasked
with
coming
back
with
some
options
to
present
to
the
commission
this
time
for
your
consideration,
one
of
those
options
would
be
to
add
the
legislative
oral
history
program
into
the
lcb's
research
division
budget.
Therefore,
it'd
be
an
ongoing
item
rather
than
a
one-time
appropriation.
AQ
AQ
If
the
commission
were
to
go
in
that
direction,
it
would
be
including
the
LCB
research
division
budget.
We
would
then
come
back
to
the
commission
a
later
date
with
a
plan
for
approval
and
the
like,
and
we
would
go
out
for
an
independent
consultant
to
assist,
who
has
the
expertise
to
conduct
those
oral
histories,
and
so
with
that
Mr
chair
I'd,
be
pleased
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
Anthony
appreciate
the
presentation.
Do
we
have
questions
down
here
in
Las,
Vegas
or
up
in
Carson,
City
I
know
Mr
Anthony.
Is
there
with
you
all?
Do
you
have
any
questions
for
him.
A
I
guess
the
only
question
I
had
Mr
Anthony
was:
if
we
do,
we
have
any
sort
of
semblance
of
of
what
kind
of
cost
we'd
be
talking
about.
I
know
it
would
go
in
the
lcb's
budget,
but
for
instance,
if
we
did
to
a
cycle
versus
three
or
four
a
cycle,
do
you
have
any
kind
of
ballpark
of
what
that
might
be.
AQ
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair.
According
to
calculations,
from
last
time
there
were
18
conducted
in
2007
that
was
at
a
cost
of
approximately
228
000,
so
conducting
a
little
math.
Would
that
would
be
roughly
18
000
give
or
take
per
oral
history,
but
I
would
caution
that
there
are
some
inflationary
factors
as
well.
Those
were
two
thousand
seven
dollars,
so
that
would
be
my
best
guess.
Is
that
you'd
be
looking
at
somewhere
in
that
neighborhood
per
each
oral
history
project.
A
Great,
thank
you
Mr
Anthony.
Do
we
have
additional
questions
or
if
no
additional
questions
would
sort
of
ask
what
the
committee's
pleasure
is
I
think
there
was
a
suggestion
to
potentially
include
some
number,
probably
ranging
from
two
to
four
in
the
ongoing
LCB
research
budget,
but
wanted
to
open
that
up
for
discussion
for
committee
members
or
emotion
either.
One.
K
M
Mr,
chair
I,
moved
to
approve
moving
forward
looking
at
two
to
four
oral
history
projects
and
bring
that
to
the
next
legislative
session.
A
A
If
anyone
is
opposed,
would
you
please
say?
Nay,
okay
motion
carries
so
that
is
approved.
Thank
you,
Mr
Anthony.
We
look
forward
to
hearing
more
about
the
plan
as
it
develops
that
now
takes
us
to
agenda
item
number
nine,
which
is
approval
of
proposed
amendment,
to
guidance
on
lobbying.
A
A
AR
You
thank
you
Mr
chair.
This
item
seeks
to
change
the
the
term
regulation
to
guidance.
You
have
this
in
your
packet
and
there
were.
They
were
available
on
the
table
as
well
to
change
the
term
regulation,
the
guidance
to
avoid
confusion
regarding
whether
chapter
233b
veneres
applied
to
these
guidelines.
It
doesn't
but
people
were
asking
about
that.
So
maybe
it's
just
clear
to
say,
guidelines.
AR
This
item
also
seeking
approval,
a
legend
of
commission
to
remove
the
requirement
to
provide
an
in-person
training
session
for
lobbyists
before
each
session.
Removing
the
this
requirement
will
allow
the
LCB
to
provide
information
to
lobbyists
in
varying
formats,
including
posting.
AR
You
know
consistently
updated
information
on
the
web
on
the
legislative
website
and
providing
shorter
in-person
presentations
on
specific
topics
such
as
lobbyist
ethics
or
registration
requirement.
This
kind
of
goes
along
with
the
feedback
that
we've
gotten
back
through
the
years
about
this
particular
Endeavor.
AR
It
would
also
help
us
a
lot
with,
since
we
are,
we
have
Construction
in
the
the
one
room
that
we've
done
this
before
in
that
was
big
enough
right
now.
It
would
not
be
possible
before
this
session.
In
addition
to
the
changes
indicated
in
here
we'd
also,
we
have
some
kind
of
like
late
breaking
thing.
We
would
like
to
request
that
subsection
five
also
be
deleted.
AR
A
M
A
A
Okay
motion
carries
agenda.
Item
number
nine
is
approved
that
takes
us
now
to
agenda
item
number
10,
which
is
approval
of
the
120
day
calendar
for
the
2023
legislative
session.
Miss
Erdos.
Would
you
like
to
tell
us
about
the
calendar
I
think
we're
all
familiar
with
the
120
day
concept,
but
if
there's
anything
else
on
there,
we
should
know
about.
Please
let
us
know.
AR
I
just
thought
that
I
would
let
you
know
the
the
changes
that
were
made
to
this.
They
don't
match.
This
doesn't
match
the
one
from
2021,
but
the
only
changes
that
were
made
was
to
move
the
starting
date
from
February
1st
to
February
6th
and
all
the
different
dates
accordingly
to
reflect
the
2023
constitutionally
mandated
start
date,
first
Monday
in
February,
and
then
we
also
move
the
data.
AR
Economic
Forum
report
is
due
from
May
4th
to
which
is
the
93rd
day
of
the
21st
session
2021
session
to
May
1st
2023,
the
85th
day
of
the
2023
session
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
NRS
353
228.
A
A
Q
A
If
anyone
is
opposed,
please
say:
nay,
okay
motion
carries
the
120-day
calendar
is
now
approved,
so
we
can
take
draft
off
of
that.
Finally,
okay
go
to
agenda
item
number
11..
This
is
the
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.
We
do
have
Miss
Erdos
if
there
happens
to
be
any
questions,
but
you'll
see
those
session
hires
three
of
them
behind
tab
number
11.
A
A
If
there
is
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
okay
motion
carries
the
approve.
The
early
session
hires
are
approved
under
agenda
item
11..
That
takes
us
now
to
agenda
item
12,
which
is
a
report
from
Human
Resources
Council
Miss,
Heidi
Remick,
who
we
have
down
here
with
us
in
Las
Vegas.
This
is
regarding
amendments
to
rules
and
policies
of
the
legislative
Council
Bureau.
Just
so
you
know,
this
item
is
one
where,
unlike
administrative
regulations,
we
can
make
changes
before
we
approve
the
revised
rules.
A
If
need
be,
please
note
that
you
should
have
on
your
desk
a
page
to
replace
the
first
page
of
the
rules
indicating
that
the
previously
proposed
new
section
on
page
one
has
been
deleted,
so
those
two
go
hand
in
hand
with
what
is
behind
agenda
item
number
12
in
your
packet.
So
again,
thank
you,
Miss
Remick,
for
being
here
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
give
you
a
chance
to
proceed
and
then
see.
If
we
have
any
questions.
AS
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
again
is
Heidi
Remick
I
am
the
Chief
Human
Resources
Council,
with
the
legislative
Council
Bureau.
AS
Also
with
us
in
the
Carson
City
office,
is
my
Deputy
Human
Resources,
Council,
Neil
Baker
and
by
way
of
background
prior
to
2020,
the
legislative
Council
Bureau
did
not
have
a
dedicated
Human,
Resources
Council
or
human
resources
team
and
the
covid-19
pandemic
really
Illustrated
the
need
for
a
centralized,
dedicated
HR
team
to
deal
with
all
of
the
workplace
issues
presented
by
that
emergency,
and
now
that
the
pandemic
is
becoming
our
new
normal
and
we
can
adjust
our
responses
and
have
more
time
and
resources
to
take
a
step
back
and
take
a
wider
lens
view
of
other
workplace
issues
at
the
Nevada
legislature
and
one
of
our
first
post-pandemic
priorities
has
been
to
do
a
comprehensive
review
of
the
rules
and
policies
of
the
LCB,
which
is
the
document
that
guides
and
directs
the
workplace
practices
of
the
legislative
staff.
AS
As
part
of
that
review,
we
have
undertaken
a
number
of
non-substantive
edits
that
are
intended
to
improve
Clarity
readability,
fixed
grammatical
errors
and
the
like
in
existing
rules
that
you
will
see
in
the
in
the
draft
before
you
have
before
you,
as
well
as
several
substantive
changes
that
we
believe
are
necessary
to
provide
clarification
or
to
resolve
problems
that
we've
encountered
in
the
Practical
implementation
of
these
rules
to
update
the
rules
to
mirror
changes
in
state
or
federal
law,
or
to
update
our
policies
and
practices
to
account
for
the
fact
that
we
now
have
a
human
resources
team
within
the
LCB
structure,
and
these
substantive
changes
are
highlighted
in
yellow
I
think
it
will
be
most
helpful
to
summarize
these
substantive
changes
as
quickly
as
possible.
AS
I
know
it's
been
a
very
long
day,
so
I'll
go
as
fast
as
I
can
Rule
13,
which
is
our
anti-discrimination
policy,
and
also
the
policy
on
affirmative
action
which
isn't
on
page
34
in
the
packet
expands
the
language
of
our
existing
rule,
to
include
categories
that
are
already
protected
by
the
law
and
adds
definitions
for
protected
categories
that
were
not
defined
in
the
rule.
Previously,
that
is
to
say,
the
protected
categories
were
defined
in
the
rule,
but
they,
the
definitions
were
not
there,
so
this
should
help
with
implementation
rule
22.
AS
We
propose
to
edit
subsection
6.
to
clarify
that
probationary.
Employment
is
not
a
contract
or
promise
of
continued
employment.
We
believe
this
change
is
a
necessary
disclaimer
and
protection
against
certain
employment
lawsuits
rule
23
and,
along
with
that
rule
24.
We
look
to
immune
to
move
the
employee
evaluation
process.
AS
Currently
it's
done
in
June
or
December,
but
in
practice
we
find
that
nobody
has
the
time
to
do
employee
evaluations
in
December,
and
they
end
up
just
not
getting
done
and
also
the
change
to
rule
23
adds
Human
Resources
Council
to
the
list
of
parties
who
are
authorized
to
examine
employee
evaluations,
because
we
really
need
to
review
those
documents
in
order
to
be
able
to
make
good
recommendations
and
and
decisions
on
employment
matters
and
Rule.
24
also
provides
that
the
anniversary
and
Merit
increase
dates
will
all
move
from
January
1st
to
July
1st.
AS
Most
employees
are
already
on
a
July
1st
cycle,
but
that's
again
related
to
the
fact
that
we
just
didn't,
find
it
practicable
to
do
the
evaluation
process
in
January,
and
so
occasionally
we
were
missing
people
whose
time
for
increases
came
along
and
they
were
not.
Nobody
had
time
to
to
give
them
their
timely
increase,
and
it
should
also
simplify
the
budget
budgeting
process
because
everybody
will
be
on
the
same
cycle
at
the
change
of
the
fiscal
year,
so
that
will
make
it
easier
to
plan
for
personnel
costs
our
edits
to
Rule
25.
AS
The
changes
to
subsections
two
and
three
aim
to
give
the
director
and
division
Chiefs
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
to
authorize
over
time
when
budgets
and
workload
allow
rather
than
having
to
require
over
time,
and
the
change
in
subsection.
10
sets
a
limit
in
on
the
amount
of
overtime.
The
Secretary
of
Senate
and
the
chief
Clerk
of
the
assembly
can
accumulate
without
using
that
time
or
taking
a
payout,
because
the
accumulation
of
extensive
amounts
of
overtime
can
become
an
unfunded
liability
on
the
legislative
budget.
AS
If
those
individuals
leave
unexpectedly
rule
25.3,
the
proposed
change
would
increase
the
shift
differential
for
certain
employees
who
were
qualifying
night
shifts.
Currently
that
shift
differential
is
an
increase
of
one
pay
grade.
We
propose
to
change
it
to
five
percent,
which
is
consistent
with
Executive
Branch
practice,
and
also,
we
believe
this
change
will
be
more
Equitable.
Five
percent
is
a
measurable,
predictable
amount
of
pay,
regardless
of
one's
grade
and
step,
whereas
a
one
pay
grade
increase
can
be
more
or
less
depending
upon
where
a
person
is
on
the
pay
schedule.
AS
AS
It's
wonderful
that
we
were
able
to
learn
new
methods
of
flexibility,
but
we
have
had
some
challenges
with
accuracy
and
accountability
of
time,
keeping
that
we
hope
this
this
edit
will
address.
The
changes
to
rule
26.7
are
intended
to
clarify
that
there
are
legal
exceptions
to
the
promise
that
employee
records
are
confidential.
AS
For
example,
there
are
certain
agencies,
like
the
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Council,
that
have
a
right
under
federal
law
to
to
request
our
records,
and
we
will
have
to
provide
those
notwithstanding
that
our
policy
says
that
those
rules
are
confidential.
AS
AS
32.4
and
36
are
all
definitions
and
conditions
for
the
use
of
of
various
types
of
sick
leave,
and
we
added
we
proposed
to
add
definitions
from
Nevada
administrative
code
to
Aid
in
our
interpretation
of
these
rules,
rule
37,
which
is
Our
Family
and
Medical
Leave
Act
policy,
rule
37.1,
which
provides
for
employees
to
be
placed
on
sick
leave
by
supervisors,
rules,
49,
51
and
52,
which
are
all
part
of
the
employee,
discipline,
warning,
reprimand,
emotion
and
dismissal
process
and
the
anti-harassment
policy.
AS
AS
Rules,
44.2
and
44.4
are
proposed
edits
where
languages
has
been
taken
from
the
Nevada
Administrative
Code,
so
that
we
can
be
sure
that
legislative
branch
employees
have
the
same
emergency
volunteer,
leave
and
administrative
leave
policies
available
as
those
used
by
the
executive
branch
rule
45
clarifies
that
leaves
of
absence
without
pay
must
be
authorized
by
the
division
Chiefs
and
the
director.
AS
We
have
unfortunately,
encountered
some
challenges
with
employee
absenteeism
where
employees
may
use
all
of
their
paid
leave
and
then
request
more
time
and
then,
if
that
time
is
denied,
the
employee
may
say
well,
I'll
just
take
leave
without
pay
and
under
our
current
rules,
there's
no
ability
to
deny
that
leave
and
again.
This
is
leave,
that's
not
supported
by
any
medical
or
or
other
emergency
justification,
and
so
that
leaves
the
risk
that
LCB
divisions
will
be
understaffed
and
without
recourse
to
deal
with
employee
absenteeism.
AS
It's
changed
to
rule
57
is
aims
to
change
the
way
that
space
and
use
of
grounds
in
the
legislative
building
are
allocated
consistent
with
NRS
331
135,
which
provides
that
the
LCB
director
assigns
the
use
of
space
in
legislative
facilities
in
such
manner.
As
the
legislative
commission
prescribes
rule
60,
the
edits
to
rule
60
borrow
language
from
Nevada
administrative
code
to
expand
our
current
conflict
of
interest
rule
to
cover
various
conflicts
not
previously
described
or
envisioned
under
the
rule
and
then.
Finally,
the
disability.
Accommodations
policy
is
a
new
addition
to
our
proposed
rules.
AS
A
Thank
you
for
that
presentation.
Miss
Remick
I
can
obviously
tell
a
lot
of
thought,
went
into
the
changing,
modernizing
and
updating
of
these
rules
and
particularly
pleased
to
see
the
the
disability
accommodation
policy
as
well.
But
do
we
have
questions
from
Members,
we'll
start
down
here
in
Las,
Vegas,
assemblyman,
Haven.
AA
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
I
do
have
two
two
questions
in
looking
at
rule
number
44.4
on
page
24
number
one
C
talks
about
when
the
director
May
Grant
paid
leave
to
remove
the
employee
from
workplace
when
employee
committed
or
threatens
to
commit
an
act
of
violence
and
I
just
wanted
to
know
why
we're
adding
that,
when
rule
number
52
causes
for
Action
subsection,
18
talks
about
violence
or
threats.
Basically
it's
the
same
thing.
It's
cause
for
Action
under
that
and
so
I
just
kind
of
curious.
AS
The
added
language
in
rule
44.4
comes
from
or
is
adapted
from
Nevada
Administrative,
Code
284.589.
So
in
part
it
is
intended
to
make
our
policies
consistent
with
executive
branch
policies
so
that
we
don't
have
employees
who
come
to
the
legislative
branch
used
to
different
rights
and
and
process
in
in
their
work
in
the
executive
branch,
but
I
think
to
get
to
the
heart
of
your
question.
Assemblyman.
It's
important
to
understand
that
Rule,
44.4
and
Rule
52
are
different
parts
of
the
employee
discipline
process.
AS
Rule
52.
The
causes
of
action
spell
out
the
different
reasons
for
which
employees
can
be
disciplined.
But
it's
often
not
an
instantaneous
situation
where
the
everybody
knows
what's
happened
and
you
can
carry
out
the
discipline
right
away
and
Rule
44.4
allows
the
director
to
look
out
for
the
safety
of
the
workplace
by
placing
an
employee
on
leave
with
pay,
while
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
whatever
the
accusation
may
be
are
investigated
and
that's
for
everybody's
protection.
The
employees,
as
well
as
the
accused
employee,
as
well
as
others
in
the
workplace
and.
AA
That
makes
sense,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
on
the
record
that
the
intent
of
this
is
that,
while
an
investigation
is
going
on
of
workplace
violence
that
they
could,
the
director
may
decide
to
pay
them.
So
I
appreciate
that
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
got
that
on
the
record,
because
it
really
wasn't
clear
in
the
writing
and
then
the
other
question
that
I
had
was
under
44.4
number
3
F
and
also
how
it
relates
to
for
a
it
appears
that
they're
allowing
them
to
attend.
AA
You
know
retirement
benefit
educational
sessions,
but
under
three
it's
a
a
may,
but
under
number
four
it's
a
it's
a
show,
and
so
I
didn't
know.
If
if
F
was
necessary,
since
4
is
basically
saying
that
that
we
they
shall
be
allowed
to
attend
these
events
and-
and
so
it
and
I
might
be
missing
something
technical
or
maybe
a
technicality
there.
But
I
just
just
wanted
to
ask
that
question.
AS
I
think
the
difference
between
the
May
and
the
shell
in,
in
section
the
May
in
section
three
and
the
shell
in
section
four
and
again,
the
this
language
is
borrowed
from
the
NAC.
So
it's
we
We
are
following
the
executive
branch
lead
on
this,
but
the
items
in
section
four
are
very
short-term
things
that
are
directly
related
to
employee
health.
The
sort
of
public
employee
benefits,
related
events
tend
to
be
things
like
vaccination.
AS
Clinics
that
are
set
on
a
certain
date
and
time
or
4B
is
the
need
to
attend
an
initial
appointment
and
follow-up
appointment
for
employee,
employee
assistance,
counseling
and
those
are
sort
of
time
sensitive,
pressing
matters
that
have
to
do
with
the
employee's
health,
and
we
want
to
stress
that
the
director
should
make
that
time
available
needs
to
make
that
time
available
to
employees
the
matters
in
section
subsection,
3.
AS
AA
It
perfect
and
then
Mr
chair,
I,
just
just
have
one
last
question
and
I
believe
the
reasoning
is,
is
to
mirror
the
executive
branch,
but
under
44
rule
44
for
three
G.
It
gives
the
basically
the
director
to
give
paid
time
off
for
anything
the
director
deems
appropriate.
AS
M
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
I,
just
have
one
question:
I,
don't
know
if
I
missed
it,
but
do
we
offer
sick
leave
if
an
employee
runs
out
of
sick
leave
where
their
colleague
could
actually
donate
time
to
them.
AS
AA
I
apologize
for
so
many
questions,
but
I
did
just
under
rule
number
52
cause
for
Action
again,
subsection
18.,
I
I
noticed
that
we're
changing
in
the
last
part,
the
victim
to
another
employee
and
I,
just
I'm
a
little
hesitant
there.
AA
AA
I
just
want
to
put
my
hesitation
there
on
the
record
that
I
do
think
that
there
could
be
cause
of
actions
that
there
were
violent
threats
or
violence
were
threats
to
people,
the
individuals
that
were
not
employees
and
and
by
changing
this
I,
just
a
little
hesitant
there,
but
I
leave
that
up
to
the
the
full
commission.
AA
Just
on
the
record,
so
it's
rule
number
52,
subsection,
18,
page
30
kind
of
the
middle
of
the
page.
There
talks
about
the
violence
and
these
are
our
causes
for
for
Action
and
again
I
do
apologize
for
the
number
of
questions
and
and
do
appreciate
the
time.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
hafen.
Do
we
have
additional
questions
down
here
in
Las
Vegas?
How
about
up
in
Carson
City
I
can
see
you
all
on
the
screen.
You're
very
small,
but
I
don't
see
any
any
hands
going
up
and
I
guess.
Let
me
let
me
just
ask
on
the
heels
of
assemblyman
hafen's
question
with
respect
to
rule
number
52
subsection,
18
I
mean
I.
Think
I
see
what
he's
getting
at
that
you
know
it
may
not
be
another
employee,
it
could
be
I
mean
it
could
be
someone
coming
into
the
office
who's.
A
You
know
a
customer
or
a
constituent,
and
so
I
just
wondered
if
you
would
be
amenable
to
to
perhaps
changing
that
rule
to
indicate
that
you
know
it
could
be
I,
guess
we
could
leave
victim
or
we
could
leave
another
employee
a
victim
whether
or
not
an
employee.
If
that
would
be
something
that
would
work
or
are
we
going
to
throw
a
wrench
into
everything
if
we
change
that.
AS
Our
initial
thinking
was
that
another
employee
is
perhaps
broader
than
limiting
it
to
the
victim,
because
you
may
be
a
witness
to
threatening
or
violent
behavior
that
does
not
specifically
Target
you,
but
nevertheless
makes
it
difficult
to
feel
safe
in
your
workplace.
So
our
intent
was
to
broaden
the
protection
in
in
that
provision.
Beyond
just
the
target
of
the
conduct,
but
I
can
see
how
we
may
have
limited
it
in
another
respect,
and
perhaps
the
better
approach
would
be
something
like
the
victim
or
another
employee
or
similar.
A
Okay,
so
sorry,
folks
in
Carson,
City
we're
just
having
a
discussion
about
perhaps
suggesting
an
amendment
to
that.
A
subsection
18
on
page
30
to
be
on
the
part
of
the
victim
or
another
employee
I
think
would
work
just
to
make
sure
that
we're
capturing
everyone,
so
I
don't
want
to
cut
off
questions.
If
anyone
else
has
questions
we'll
take
those
I
didn't
see
any
otherwise
I
think
we
could
probably
just
take
a
motion
to
approve
with
that
one
noted
change
to
rule
number
52
subsection
18..
M
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I,
moved
to
approve
the
revised
proposed
amendments
to
our
rules
and
policies
for
the
legislative,
Council
Brew
with
the
amendment
that
was
noted
in.
A
A
If
there's
anyone
opposed,
please
say,
nay,
okay
motion
carries
thank
you
again
for
presenting
and
for
working
on
that
and
thank
you
to
assemblyman
hafen
for
noticing
that
change
in
rule
52,
so
that
closes
out
agenda
item
12..
Now
a
committee
I
have
a
couple
pieces
of
probably
positive
information.
A
We
are
going
to
roll
agenda
item
13,
which
is
a
litigation
report
and
the
general
agenda
item
14,
which
is
the
audited
financial
statements,
we're
going
to
roll
those
to
the
next
legislative
commission
meeting,
which
is
going
to
be
either
in
January
or
that
first
week
of
February.
So
in
the
interest
of
time,
we're
going
to
defer
those
and
thank
you
to
Mr,
Powers
and
Mr
Russian
for
being
available
today
and
that'll.
Take
us
really
to
the
last
substantive
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
item
15..
AR
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
you
should
have
a
four-page
memorandum
in
front
of
you,
it's
not
in
the
book.
It's
on
letterhead,
as
indicated
in
that
memo.
This
item
is
seeking
approval
to
submit
the
budget
for
the
legislature
that
is
described
in
in
the
memo
and
once
transmitted
it
will
be
included
in
the
state
budget
to
be
reviewed
by
the
assembly
and
Senate
money
committees
during
session
I'm.
Happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
about
any
part
of
it.
A
A
F
A
Anybody
oppose,
please
say,
nay,
emotion,
carries
we
will
transmit
the
budget,
so
that
takes
care
of
item
15..
That
takes
us
to
our
final
agenda
item,
which
is
item
16
public
comments.
We
have
two
minutes
for
public
comments
and
we'll
start
here
in
Las,
Vegas
I.
Don't
think
we
have
anyone
left
in
the
audience
in
Las
Vegas.
So
there's
no
public
comment
here:
let's
go
up
to
Carson
City.
Is
there
anyone
up
in
Carson,
City
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment?
A
Okay
must
be
on
the
corners
of
the
room,
but
nonetheless
nobody's
coming
to
the
table
BPS.
Could
we
check
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
any
public
comment
there.
K
A
Okay,
I
will
close
agenda
item
number
16
commission
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
agenda
again
just
want
to
thank
all
of
you
given
the
holidays
for
your
participation
today
and
thank
the
staff
as
well,
and
if
anyone's
traveling,
good
luck
and
I
hope
everyone
has
a
fantastic
New
Year
and
we
will
see
you
all
in
2023..
This
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank.