[0:08] Good morning everybody. I will

[0:10] call this a final meeting of the

[0:12] interim judiciaryittee to order.

[0:13] Will the secretary please take

[0:14] the role

[0:15] Senator Krasner

[0:20] Senator wynn

[0:27] assembly membermber cole

[0:33] assembly member gonzalez

[0:36] here

[0:38] assembly member Marzola

[0:44] assembly memberm Miller

[0:47] Cherichiel

[0:53] I am here thank you assembly

[0:55] member Gonzalez do you have

[0:56] anybody else with you who you

[0:58] might want to introduce

[1:03] I do give me one second

[1:11] Say

[1:12] hi

[1:18] congratulations

[1:21] graduations

[1:25] what's your name

[1:27] Saraniaer

[1:32] ran welcome. thank you that is

[1:33] one very cute baby.

[1:37] right that was really all we

[1:38] needed to do today

[1:41] thank you

[1:43] thank you so much for sharing

[1:45] her with us and again

[1:48] congratulations and

[1:50] welcomearrania and everybody to

[1:52] the final meeting of the interim

[1:55] judiciaryittee we do have

[1:57] some business today in addition

[1:58] to our work session we have a

[2:00] couple of presentations a couple

[2:01] of people reached out to being

[2:03] kind of asked about the thinking

[2:05] behind that format and the

[2:07] thinking is this that we have a

[2:08] lot to cover in one interim for

[2:11] this large committee with so

[2:13] many different priorities and

[2:14] responsibilities and so even

[2:16] though we already have a full

[2:18] work session document. I wanted

[2:19] to make sure that we also took

[2:20] the time to explore other

[2:23] policies that members here

[2:25] might be considering for their

[2:26] individual personal bills that

[2:27] the two committees might

[2:29] consider we have the you know

[2:30] the assembly judiciary and

[2:32] senate judiciary both get

[2:33] committee bills and so the

[2:34] earlier that we can get started

[2:36] talking about policy I think the

[2:37] better it is for us to make good

[2:37] policy and so

[2:40] we will have a couple of

[2:42] presentations today to talk

[2:43] through like I said some of

[2:46] those policy considerations plus

[2:48] we have our work session

[2:50] where we will go over some of

[2:51] the things that we've already

[2:52] started considering for the next

[2:55] session and take votes on

[2:58] drafting BDRs resolutions

[3:00] letters etc. but before we do

[3:03] any of that we have some time

[3:05] for public comment so I will

[3:07] invite anybody forward wishing

[3:08] to give public comment in person

[3:09] either

[3:12] in carson City or Las Vegas. I

[3:13] see some folks coming forward in

[3:15] Las Vegas so we'll start here I

[3:16] sorry I see folks in carson

[3:17] cityity as well but I already

[3:19] said we start with Vegas so

[3:19] we'll start with Las Vegas.

[3:24] right good morning members of

[3:25] the judiciary committeetee. my

[3:26] name is Kevaugano.

[3:29] and they want to talk about the

[3:30] fight against child sex

[3:31] trafficking here in Nevada.

[3:35] CScC stands for the commercial

[3:38] sexual exploitation of children

[3:39] and I recently became aware that

[3:40] this issue

[3:43] was prioritized at the march

[3:43] meeting for this committee

[3:46] I have a summary of all the key

[3:47] points about child trafficking

[3:48] from the five previous meetings

[3:49] as well

[3:51] which is part of my submission

[3:51] today.

[3:54] These miners are often between

[3:58] the ages of12 to14 and11% of

[4:01] those include boys as well. Many

[4:02] of them come from chaotic

[4:04] households and end up running

[4:05] away because it is devastating

[4:07] to their mental health to remain

[4:07] at home

[4:11] on average it takes about two

[4:14] nights for child traffickers to

[4:16] find these runaways since they

[4:17] know exactly where to look and

[4:18] what to say to them

[4:22] in my submission materials have

[4:23] also put together a chart that

[4:25] shows resources in Nevada for

[4:26] rescuing a child from

[4:27] exploitation.

[4:29] and how effective their current

[4:30] capabilities are

[4:33] I have divided the resources

[4:35] into three distinct phases for

[4:35] accomplishing this objective

[4:39] the first phase is detection the

[4:40] ability to locate a traffic

[4:41] child

[4:45] the second phase is the actual

[4:45] separation from the trafficker

[4:49] and finally the third and most

[4:50] challenging phase

[4:52] is providing a longterm

[4:54] nurturing environment for

[4:55] undoing the psychological trauma

[4:55] involved

[5:00] I regret to say that many kids

[5:01] don't just become victims of

[5:01] their traffickers

[5:03] they become dependent on them

[5:06] the trafficker is often the

[5:07] first person who ever made them

[5:08] feel chosen

[5:10] protected and provided for

[5:13] this means that law enforcement

[5:14] and social workers

[5:17] represent people who want to

[5:18] take them away from their only

[5:19] stability that they've ever

[5:20] known.

[5:21] although this isn't always the

[5:22] case

[5:25] attempting to rescue a child who

[5:25] grew up in this way is dangerous

[5:27] for all parties involved

[5:31] for the kids who really do want

[5:32] nothing to do with this way of

[5:33] life, I am confident that

[5:36] preparing a rescue system and

[5:38] the way out for them is possible

[5:39] with the right coordination

[5:40] and perseverance

[5:43] I won't underestimate the

[5:44] tremendous potential of security

[5:45] officers

[5:47] who may also help with this

[5:47] cause.

[5:50] once the issues with the private

[5:52] investigators licensing board

[5:53] are fully resolved

[5:56] and my supporting materials

[5:58] pages1 to5 highlight the key

[6:00] points of the CSEc discussions

[6:02] at the five previous judiciary

[6:04] committee meetings prior to

[6:07] today and pages6 to7 is a chart

[6:08] evaluating Nevada's current

[6:11] capability to fight CScC across

[6:13] three phases whether a

[6:15] trafficked child is found safely

[6:16] recovered and healed for the

[6:17] long term.

[6:19] Once again thanks for your time

[6:20] always.

[6:26] Good morning tochial and members

[6:28] of the joint and astanding

[6:29] Committee on thediciary. My name

[6:31] is Nickconi and I am here today

[6:32] on behalf of the Clark County

[6:34] School District and strong

[6:35] support of the fifth

[6:36] recommendation related to

[6:38] electric bicycles and emoility

[6:40] devices. we're facing an

[6:41] urgent crisis on our roads

[6:43] According to the school traffic

[6:45] safety working group's final

[6:46] report studentent non motorist

[6:50] crashes spiked42s to spi 27

[6:53] incidents in the 20252026 school

[6:55] year. a staggering356% increase

[6:56] over the previous year.

[6:59] near half of all these

[7:03] crashes,49% involved evices.

[7:05] Local medical providers at UMC

[7:06] and across southern Nevada seen

[7:08] up to a400% increase in

[7:10] pediatric e-device injuries over

[7:12] recent years. Middle and high

[7:14] school students aged12 to17

[7:16] account for74% of all student

[7:18] incidents with 14 yearolds

[7:19] suffering the single highest

[7:19] crash rate.

[7:22] This BDR provides the common

[7:23] sense guardrails our community

[7:25] need desperately needs including

[7:26] mandatory helmet protections

[7:28] closing regulatory enforcement

[7:30] gaps when differentiating

[7:31] between different types of

[7:32] devices and improved data

[7:34] collection so we understand when

[7:36] students or individuals are

[7:37] using an edevice involved in a

[7:38] motor accident.

[7:40] this legislation isn't about

[7:42] taking away mobility it is about

[7:43] protecting our children's lives.

[7:44] I urge you to support this BDr

[7:45] thank you for your

[7:49] Good morning Checheibel and

[7:50] members of the committee my name

[7:52] is Leemccallier. I'm the

[7:54] executive director of the Nevada

[7:55] chapter of the American Academy

[7:58] of Pediatrics. I'm here today to

[8:00] comment on the committee's human

[8:02] trafficking recommendations the

[8:04] Nevada AapP submitted a letter

[8:06] yesterday asking that the final

[8:07] recommendations include support

[8:10] for Nevada Care, a statewide

[8:12] medicallegal response network

[8:15] modelled on the Kansas Caretwork

[8:16] which is processed over7400

[8:17] referrals

[8:20] with a 25 hour median response

[8:21] time since 2023.

[8:24] Nevadaare addresses three

[8:26] priorities workforce retention,

[8:28] statewide coordination and fair

[8:31] compensation for medicalle work

[8:33] including courtroom testimony,

[8:36] full details are in our letter

[8:37] to the committee. My next point

[8:38] I want to make this morning

[8:40] isn't in our letter but given

[8:42] today's presentation on

[8:44] pregnancy outcome laws it merits

[8:47] a call out. The American Academy

[8:49] of Pediatrics policylicy on

[8:50] adolescents right to

[8:51] confidential care makes clear

[8:51] that when laws

[8:54] around pregnancy and abortion

[8:56] grow more punitive, young people

[8:58] delay or avoid seeking medical

[9:01] care out of fear and that delay

[9:03] is itself a health risk. I'd

[9:04] encourage this committee to

[9:06] weigh that as it considers any

[9:07] related statutes

[9:09] thank you for your time and for

[9:10] the committee's work this

[9:10] interim.

[9:16] Good morning chair and members

[9:18] of the interim judiciary

[9:18] Committee. thank you for the

[9:21] opportunity to testify today you

[9:22] will hear information about

[9:23] violence and reproductive

[9:24] access. these are important

[9:27] topics. I would ask you to

[9:28] consider the following Nevada

[9:30] has a law requiring one parent

[9:32] notification with judicial

[9:33] bypass prior to a minor

[9:34] receiving an abortion. The

[9:36] Nevadasupreme Court recently

[9:37] enjoined this law meaning an

[9:38] underage girl can get an

[9:39] abortion without her parents

[9:39] even knowing

[9:44] Concerns of doctors can can

[9:45] doctor's convenience outweighed

[9:47] parents' rights and safety of

[9:48] young girls in this decision.

[9:50] Parents are one of the most

[9:51] important safeguards against

[9:53] abuse, trafficking, exploitation

[9:54] and coercion and that is why I

[9:56] ask you today to fix Nevada's

[9:59] parental notification statute to

[10:00] once again include parents in

[10:02] their underage daughter's

[10:04] abortion decisions. Parents

[10:05] should know when their minor

[10:06] daughter is facing an abortion

[10:08] decision and with the

[10:09] appropriate protections that are

[10:09] there

[10:12] it protects her over her

[10:15] suspected abuser. Nevada should

[10:17] ensure that no woman or girl can

[10:17] be pressured, threatened,

[10:19] deceived, trafficked or forced

[10:21] into an abortion because

[10:22] sometimes the adult who

[10:24] desperately does not want a mom

[10:25] or dad to know about a girl's

[10:28] pregnancy is the very adult who

[10:30] caused it. Secret abortions help

[10:32] hide their crime and return that

[10:33] child to abuse. please consider

[10:36] using one of the judiciary BDRs

[10:37] to fixnrs442.255

[10:44] Good morning members of the

[10:46] judiciary Committee and I

[10:47] hope you all are looking forward

[10:49] to a couple months off before

[10:51] February. my name is

[10:52] Marcetttencourt. I'm the

[10:53] executive director with the

[10:55] Nevada coalitiongainst the death

[10:57] penalty for the last time this

[10:59] interim I want to encourage the

[11:00] members of this committee to

[11:02] again reconsider ending the

[11:03] death penalty in the coming

[11:05] legislative session. it is a

[11:08] costly public policy that is

[11:10] broken beyond repair and it has

[11:11] no discernible benefit to the

[11:12] people of Nevada.

[11:14] Victims continue to step forward

[11:16] this year who do not want to

[11:17] suffer through decades of media

[11:18] and court appearances for a

[11:20] sentence that may never occur

[11:22] and likely never will. As of

[11:24] this year we have gone two

[11:26] decades since the last execution

[11:28] in Nevada and what do we have to

[11:29] show a nearly million dollars

[11:30] execution chamber the

[11:32] legislature authorized that has

[11:34] never been used and nearly

[11:36] half a million dollars per death

[11:40] sentence sought versus a life

[11:41] or life without parole sentence

[11:42] that money could be

[11:44] better serving our communities

[11:45] solving crimes or supporting

[11:47] victim services. We also know

[11:48] that because of a lack of

[11:50] resources a lack of legal

[11:52] experts and more you are far

[11:53] more likely to receive a death

[11:54] sentence in Clark County or

[11:56] Washoe County than anywhere

[11:59] in the rest of the state and how

[12:00] can we compare the victimhood

[12:04] in one region versus another

[12:05] and we see this disparity

[12:08] happening not only in

[12:10] regionality but across race and

[12:11] economic status of the folks

[12:14] who are sentenced to death. The

[12:16] closer we examine capital

[12:17] punishment the less it makes

[12:20] sense.11 of the12 people in

[12:22] Nevada who have been executed or

[12:24] volunteers people who waived

[12:26] their appeals. Is this the

[12:28] system that we want one where we

[12:29] forego questions about

[12:31] innocence wasting millions in

[12:33] taxpayer dollars while people

[12:35] are struggling for something we

[12:37] know hasn't and continues to not

[12:40] work. If Lebanon, Sierra Leone

[12:41] andvirginia can move past the

[12:42] death penal

[12:44] ty so can the sagebrush state. I

[12:46] invite any of our legislators

[12:48] even those who are doubtful

[12:50] to open up the the dialogue

[12:52] and sit down for conversation.

[12:53] We can better serve the people

[12:55] of the state without capital

[12:57] punishment and focusing on how

[12:59] we can prevent priri before it

[13:00] happens. thank you so much.

[13:08] right thank you all for your

[13:09] comments. I don't see anybody

[13:12] else coming forward in Las Vegas

[13:13] so we'll move to Carson City in

[13:14] person for a public comment

[13:15] please go ahead

[13:21] Good morningcheerchiel members

[13:22] of the committee uhtanya Brown T

[13:25] O N J A B R O W N advocates for

[13:27] the inmates and the innocent

[13:30] as you know we had submitted our

[13:33] recommendation that consisted of

[13:35] a factual innocence posthumous

[13:37] petition and to change the law

[13:40] of discovery to an open file

[13:41] we know we realize that there

[13:42] are a lot of good

[13:43] recommendations and we would

[13:45] hope that one of the members

[13:46] would at least you know pick up

[13:47] our recommendation

[13:49] and move forward with one of

[13:52] their BDRs and and so also

[13:55] we would also like it known that

[13:56] there's a lot of great

[13:58] recommendations and our

[13:59] priorities for the

[14:02] recommendations would be to

[14:05] advance SB307 antiins solitary

[14:05] confinement

[14:09] what the public defenders are

[14:10] asking for fam

[14:16] fines and fees and my

[14:18] colleague is on the phone and I

[14:19] think she would be the best

[14:22] person to speak on behalf of the

[14:24] excited delirium and prone

[14:26] restraints excuse me and I'd

[14:28] like to touch on what

[14:30] Mrenttancourt had said to of

[14:31] abolishing the death penalty

[14:33] about a week or so we sent each

[14:35] of we sent you each of you a

[14:37] letter and our reasons why

[14:38] one was on behalf of advocates

[14:40] for the inmates and one was

[14:41] because of a personal from

[14:43] me personally abolishing the

[14:46] death penalty many years ago I

[14:48] always believed that that they

[14:49] would never convict an innocent

[14:50] person and we know that that is

[14:52] not the case and I know because

[14:54] my brother was wrongfully

[14:55] convicted sppent 21 years in

[14:56] prison for a crime he did not

[14:58] commit and prior to the

[14:59] discovery of all the evidence

[15:00] that was found hiding in the

[15:03] washoe County DA's file and me

[15:04] finding the real perpetrator of

[15:06] the crime. I'm still unable

[15:08] to exonerate him but I want you

[15:09] to know something

[15:12] if hypothetically if the the

[15:14] suspect had actually murdered

[15:16] somebody in which my brother was

[15:18] wrongfully convicted of my

[15:19] brother would have been executed

[15:21] because all of his appeals were

[15:24] finished finalized long before

[15:27] the last execution of 2006 so I

[15:28] really would like for you to

[15:29] think about that when

[15:31] considering abolishing the death

[15:32] penalty because like I said if

[15:36] the person that I did find later

[15:38] on and I do have a declaration

[15:40] from that kind of supp that will

[15:42] support my brother's innocence

[15:43] if he had committed a murder

[15:44] my brother would have been dead

[15:48] and the death penalty needs to

[15:50] be abolished thank you very much

[15:51] have a lovely day.

[15:56] Good morning legislatures

[15:59] my name is William J Connners.

[16:03] W Ill I A Mjojo O H N

[16:05] C O N

[16:05] N O R S

[16:09] we're I'm here for a citizens of

[16:09] participation

[16:13] participatory justice. my name

[16:13] is Will Conbers. I am

[16:17] here for two reasons. First, I

[16:19] want to put a record that I have

[16:20] submitted committed

[16:23] comments and a white paper to

[16:26] produce some friends of mine I

[16:27] have handed it over to the

[16:29] secretary for submission a white

[16:31] paper along with a cover letter

[16:33] requesting legislative gap

[16:36] analysis and some combats by the

[16:37] authors of the white paper.

[16:40] Second, I would also like to

[16:42] place into record that I have

[16:43] turned in a public comment

[16:46] writing regarding the general

[16:48] complaints about lawyers and

[16:49] attorneys as it relates to civil

[16:50] rights.

[16:53] Third, I would like to make a

[16:54] verbal commit a verbalcom.

[16:58] the food ideally state prison is

[16:59] not worth eating.

[17:02] because of the lack oflass A

[17:03] protein and it's filled with

[17:04] carbs

[17:05] like macaroni bread and cake.

[17:10] the area of the prison is in is

[17:12] surrounded by farms and gardens

[17:13] that could be a sources with

[17:16] fresh vegetables and meats and

[17:17] could be a better price.

[17:20] I hope you will least consider

[17:22] this so my husband and other

[17:24] inmates don't have to keep

[17:25] eating the garbage they're

[17:25] eating.

[17:26] also

[17:30] my husband hasn't been outside

[17:32] since he was moved toelie State

[17:33] Prison in January.

[17:37] to get any fresh air or a little

[17:39] a little sun on his face and I

[17:41] really need you guys to listen

[17:41] to me

[17:44] he was locked down all last week

[17:49] in his cell for5 days and don't

[17:50] understand why they move a whole

[17:52] bunch of people to Ily

[17:54] staterison and then they can't

[17:55] control the situation.

[17:56] they should have at least

[17:59] getting out during the day and

[18:00] not just on the tier but

[18:02] outside so they can get fresh

[18:04] air and I'm really upset about

[18:06] this and I'm not only speaking

[18:09] for my husband but I'm also

[18:10] speaking for those other inmates

[18:11] that don't have a voice.

[18:12] I thank you very much for your

[18:15] well I'm thanking you

[18:19] for listening to what I have to

[18:20] say and I'll be back of course

[18:21] because there's a lot of reasons

[18:24] that I need to talk about and

[18:28] I'm really upset about this and

[18:29] I'm hoping the legislature will

[18:30] look at this honestly.

[18:31] thank you very much

[18:32] have a nice day.

[18:46] I don't see anybody else coming

[18:47] forward in person so we'll go to

[18:48] the phone for public comment

[18:52] to provide public comment please

[18:53] press 9 now to take your place

[18:54] in the queue.

[19:06] Good morning chairirhaibo and

[19:07] members of the committee my name

[19:10] is E Grant and I speak today as

[19:11] the sister of Thomas Purdy who

[19:14] died of preventable death. well

[19:15] in the custody at the wassha

[19:18] Countyjailhomas was experiencing

[19:20] a mental health crisis instead

[19:23] of receiving care he was hard

[19:24] and tied face down until he

[19:26] suffocated. His death was ruled

[19:28] asphyxiation due to restraint at

[19:29] the washer County medical

[19:31] examiner Laura Knight described

[19:33] it as excited delirium the term

[19:33] now rejected

[19:36] by every major medical

[19:39] association. The recommendations

[19:40] before this committee to

[19:41] prohibit excited delirium as a

[19:43] medical diagnosis ambient prone

[19:46] in hogti restraint restraint for

[19:48] life saving measures they

[19:49] address practices that have

[19:52] already cost lives in Nevada

[19:53] including my brothers. Families

[19:54] like mine have watched this

[19:57] pattern repeat across Nevada

[20:00] people res restrained face down

[20:02] denied medical aid and later

[20:03] their murders described as exci

[20:06] ci excited delirium instead of

[20:08] positional asphyxiation. these

[20:10] deaths are preventable in the

[20:12] settlements that follow are a

[20:14] direct cost to taxpayers I'd

[20:16] like to mention nicolasarra was

[20:19] also asphyxiated at the Clark

[20:20] County detention Center on

[20:24] March31,2019 that lawsuit cost

[20:27] the taxpayers $2.35 million he

[20:28] was not included on the list

[20:31] that was provided to the

[20:33] committee. Nevada must join

[20:33] states likeor and

[20:35] Colorado and establishing

[20:37] uniform statewide protections

[20:38] against restraint practices that

[20:40] restrict breathing and adopting

[20:42] laws that restrict pressure to

[20:44] the neck, back, chest or abdomen

[20:46] and mandate prompt re

[20:47] positioning medical evaluation

[20:49] and independent investigations

[20:49] of restraintrelated death

[20:52] this will protect both the

[20:54] public and law enforcement

[20:57] officershomas deserved help, not

[20:57] a death sentence.

[21:00] these reforms are necessary to

[21:02] prevent positional asphyxia

[21:04] death and to ensure that

[21:05] behavioral or medical crises

[21:07] receive inappropriate medical

[21:08] response rather than a deadly

[21:10] restraint. a statewide ban

[21:12] protects both the public and

[21:15] agencies by establishing clear

[21:16] uniform standards for safe

[21:19] restraint medical evaluation and

[21:21] independent investigations I'd

[21:22] also urge you to consider

[21:24] legislation to abolish the death

[21:25] penalty. Thank you. have a good

[21:25] day.

[21:50] good morningerybo and committee

[21:53] my name is Sue Birch S U E B U R

[21:55] Tc H and I am the executive

[21:57] director of the Nevada state

[21:58] chapter of the national

[22:00] Organization for Women and I'm

[22:02] also a member of theconomic

[22:04] justiceorkorkroup. I'm calling

[22:05] about item four on the agenda.

[22:08] we are in total support of

[22:13] repealing NrS200.220 criminal

[22:16] ban on selffmanaged abortion and

[22:20] NrS201.150 concealing air for

[22:21] all the work we've done in

[22:23] Nevada on reproductive rights

[22:25] it's appalling that these are

[22:27] still on the books and after

[22:29] hearing today's presentation we

[22:31] think you will feel the same. We

[22:32] also want to concur with the

[22:34] comments made by M Mccalllister

[22:35] on human trafficking and

[22:39] by Mr. betancourt on the death

[22:39] penalty thank you for your time

[22:50] Good morning.

[22:53] my name is ashley Shed and I'm

[22:54] here today to ask you to take a

[22:56] stand and end the death penalty

[22:58] in Nevada. I have never believed

[23:00] that taking another life is the

[23:01] answer to even the most terrible

[23:03] harm but I didn't fully

[23:04] understand the weight of the

[23:06] death penalty until it affected

[23:07] me personally. I have a loved

[23:09] one on Nevada's death row. I'm

[23:11] not here to excuse the horrific

[23:12] tragedies that brought anyone to

[23:14] prison. Accountability

[23:17] mattersictims matter but I

[23:18] believe we can hold people

[23:19] accountable without taking

[23:19] another life

[23:22] My loved 1 was19 years old at

[23:23] the time of his offense. He was

[23:25] experiencing profound

[23:26] psychological distress was deep

[23:28] in his substance abuse and

[23:29] experts determined that his

[23:29] reasoning capacity

[23:32] was comparable to that of a 10

[23:34] year old.hink about who you were

[23:36] at 19, how much have you changed

[23:37] since then? How differently do

[23:39] you think make decisions and

[23:42] understand consequences today if

[23:43] we recognize growth and maturity

[23:45] in our own lives how can we

[23:46] decide that someone is

[23:48] irreparably corrupted and should

[23:49] be put to death by the state.

[23:51] The death penalty does not make

[23:51] our justice system more just

[23:54] it is plagued by racial and

[23:56] economic disparities. it's

[23:57] expensive and it carries an

[23:59] irreversible consequence in a

[24:00] system we know make mistakes

[24:02] makes mistakes the studies have

[24:04] been done. the data is there

[24:05] decadecades of research have

[24:06] failed to establish the death

[24:08] penalty as an effective

[24:10] deterrent to crime. yet we are

[24:12] living in a time when science

[24:13] research and evidence are

[24:15] increasingly being ignored in a

[24:17] major in major policy decisions

[24:18] Nevada should not join that

[24:21] trend when the evidence tells us

[24:21] a policy is ineffective we

[24:22] should have

[24:24] the courage to change it. People

[24:26] can be held accountable for the

[24:28] harm they caused and still be

[24:29] capable of change. Nevada does

[24:30] not need to kill someone to

[24:31] demonstrate that we value

[24:33] justice and we can choose

[24:34] humanity and believe that no one

[24:37] is be beyond redemption and

[24:38] that's the Nevada I hope we

[24:39] choose to be thank you for your

[24:39] time.

[24:52] Good morning care vice chair

[24:54] members of the committee this is

[24:57] Doramartinez members of the

[24:58] Nevada Disability Peer Action

[25:00] coalition chair please excuse my

[25:03] ignorance if I'm speaking out of

[25:06] terms I was trying to get the

[25:08] items on your work session

[25:11] number D I believe it's about e

[25:12] bike

[25:14] I hope that if

[25:18] this will be one of the be if

[25:21] this is this is abDr please

[25:24] put strong perimeters on it

[25:26] as you know I'm blind and I have

[25:28] a guide dog and sometimes the e

[25:29] bikers

[25:32] and bicyclists they just whisp

[25:35] and by us and sometimes they can

[25:36] hurt my dog and

[25:39] when my dog is hurt in the

[25:42] middle of the sidewalk or the

[25:44] crosswalk if they do that too

[25:47] the bicyclist it could be

[25:49] dangerous to me and my service

[25:51] dog and just a reminder that we

[25:53] do in Nevada thank God there is

[25:54] a NrS

[25:59] 426790 and810 that

[26:02] give safety to the service

[26:03] animals

[26:03] but I just

[26:06] to prevent that I don't want

[26:08] anything happen to my dog

[26:10] because as you know veteran

[26:12] veterinarian bills are very

[26:14] expensive and I just do not want

[26:15] my dog to get harmed simply

[26:16] because he is guiding me as a

[26:20] blind individual and I sincerely

[26:21] hope that the accessibility team

[26:23] can give me the agenda item that

[26:25] I can read more because it's not

[26:27] accessible as of now. thank you

[26:28] chair. take care.

[26:32] we have no additional callers on

[26:33] the line for public comment

[26:38] right. thank you so much.

[26:40] that takes us to the end of

[26:42] agenda item number 2. we'll move

[26:44] on to agenda item number3

[26:45] approval of the minutes from the

[26:46] March10th meeting

[26:50] unless there are comments,

[26:52] questions I would accept a

[26:53] motion to approve the minutes.

[26:56] right we have a motional'll take

[26:57] the motion from vicechair

[26:58] Miller. I'll take the second

[27:00] from senator wynn any discussion

[27:01] on the motion

[27:05] seeing none all in favor say aye

[27:07] i any opposed nay all right the

[27:08] motion carries we have approved

[27:09] the minutes from the March10th

[27:10] meeting

[27:25] right and with that we'll move

[27:26] on to our next agenda item we

[27:28] did have a request to flip

[27:29] the order of our presentations

[27:31] and so we will start with agenda

[27:34] item number5 a presentation

[27:36] on an audit of the Nevada

[27:37] Department of Corrections from

[27:39] Mr Stevenson please go ahead

[27:40] when you're ready.

[27:46] good morning Chechiel and

[27:47] members of the committee for the

[27:49] record Craig Stevenson, I'm the

[27:51] administrator of the division of

[27:53] internal audits. thank

[27:55] youchaircheibel for inviting me

[27:56] to give an overview of the

[27:58] recent work we completed at the

[27:59] Nevada Department of

[28:01] Corrections. I really do

[28:03] appreciate the opportunity to

[28:05] present our findings to this

[28:06] committee and to present the

[28:07] recommendations we issued to the

[28:08] department

[28:12] I want to start by directing

[28:14] committee members' attention to

[28:15] the exhibit attached to this

[28:17] agenda item which is the

[28:18] administrative review report

[28:20] issued on Julyin,2026.

[28:24] the report is52 pages so I'll do

[28:25] my best to keep this

[28:26] presentation as brief as

[28:29] possible and focus on high level

[28:29] findings and recommendations

[28:32] so at the request of the

[28:34] governor and the executive

[28:35] branch audit committee the

[28:36] division of internal audits

[28:38] reviewed time sheets and pay

[28:39] practices at high desert

[28:39] staterison

[28:42] and collective bargaining

[28:44] agreements applicable to

[28:45] Department of Corrections

[28:45] employees

[28:48] findings resulting from the

[28:49] review have been grouped into

[28:50] two chapters in the report

[28:54] chapter one begins on page two.

[28:57] it addresses notable times sheet

[28:58] coding errors and findings

[29:00] related to department pay

[29:01] practices

[29:04] we reviewed approximately11,000

[29:07] times sheets over 19 pay periods

[29:07] in fiscal year 2026.

[29:11] Over5000 times sheet errors were

[29:12] identified

[29:15] resulting in both underpayments

[29:16] and overpayments to employees

[29:20] as a result the department made

[29:21] 2600 pay adjustments

[29:24] Time sheets were largely found

[29:25] to be poorly documented

[29:29] shift times were often missing

[29:30] or indiscernible hours coded

[29:32] often did not match the shift

[29:34] times and eligibility for

[29:36] special pay coded often

[29:37] conflicted with the shift

[29:37] documented

[29:40] poorly documented time sheets

[29:42] prevent supervisors and pay

[29:44] clerks from determining whether

[29:47] time is coded correctly and that

[29:47] the employee is paid correctly

[29:50] over time for example is a

[29:52] deviation from a standard shift

[29:54] requiring details to

[29:56] substantiate the hour worked.

[29:59] However, we identified over800

[30:01] instances in which time coded as

[30:02] over time conflicted with

[30:03] information documented in the

[30:04] time sheet.

[30:07] thousands of other errors

[30:09] highlight deficiencies in both

[30:10] employee comprehension of times

[30:12] sheet coding requirements and

[30:14] the review and approval process

[30:16] performed by supervisors and pay

[30:17] clerks.

[30:20] on page eight of the report we

[30:23] note that over 2000 errors were

[30:24] made relating to shift

[30:26] differential pay which resulted

[30:27] in pay adjustments

[30:29] shift differential pay is a

[30:31] type of premium pay for working

[30:34] less desirable hours typically

[30:36] starts in the afternoon or the

[30:38] evening at high desert State

[30:40] Prison shift differential pay

[30:42] the qualifying period starts

[30:45] at one pm. as an example.shift

[30:47] differential pay is often coded

[30:49] by employees not entitled to it

[30:51] and missing when it was due to

[30:52] the employee for working in a

[30:53] qualifying schedule.

[30:55] page nine of the report

[30:58] discloses hundreds of musterpa

[30:59] coding errors that resulted in

[31:02] pay adjustments muster time is45

[31:04] minutes of overtime pay that

[31:05] correctional officers receive

[31:06] every day they show up to work

[31:09] muster time was often missing

[31:11] from day worked and improperly

[31:12] included on days not worked

[31:15] Additionally some correctional

[31:17] officers coded more than 24

[31:18] hours per day when accounting

[31:20] for muststerpay and standby

[31:21] time.

[31:23] this practice indicates that

[31:24] musterpa is viewed as a pay

[31:26] entitlement rather than

[31:28] compensation for the time it

[31:30] takes to travel to and from a

[31:32] post in a correctional facility

[31:33] before and after the assigned

[31:33] shift.

[31:36] some officers arrived late to

[31:39] their posts but still claimed45

[31:39] minutes of muster pay.

[31:44] beginning on page four of the

[31:45] report we discussed the

[31:46] complexities of coding various

[31:47] types of holiday pay

[31:51] we found that holiday pay was

[31:52] frequently coded incorrectly on

[31:54] employee time sheets indicating

[31:56] a pattern of confusion among

[31:58] employees supervisors and pay

[31:59] clerks alike.

[32:01] this is most likely due to the

[32:03] large number of pay codes used

[32:05] by the department and a lack of

[32:07] training and possibly the 24

[32:09] hour nature of prison operations

[32:12] where employees work shifts that

[32:13] often spann the midnight to

[32:16] midnight legal holiday hours

[32:17] and certain other errors were

[32:19] less prevalent but nonetheless

[32:20] reflected deficient time sheet

[32:23] coding and review process for

[32:25] example on page six of the

[32:28] report we identify a novel

[32:29] practice of overtime hours being

[32:33] flexed to offset Aal or unpaid

[32:33] leave time

[32:37] correctional officers sometimes

[32:38] work one or more overtime shifts

[32:40] in the same pay period as AO

[32:43] time or unpaid leave time and

[32:44] then they code the overtime

[32:46] hours as regular time on the

[32:47] day's absent

[32:49] this cumbersome practice of

[32:51] flexing over time to cover

[32:53] unpaid absences often leads to

[32:55] coding more or less time on a

[32:57] time sheet that is actually

[32:57] worked

[33:00] Chapter one of the report

[33:02] included5 recommendations to

[33:03] improve time sheet coding and

[33:04] the time sheet review and

[33:06] approval process

[33:08] recommendcommation1.1 is to

[33:09] enforce time sheet coding

[33:12] requirements recommendation1.2

[33:14] is to update and clarify time

[33:15] sheet coding guidance

[33:17] recommendation1.3 is to augment

[33:19] time sheet training provided to

[33:21] both employees and their the

[33:23] trainees mainly correctional

[33:24] officer trainees

[33:27] recommendcommendation1.4 is to

[33:27] investigate instances of

[33:29] suspected time sheet abuse

[33:32] and recommendation1.5 is to

[33:34] install badge readers and

[33:35] staffing entrances

[33:38] that concludes chapter one,

[33:41] chapter 2 begins on page 21 of

[33:43] the report and pertains to

[33:45] collective bargaining agreements

[33:48] or CBAs these CBAs that I'm

[33:50] going to discuss are applicable

[33:51] to most of the department of

[33:53] Corrections employees. Chapter

[33:55] two addresses vague provisions

[33:57] of the CBAs that failed to

[33:58] provide sufficient guidance for

[33:59] implementing the agreement

[34:00] provisions

[34:02] Vague language relying heavily

[34:04] on legal interpretation does not

[34:07] help the employees depending on

[34:09] dependent on the agreement terms

[34:10] nor does it help promote a

[34:12] shared understanding between

[34:14] parties to the gre to the

[34:16] agreement. findings related

[34:17] to muster pay granted by the

[34:19] CBAs begin on page 22 of the

[34:19] report

[34:22] notably the CBA is entitled

[34:24] Correctional officer to payment

[34:26] of45 minutes of muster time for

[34:28] everyday worked regardless of

[34:29] post or work assignment.

[34:33] This contradicts the fact that

[34:34] muster time was granted

[34:36] specifically to account for the

[34:38] time needed to walk to and from

[34:39] the gatehouse to the assigned

[34:41] post and exchange passdown

[34:43] instructions before and after a

[34:45] shift. Officers assigned duties

[34:47] other than a standard post such

[34:49] as assignment to hospital

[34:51] training or honor guard are

[34:54] receiving musterpay outside of

[34:56] its originally intended purpose

[34:58] narrowing must repay eligibility

[35:00] at high desert State Prison

[35:01] alone would save the state over

[35:05] $200,000 annually as shown on

[35:05] page 24 of the report

[35:10] g in ning on page 25 of the

[35:11] report we discussed the impact

[35:13] of the CBA's defining

[35:14] eligibility for shift

[35:16] differential pay based on the

[35:19] shift assigned rather than the

[35:19] hours's worked

[35:22] eligibility for shift

[35:23] differential pay as outlined in

[35:26] the CBAs is based on arbitrary

[35:28] shift designations which vary

[35:29] from one correctional facility

[35:30] to another

[35:32] simplymply call in a shift swing

[35:34] shift renders it eligible

[35:36] regardless of the start and end

[35:38] times of the shift. This

[35:40] practice differs from state

[35:42] regulations and other CBAs that

[35:44] designate eligibility for shift

[35:47] differential pay based upon the

[35:47] specific hours worked

[35:51] beginning on page 27 of the

[35:52] report we discussed several

[35:54] provisions of the CBA's related

[35:56] to holiday pay which

[35:57] insufficiently addressed the

[35:58] complexities of coding holiday

[35:59] time

[36:02] the vague CBA provisions do not

[36:03] fully consider the unique

[36:05] circumstances encountered at a

[36:06] 24 hour correctional facility

[36:10] Correctional employees are

[36:12] expected to work holidays and

[36:13] night shift employees will

[36:15] perform work both in partial

[36:17] shifts and multiple shifts

[36:18] within that legal midnight to

[36:21] midnight holiday window.

[36:23] lastly and perhaps most

[36:26] importantly on page ir1 of the

[36:27] report we note that the CBA's

[36:29] allow employees to work

[36:30] excessive hours indefinitely

[36:34] missing from the CBAs are terms

[36:36] limiting the maximum number of

[36:37] hours a correctional officer may

[36:38] work in any given time frame

[36:43] Currently correctional officers

[36:44] are allowed to work double

[36:46] shifts of six hours and45

[36:49] minutes indefinitely which

[36:50] presents health and safety

[36:51] concerns

[36:56] in appendix E on page 52 of this

[36:58] report it's the very last page.

[37:00] We show the time sheet of an

[37:01] employee that worked every day

[37:01] of the pay period

[37:04] the employee worked several

[37:05] sixteenho double shifts

[37:08] then 2 t2hour shifts on their

[37:11] days off followed by a 20 hour

[37:11] shift

[37:14] and then reported to their next

[37:15] shift4 hours later which is

[37:16] very concerning

[37:19] The CBAs do not restrict the

[37:22] number of consecutive shifts or

[37:23] overtime hours that a

[37:23] correctional officer may work

[37:26] the department intends to work

[37:28] with the union representing

[37:30] correctional officers to limit

[37:32] excessive hours by creating a

[37:33] memorandum of understanding

[37:36] ri or to the CBA's taking

[37:38] effect, correctional officers

[37:40] could work16 hour shifts for

[37:41] more than two consecutive days

[37:44] there are5 recommendations made

[37:46] in chapter two of the report

[37:48] which are shown on page 34. each

[37:50] recommendation requires

[37:51] coordination with the division

[37:52] of humanmansource Management

[37:55] Recommendation2.1 is to

[37:56] negotiate and clarify

[37:57] eligibility for musterpa.

[38:00] Recommendation2.2 is to

[38:02] establish shift differential pay

[38:04] eligibility criteria based on

[38:06] hours' worked rather than

[38:07] assigned shifts

[38:09] recommendcommendation2.3 is to

[38:10] clarify a holiday pay provisions

[38:14] recommendation 2.4 is to

[38:15] establish limits on the number

[38:17] of hours that may be worked in

[38:19] one day and over consecutive

[38:19] periods of time

[38:23] and recommendation 2.5 is to

[38:23] clarify ruralpa eligibility

[38:27] for your information the

[38:28] department submitted a response

[38:30] and implementation plan for all

[38:32] recommendations issued which is

[38:34] shown in Appendix B of the

[38:35] report starting on page 39.

[38:38] the report was released to the

[38:40] executive branch audit committee

[38:42] and made publicly available on

[38:44] July9,2026. The division of

[38:46] internal audits will follow up

[38:47] on the status of all

[38:49] recommendations in January of

[38:52] 2027. This concludes my

[38:53] presentation and I'm happy to

[38:54] answer any questions the

[38:55] committee may have

[39:02] thank you so much for that

[39:03] presentation and we will start

[39:05] with questions up here in Las

[39:06] Vegas.

[39:09] well maybe we don't have any

[39:11] senatorwynn

[39:15] thank you and I don't know if

[39:17] you have the answer to this but

[39:21] I know that they recently got

[39:25] their staff study completed

[39:27] finally after a couple years

[39:31] delay and reinstituting it that

[39:33] made recommendations for

[39:38] like staffing needs and staffing

[39:42] changes so this audit does it

[39:44] have does it are you able to

[39:45] take into consideration how

[39:49] some of those proposed changes

[39:50] would affect some of the

[39:51] outcomes that they might have in

[39:51] the future

[39:55] A am I asking you to have a

[39:55] crystal ball?

[40:00] no think can I can take a shot

[40:02] at it regarding that staffing

[40:04] study my understanding is

[40:07] there's some800 positions short

[40:10] according to the staffing

[40:14] study so if we think that

[40:16] overtime is going to be reduced

[40:17] without filling

[40:19] a significant number of

[40:22] positions that that that's

[40:24] just not possible in order to

[40:26] reduce overtime specifically at

[40:28] high desert staterison they

[40:31] would have to fill a remaining

[40:33] vacant positions. the

[40:34] interesting thing about that

[40:36] staffing study is that it

[40:37] proposes even more positions

[40:40] and so one of the questions that

[40:42] legislators have asked in the

[40:45] past is when EdoC asks for more

[40:47] positions is they say well you

[40:48] haven't filled your current

[40:50] positions so why would we give

[40:52] you more positions and so endoc

[40:54] has to fill the current

[40:55] vacancies and then

[40:58] essentially ask for more

[41:00] positions to reduce overtime

[41:02] further cause they'll still rely

[41:04] on overtime specifically at high

[41:05] desert staterison.

[41:08] and so the overtime issue is

[41:10] not something that's going to go

[41:14] away just by reducing vacancies

[41:15] they would also have to get

[41:18] some new positions in order

[41:20] to completely reduce that and

[41:21] and that's a very difficult

[41:22] thing to do

[41:25] and if I can just follow up

[41:27] chair if that's OK thank you

[41:30] when when you're talking about

[41:31] and you you may have

[41:33] mentioned this and I'm sure it's

[41:34] in the study. Do you know what

[41:37] the average obviously this came

[41:40] to our attention at least in

[41:41] during session on the money

[41:43] committees because we realized

[41:45] that there were employees that

[41:48] were working as you explained

[41:49] like crazy amounts of hours

[41:50] which

[41:54] I had concerns about safety

[41:56] all kinds of things in addition

[41:59] to potential fraud. do you know

[42:01] what the average salary is for

[42:04] all and like corrections

[42:07] staff at like high desert for

[42:08] example where it seems like

[42:10] majority of the abuses are the

[42:11] majority of the overtime uses

[42:12] there

[42:19] that do not know off the top of

[42:22] my head what the average salary

[42:24] is now if you're comparing

[42:25] prison to prison I could give

[42:27] you a little bit of insight

[42:29] which is that the the officer's

[42:30] working at high desert

[42:32] staterison. there's more

[42:34] vacancies there in my opinion

[42:37] because they have to drive about

[42:38] depending on where you live in

[42:40] Las Vegas right uh30 minutes to

[42:43] an hour if you live where I

[42:43] lived in Henderson

[42:46] it'd take about an hour to get

[42:47] to high desert Staterison if you

[42:48] live on the north end of town

[42:51] maybe30 minutes and that's

[42:54] kind of a tough sell to make

[42:55] someone commute that kind of

[42:56] distance all the way out to the

[43:00] prison. I can also tell you

[43:02] having visited the prison

[43:04] numerous times throughout this

[43:05] review that we did that

[43:10] because high desert is a

[43:12] Nevada's maximum security prison

[43:14] right it has some of the the

[43:15] roughest offenders

[43:19] it's a difficult place to work

[43:20] it's a difficult environment to

[43:24] work in on my tour one of

[43:26] my the many tours that I took

[43:27] through there there were

[43:31] feces being thrown outside of

[43:33] jail cells there was a cell

[43:35] extraction that I witnessed

[43:37] where someone was fighting three

[43:39] correctional officers it's a

[43:41] dangerous environment and that's

[43:43] probably the most dangerous of

[43:44] the prisons. it's also the

[43:46] largest prison by far I think

[43:48] there's about double the number

[43:50] of correctional officers and

[43:52] probably about double the number

[43:54] of inmates at that prison than

[43:56] any other prison and so that's

[43:57] why I think high desert

[43:58] experiences

[44:01] a tougher time filling those

[44:02] vacancies

[44:09] Thank you if it's possible I

[44:09] might follow up with you

[44:11] afterward to find out whether or

[44:15] not there is if it's a

[44:17] available to look at that

[44:18] information. I guess what I'm

[44:20] wondering is is I know what we

[44:23] have allocated for the salaries

[44:26] for these state workers but

[44:28] I'm curious what their actual

[44:30] amount that we are paying them

[44:31] when we look at overtime costs

[44:37] just trying to figure out where

[44:38] all that money goes from and

[44:40] whether or not we are

[44:41] potentially

[44:42] paying one person

[44:44] with overtime

[44:48] and we could conceivably hire

[44:50] two or three other people at

[44:52] whatever the standard pay is so

[44:53] thank you so much

[45:01] right. I think assembly

[45:02] memberhanson had a question

[45:03] please go ahead

[45:04] thank you

[45:08] and thank you for being here

[45:10] I wanted to clarify a little bit

[45:12] on the first part of the report

[45:14] where you were talking about the

[45:16] flexing over time being used

[45:19] sometimes to offset the absence

[45:21] without leave or following

[45:24] proper protocol so and I

[45:25] appreciate Senator Wwynn's

[45:27] questions because diving into

[45:28] some of the things she was

[45:29] trying to flush out I think are

[45:32] really important for us to try

[45:33] to get a grip on on

[45:33] understanding how we can really

[45:34] be

[45:35] effective on this

[45:39] so when it comes to if you could

[45:41] define what flexen means I mean

[45:42] I I think I understand but I

[45:45] think just to get on the record

[45:46] and for the public that might be

[45:48] listening so that they might

[45:50] understand what what do we mean

[45:53] by flexing in this term in the

[45:53] in this

[45:54] instance

[45:58] sure so in this instance and

[46:00] generally I would say for

[46:01] classified employees at the

[46:03] state when you flex time you

[46:05] don't work a certain amount of

[46:07] time on one day and then you

[46:09] work a corresponding amount of

[46:12] time on a different day. so

[46:14] in this particular instance I'll

[46:15] give you an example. let's say a

[46:17] correctional officer called out

[46:17] on a Monday

[46:21] and it wasn't preapproved leave

[46:23] and maybe they didn't have any

[46:25] sick leave or annual leave to

[46:28] cover that. They might miss a 8

[46:30] hour10ho12 hour shift we'll say

[46:32] an eight hour shift what they

[46:34] would do is come in on say a

[46:38] Friday and work8 hours of

[46:40] overtime to cover that unpaid

[46:42] absence on a Monday so they will

[46:45] flex that time from one day to

[46:47] cover the unpaid absence on the

[46:48] other day to

[46:50] make sure that they hit a base

[46:52] number of80 hours in a pay

[46:55] period so that they don't get

[46:55] short paid on their paycheck

[47:01] Thank you, I appreciate you

[47:02] clarifying that so

[47:05] when I looked at the

[47:08] recommendations and again if you

[47:10] could maybe give us an example

[47:12] how are you going to how how is

[47:15] the system going to catch that

[47:17] in real time by the coding it

[47:19] seemed like that was what the

[47:22] suggestion might be if that's

[47:23] the answer who's doing the

[47:25] coding? I'm just trying to

[47:27] understand how we're going to

[47:29] catch this in real time rather

[47:31] than later when we have to ask

[47:32] for an audit.

[47:37] absolutely that's a great

[47:39] question so and to kind of

[47:42] unpack that who does the coding

[47:43] it's the correctional officers

[47:44] so the correctional officers

[47:48] will go into the Nevadamployee

[47:49] action and timekeeping

[47:51] systemstem we call it NEEs and

[47:52] that's where they'll submit a

[47:53] pay period so they'll do the

[47:56] actual coding on a time sheet in

[47:58] needs the second part of your

[48:00] question regarding how do we

[48:01] catch that how do we effect

[48:03] changes and not look at this

[48:04] after the fact and say

[48:08] hey you did this wrong. I

[48:09] want to speak to that by saying

[48:12] one they were never prevented or

[48:14] prohibited from that practice.

[48:17] that was a common and accepted

[48:19] practice and so that wasn't

[48:22] really a concern and at the end

[48:24] of the day the money the the

[48:28] paycheck is right so if you miss

[48:30] eight hours here but you work8

[48:31] hours here the the paycheck

[48:33] amount will be right and so it

[48:34] wasn't really a concern

[48:37] I would say the bigger concern

[48:39] is that it's causing pay clerks

[48:40] and supervisors reviewing time

[48:43] sheets to have to do the math

[48:46] and frequently the maths it

[48:47] the of the flex time it doesn't

[48:48] summate

[48:50] and so they'll say I was out for

[48:52] eight hours on Monday and then I

[48:54] worked six hours of overtime on

[48:56] Friday, right and they'll just

[48:58] cancel that out and so that's

[49:00] the bigger concern from my

[49:02] perspective now moving forward

[49:06] endoc is gonna create some I

[49:07] guess you could call them pay

[49:10] policies to restrict this

[49:13] practice of flexing AWO time for

[49:15] overtime and what they're going

[49:16] to have the correctional

[49:17] officers do is code the Aol

[49:20] time on the day they're A wall

[49:22] and then on the day that they

[49:25] work overtime to code what's

[49:28] called pRT paid regular time on

[49:30] that day that way they don't

[49:32] have to try and wash those hours

[49:34] so the time will be it will be

[49:38] right essentially I don't

[49:40] think this practice of flexing

[49:42] Aal time for overtime is gonna

[49:44] go away. I don't have a problem

[49:46] particularly with the practice

[49:47] because it allows employees to

[49:48] hit

[49:51] the base80 hours and if they

[49:52] didn't hit that base80 hours

[49:54] you'd have to pay another

[49:56] employee overtime and so I would

[49:58] say that that's not my main

[50:00] concern my bigger concern is the

[50:02] transparency of it and making

[50:04] sure that the the amounts

[50:07] actually do flex or wash out so

[50:08] that the employee's paycheck is

[50:09] correct

[50:14] thank you that that really

[50:16] helped to have that kind of

[50:19] explanation and detail and thank

[50:19] you chairir that's it for me.

[50:26] Thank you. Other questions from

[50:27] our members afar

[50:28] meaning on zoom

[50:32] right I don't see any I have a

[50:33] couple of questions as well and

[50:35] I'll I'll pick up where assembly

[50:35] memberhansen left off

[50:39] I think Mr Stevenson you were

[50:41] giving a really good example of

[50:43] like an employee who is supposed

[50:44] to work an eight hour shift on

[50:45] Monday and doesn't work that

[50:46] shift and so they pick up

[50:48] another shift later and

[50:53] I want to understand is it

[50:54] supposed to be

[50:59] if if my normal shift is say an

[51:02] eight hour shift from noon to8

[51:06] p.m. on Monday and instead I go

[51:08] in on Friday and work from noon

[51:10] to8 p.m. Am I supposed to get

[51:11] paid the exact same amount

[51:16] that's a great question so what

[51:18] you're saying is you're working

[51:20] overtime on Friday shouldn't you

[51:22] get time and a half and the

[51:25] answer is no and the reason you

[51:27] wouldn't get that that time and

[51:29] a half on Friday is because you

[51:32] didn't hit your base80 hours of

[51:35] regular time and so you have to

[51:37] flex it or wash it with those

[51:40] hours missed on the Monday and

[51:42] that is correct that is what we

[51:43] want to see what we don't want

[51:44] to see is

[51:46] someone calling out AalL on that

[51:49] Monday working8 hours on a shift

[51:51] that they aren't scheduled for

[51:51] and getting the time and a half

[51:52] right

[51:56] is that what we're seeing is

[51:57] that they're getting the time

[51:58] and a half rate on that

[52:01] second shift that should be paid

[52:01] at the base rate

[52:05] there were a few examples of

[52:07] that would say that's not

[52:10] overall the general issue

[52:13] with this finding we did find

[52:15] numerous examples where the math

[52:18] didn't add up so they missed

[52:19] eight hours or a better example

[52:22] would be they missed12 hours

[52:23] because that's a shift they came

[52:24] in and worked an eightho

[52:27] overtime shift and they washed

[52:29] both of those and so obviously

[52:30] the eight hours doesn't wash

[52:32] the12 hour shift that wasn't

[52:33] really super common.

[52:37] I would say the bigger issue

[52:40] is that there aren't really

[52:42] controls in place to make sure

[52:45] that the time was actually

[52:47] worked and then there's bigger

[52:48] concerns over when somebody

[52:50] calls out Awal they have to

[52:53] backfill that position at time

[52:55] and a half and so that that that

[52:57] could be costly to the state now

[52:59] you could argue that when the

[53:00] officer comes in and works

[53:02] overtime later in the week on a

[53:03] shift that

[53:05] they would be backfilling

[53:07] anyways then it kind of washes

[53:10] and and and so it them being so

[53:12] understaffed at the moment that

[53:14] isn't a concern but if they were

[53:16] fully staffed that would be a

[53:17] bigger concern because now

[53:18] you're paying time and a half to

[53:19] backfill a

[53:25] OK I I think I'm following

[53:30] that

[53:34] basically I think what you're

[53:36] saying is like if two employees

[53:39] basically switched shifts. I was

[53:39] supposed to work Monday

[53:44] senatorwynn was supposed to work

[53:45] Friday.stead Senatorwynn works

[53:45] Monday, I work Friday.

[53:48] but then both are getting paid

[53:51] overtime for those shifts

[53:52] because they're backfilling them

[53:55] Am I understanding that right

[54:02] if let's say that you did not

[54:04] hit your eightyba regular hours

[54:06] let's say you were

[54:08] scheduled58hour shifts for two

[54:11] weeks in a pay period and you

[54:11] guys just swapped shifts

[54:14] it'll all be fine it would all

[54:17] the math would even out that

[54:17] wouldn't be a concern

[54:21] and they frequently do that they

[54:24] have a procedure for for shifts

[54:25] swapping so that wouldn't

[54:27] be a concern what we're finding

[54:28] in this awal issue particularly

[54:30] maybe I could speak a little bit

[54:32] more to why it's happening. So

[54:35] the reason why it's happening is

[54:37] correctional officers will use

[54:38] up their leave balances

[54:41] and then they'll get to a point

[54:42] where they need to call out sick

[54:45] on say a Monday but they don't

[54:45] have any leave balance

[54:49] and so really they're only

[54:51] option is to come in and work an

[54:53] extra say8 hours later in the

[54:56] week to cover that missed time

[54:58] because if they don't cover that

[54:59] missed time they're actually

[55:00] going to get paid for less

[55:02] than80 hours, less than a normal

[55:06] paycheck and and so that's

[55:10] kind of why this is happening if

[55:12] you trade shifts it washes

[55:16] that's not a concern and

[55:17] again this would be a bigger

[55:19] concern if they were fully

[55:22] staffed and they had someone to

[55:24] cover every shift and then

[55:26] somebody calls out and picks up

[55:28] a different shift now now

[55:29] they're working a shift that

[55:30] doesn't need to be worked and

[55:31] you would have to have someone

[55:32] backfill that first shift at

[55:33] time and a half

[55:35] in that case you'd be paying

[55:38] a50% premium to cover that AalL

[55:40] time as it stands right now

[55:41] pretty much no matter what

[55:43] anyone who picks up a shift

[55:45] outside of the the regular shift

[55:47] schedules is going to be working

[55:49] overtime because they're so

[55:49] understaffed

[55:56] think I understand. I have a

[55:58] related question I'm looking

[56:00] at that chart that you pointed

[56:01] out to us on page fifte with

[56:03] I don't know what is this

[56:07] 1012 different codes for holiday

[56:08] pay

[56:09] and

[56:15] I'm wondering if

[56:20] part of the problem is also that

[56:22] we're not trading shifts one for

[56:24] one because that Monday shift

[56:27] that somebody is calling out is

[56:28] not paid at the same rate as

[56:33] the Saturday shift or the the

[56:35] next Monday is a holiday and

[56:36] that's still in their pay period

[56:37] and they're trying to make it up

[56:39] so can you speak a little bit to

[56:41] whether different

[56:45] shifts get paid at different

[56:46] rates not accounting for

[56:49] overtime but just because of the

[56:50] the timing of the shift for the

[56:51] holidays

[56:55] Certainly that and that's a

[56:56] really good question because

[56:57] there's some

[57:00] some nuance there that I think

[57:02] that you're pointing out. so

[57:03] let's say that you're a night

[57:04] shift employee

[57:07] you get what's called page shift

[57:07] differential

[57:10] and so you get a5% premium for

[57:12] working that night shift. Now

[57:14] the interesting thing about this

[57:15] collective bargaining agreement

[57:18] is that if someone who normally

[57:19] works day shift

[57:22] fills in for you on that

[57:24] night shift they actually don't

[57:25] get shift differential pay

[57:28] so they actually get paid

[57:29] less

[57:32] than somebody that's on night

[57:33] shift in terms of page shift

[57:33] differential

[57:37] now the the opposite of that is

[57:38] also true. let's say that you're

[57:40] a night shift employee and you

[57:42] come in and you fill a day

[57:44] shift.live it or not you get

[57:47] that5% premium for working that

[57:49] day shift even though it's not

[57:52] during the undesirable hours

[57:53] that would typically be awarded

[57:54] that5% pay premium

[57:57] and and just for your

[57:59] edification normal state

[58:00] employee classified state

[58:02] employees they get paid shift

[58:06] differential between6 pm. and7

[58:08] a.m. if they work between those

[58:11] hours and so this CBA is really

[58:13] unique. Additionally the askkme

[58:15] CBA's to the best of my

[58:17] knowledge most of them if not

[58:19] all of them pay shift

[58:21] differential between6 p.m. and7

[58:24] a.m. so that really makes this

[58:25] FOP

[58:27] CBA that's applicable to

[58:28] correctional officers unique.

[58:31] They also get shift differential

[58:32] paid when they're on

[58:33] say annual leave

[58:37] which is which is interesting

[58:40] or sick leave or on holiday

[58:41] time if their normal shift

[58:42] qualifies for it

[58:46] back to this holiday time

[58:47] issue that you pointed out on

[58:50] page 15 in this exhibit there

[58:54] are premium pays for working on

[58:56] a holiday. So certainly if

[58:57] you're one of the employees that

[58:59] works on the holiday you are

[59:00] going to get premium pay

[59:04] but I would argue that it

[59:05] doesn't matter which employee

[59:07] does it you're you're gonna get

[59:10] that premium pay regardless just

[59:11] for showing up to work on the

[59:12] holiday.

[59:16] OK. I think I think that makes

[59:20] sense I just have one other

[59:22] kind of set of questions if you

[59:24] will indulge me kind of at

[59:28] the very beginning of this

[59:31] document I'm on page 4 of52

[59:34] with the time sheets and

[59:35] adjustments

[59:38] if I'm reading this correctly

[59:41] you analyzed roughly11,000

[59:45] time sheets and there were

[59:46] errors in roughly

[59:50] 5000 of them so that's just

[59:52] under50% am I missing something?

[59:58] clarification there were about

[1:00:00] that many there were that

[1:00:03] many errors actually the errors

[1:00:04] were only prevalent in about a

[1:00:06] quarter of the time sheets so

[1:00:09] it's 2600 times sheets had

[1:00:11] errors so in fact there were

[1:00:12] about two errors

[1:00:15] per incorrect times sheet so

[1:00:17] it's about a quarter of all time

[1:00:18] sheets had to be submitted for

[1:00:20] pay adjustments because they had

[1:00:21] errors

[1:00:21] and

[1:00:25] I I really don't know if you can

[1:00:25] answer this question or not but

[1:00:31] is that a normal error rate for

[1:00:31] state employees

[1:00:35] mean

[1:00:40] so I haven't audited all state

[1:00:42] employees but I'm just gonna say

[1:00:43] using my common sense and

[1:00:44] judgment

[1:00:47] that and 13 years of working for

[1:00:49] the state as an auditor that

[1:00:52] this is not common at all this

[1:00:55] this is extremely high but I

[1:00:57] don't have the data to support

[1:01:00] that other than my own

[1:01:01] experience reviewing employee

[1:01:01] times sheets

[1:01:06] think that is still helpful to

[1:01:07] understand and

[1:01:09] and I'm sure this is

[1:01:13] in the document but do you have

[1:01:16] and I apologize it didn't jump

[1:01:18] out at me. Do you have an

[1:01:19] estimated amount of

[1:01:20] money that these errors cost us

[1:01:24] so that's the million dollar

[1:01:26] question. the short answer is

[1:01:30] no. the long answer is we are

[1:01:32] working on getting that amount.

[1:01:34] So right now our limitation is

[1:01:37] the corenV system that we're

[1:01:39] rolling out we are trying to

[1:01:42] create a custom like an ad hoc

[1:01:44] report if you will to identify

[1:01:47] the net effect of these pay

[1:01:48] adjustments that is something

[1:01:50] that everybody wants it's

[1:01:51] something that we worked on

[1:01:51] before we issued this

[1:01:53] audit

[1:01:55] it's it's the million dollar

[1:01:58] question we do not have that

[1:01:59] information unfortunately

[1:02:05] I I understand. I'm sorry I do

[1:02:05] have one more question

[1:02:12] is your audit also able to track

[1:02:13] time sheets across

[1:02:17] employees like are you able to

[1:02:19] identify particular employees

[1:02:21] who happen to have particularly

[1:02:22] high error rates on their

[1:02:23] paycheet on their time sheets

[1:02:28] yes yes we do and yes we did

[1:02:32] so there were a couple of

[1:02:34] employees whose names I won't

[1:02:38] mention who habitually

[1:02:39] submitted errant times sheets

[1:02:43] and so what we did when we

[1:02:46] noticed a pattern is when we

[1:02:48] referred those to the department

[1:02:50] oforrection we we referred all

[1:02:51] time sheets that needed a pay

[1:02:52] adjustment but there were

[1:02:54] certain time sheets where we

[1:02:56] noticed the same name over

[1:02:59] multiple pay periods so we would

[1:03:01] then tell Department

[1:03:03] oforrections about those

[1:03:05] employees what we observed and

[1:03:06] it was on the department

[1:03:09] oforrections to then discipline

[1:03:09] that employee. Now if you're

[1:03:10] wondering

[1:03:14] how that process happened we

[1:03:16] have and we still do have but we

[1:03:18] instituted a biweekly meeting

[1:03:21] that included me, department

[1:03:24] of Corrections payroll team

[1:03:25] and then the division of

[1:03:28] humansource Man including

[1:03:29] their leadership and staff

[1:03:31] working on this and every two

[1:03:34] weeks we discuss the most

[1:03:36] prevalent issues impacting

[1:03:38] endoc times sheets. Now

[1:03:39] something I didn't mention in my

[1:03:40] presentation is

[1:03:42] that we are still reviewing

[1:03:46] certain time sheets at

[1:03:48] department oforrections and

[1:03:50] additionally we are looking at

[1:03:51] time sheets not just at high

[1:03:53] desert staterison but at

[1:03:54] northern Nevada Correctional

[1:03:55] Center

[1:03:57] Elie State Prison and Lovelock

[1:03:58] Correctional Center.

[1:04:03] and so this work is sort of

[1:04:06] ongoing we did report on it

[1:04:08] and we set a cutoff date to make

[1:04:09] it to our audit committee but

[1:04:11] we're still actually kind of

[1:04:15] kneede in endoc times sheets

[1:04:16] and that's at the request of the

[1:04:18] governor because we want we want

[1:04:21] to fix this problem and we want

[1:04:23] to bring some accountability

[1:04:24] to this time sheet process and

[1:04:25] we don't want to just look at

[1:04:27] high desert we want to look at

[1:04:28] the other institutions as well

[1:04:33] thank you so much. That was

[1:04:34] exactly what I was asking. so I

[1:04:36] very very much appreciate you

[1:04:38] diving into that. I think we

[1:04:40] do have one more clarification

[1:04:41] from assembly member Hanson up

[1:04:42] north. go ahead.

[1:04:44] thank you chair for another

[1:04:47] chance. I know that a lot of

[1:04:49] us were wondering what the pay

[1:04:51] is and I I didn't expect you to

[1:04:53] have that available but I I did

[1:04:56] do a google search and so Nevada

[1:04:58] department of corrections

[1:05:02] officers are in the top5 in the

[1:05:04] nation I think what and I'm

[1:05:05] really just saying this just for

[1:05:07] the education of all of us

[1:05:12] that we're there with it'sor

[1:05:14] Rhode Island, massachusetts, New

[1:05:16] Jersey and then Illinois and

[1:05:18] Nevada are tied for fifth place

[1:05:21] and but I think what I have a

[1:05:22] prison in my district

[1:05:24] Lovelorison with a lot more

[1:05:26] staffing needs but a different

[1:05:28] population granted and and a

[1:05:30] commute that can be an hour and

[1:05:31] a half from the Renosparks area

[1:05:35] so there are so many factors I

[1:05:36] think that are going into this

[1:05:37] and I'm glad that we're really

[1:05:39] looking into and and dialing in

[1:05:40] on high desert, but I think

[1:05:43] something that's really

[1:05:45] bothersome when we're thinking

[1:05:47] about ok are we paying a good

[1:05:49] wage to these correction

[1:05:49] officers

[1:05:52] but what what's the disconnect

[1:05:56] and the disconnect is 25% and

[1:05:58] then as of July1st it'll be30%

[1:06:00] of that officer's pay goes into

[1:06:01] purrs.

[1:06:05] with45% of those dollars going

[1:06:07] to pay past debt on that

[1:06:12] unfunded mandate for the system.

[1:06:13] I mean I'm sorry the yeah the

[1:06:14] enormous unfunded liability so

[1:06:18] not that you can fix that that's

[1:06:20] more a discussion I think that's

[1:06:22] going to be ongoing because I

[1:06:24] think we can rightfully say

[1:06:27] we're paying them well but Purs

[1:06:28] is now as of July firstt going

[1:06:30] to be taking out or maybe it was

[1:06:33] 25 it happened yeah I'm sorry

[1:06:36] July 1st of 2025 that jumped

[1:06:41] from 25.75% to the purs 230%

[1:06:44] so that means an officer in his

[1:06:45] take home is he's having to give

[1:06:48] he went from like1700 dollars a

[1:06:54] month going to purs now 2000 no

[1:06:55] granted that will be a benefit

[1:06:57] that that they will see in the

[1:06:59] future but living day to day and

[1:07:02] the cost of living and such now

[1:07:03] I it it is a real

[1:07:06] is a real issue for them I'm

[1:07:08] sure and and I have heard that

[1:07:10] from some that are in the system

[1:07:12] that have lamented some of this

[1:07:14] so I'm just kind of putting that

[1:07:16] out there that it is very

[1:07:18] complex I think Nevada can say

[1:07:20] well we are we have moved the

[1:07:24] bar up in pay but dealing with

[1:07:26] the the purrs contribution it

[1:07:27] seems and maybe you've heard

[1:07:29] that I don't know if it's an

[1:07:31] auditor if you see that sort of

[1:07:33] disconnect and is that a true it

[1:07:34] can also be

[1:07:37] an indicator of maybe why some

[1:07:38] of these officers want to do

[1:07:40] more overtime, want to do some

[1:07:43] of this other stuff to augment

[1:07:44] missing that30%

[1:07:48] in their day to day living

[1:07:49] because it's going to be put

[1:07:49] away for the future.

[1:07:53] so feel free to opine but you

[1:07:55] don't necessarily have to I just

[1:07:55] wanted to kind of put that out

[1:07:56] there

[1:08:00] sure well I wanted to add that I

[1:08:02] just very quickly looked up the

[1:08:04] correctional officer pay

[1:08:06] range so correctional officers

[1:08:07] now I'm not talking about

[1:08:10] trainees or sergeants. I'm just

[1:08:11] talking about the correctional

[1:08:13] officer position they make

[1:08:16] between68,000 dollars and100,000

[1:08:18] dollars to68,000 dollars is a

[1:08:22] step one according to the HR

[1:08:23] source that I'm looking at right

[1:08:27] now the100,000 dollars is at a

[1:08:27] step0 meaning

[1:08:30] you have 9 years of experience

[1:08:32] unless you were brought in at an

[1:08:34] accelerated pay rate and so

[1:08:35] that's kind of the range you're

[1:08:38] playing with in terms of base

[1:08:41] salary to your point purge

[1:08:42] is a killer it it

[1:08:46] you know especially not that you

[1:08:47] have to have a college degree

[1:08:48] for correctional officers but

[1:08:50] I'll say that young folks or

[1:08:53] folks right out of college uh'd

[1:08:54] get the sticker shock when you

[1:08:56] find out for normal classified

[1:08:58] employees it's about 20% it's I

[1:09:01] believe it's19.25 comes straight

[1:09:03] off the top of your paycheck and

[1:09:05] that's a killer. Police and fire

[1:09:07] to your point is much more

[1:09:10] and so that hurts. Now you asked

[1:09:12] about overtime compensation and

[1:09:13] do they kind of rely on that

[1:09:15] absolutely. I interviewed

[1:09:17] correctional officers at high

[1:09:19] desert and one of them

[1:09:23] kind of his words were don't

[1:09:23] take away our overtime

[1:09:28] and they want that over time

[1:09:29] I I don't think I'm speaking out

[1:09:31] of turn saying that it's

[1:09:32] certainly is

[1:09:35] you know you got to remember

[1:09:36] overtime isn't being taxed right

[1:09:39] now it's not subject to purge

[1:09:39] withholding

[1:09:44] right and so that50% overtime

[1:09:46] premium does a lot. it goes a

[1:09:48] long way when you compare it to

[1:09:50] the base salary that both gets

[1:09:54] taxed and hits purs and and

[1:09:56] so that over time I think it's

[1:09:58] not a stretch to say it's very

[1:10:00] important to the correctional

[1:10:02] officers and it's a huge

[1:10:04] component of their pay. I would

[1:10:05] also like to note that while

[1:10:09] the correctional officers get

[1:10:10] a number

[1:10:14] of other employment benefits

[1:10:17] that most state employees do not

[1:10:20] get for example they get a large

[1:10:22] recruitment bonus if you're a

[1:10:23] new correctional officer

[1:10:26] they get uniform and tool

[1:10:28] allowances now you may not

[1:10:29] consider that pay but it's

[1:10:31] pretty generous in the CBAs what

[1:10:33] they get. they also get

[1:10:35] personal leave days that other

[1:10:37] employees like my staff do not

[1:10:38] get. they also get union leave

[1:10:41] days that we do not get and so

[1:10:43] there are I would say there's a

[1:10:44] number of ancillary benefits

[1:10:47] that they do receive that I

[1:10:50] would say normal classified

[1:10:52] state employees do not receive

[1:10:53] but to your point the

[1:10:56] purs is is huge and and it

[1:10:58] definitely I think hurts

[1:11:00] specifically the newer

[1:11:01] correctional officers

[1:11:04] just because if you're making

[1:11:08] the68,030% is going to it it

[1:11:10] hurts a little bit more whereas

[1:11:11] if you're capped out and you're

[1:11:13] making that100,000 maybe you can

[1:11:15] absorb that a little bit

[1:11:16] easier than a brand new employee

[1:11:35] right thank you so much we

[1:11:37] really do appreciate all of

[1:11:39] those clarifications and all of

[1:11:41] your your your time with us

[1:11:42] this morning unless there are

[1:11:43] other questions

[1:11:46] right. I think that concludes

[1:11:49] this agenda item I'll close

[1:11:51] our agenda item number5 and we

[1:11:51] will go back to agenda item

[1:11:54] number4 with our presentation on

[1:11:55] reproductive access

[1:11:59] in Nevada looks like we have

[1:11:59] our presenters on zoom. please

[1:12:00] go ahead when you're ready.

[1:12:12] OK. good morning chair and

[1:12:14] members of the committee thank

[1:12:16] you so much for the opportunity

[1:12:18] to be here today to talk about

[1:12:20] the statewide economic justice

[1:12:22] workgroup our policy pillars in

[1:12:24] the intersections that

[1:12:25] reproductive access has with

[1:12:28] violence prevention. I'm Serena

[1:12:29] Evans, I'm the policy director

[1:12:31] for the Nevada coalition to end

[1:12:31] domestic and sexual

[1:12:32] violenceolence.

[1:12:36] let's see there we go. OK. so

[1:12:38] formed in 2021 are statewide

[1:12:40] economic justice workroup brings

[1:12:41] together what I like to call

[1:12:42] nontraditional violence

[1:12:45] prevention partners to address

[1:12:47] systems and policies in Nevada

[1:12:49] that increase economic

[1:12:50] opportunities and access and so

[1:12:52] when I mean nontraditional

[1:12:53] violence prevention partners

[1:12:56] we're not partnering with victim

[1:12:58] advocates and sexual assault and

[1:13:00] domestic violence programs we're

[1:13:02] partnering with community

[1:13:03] agencies working on

[1:13:07] things such as housing access

[1:13:08] access to healthcare and

[1:13:11] reproductive access. and so this

[1:13:13] work group was formed in

[1:13:15] response to the research from

[1:13:18] thecdc they have a stop sexual

[1:13:21] violence technical package and

[1:13:22] in that package they

[1:13:24] specifically identified that

[1:13:25] increasing economic

[1:13:27] opportunities as a protective

[1:13:30] factor can reduce the risk of

[1:13:32] both violence victimization and

[1:13:33] perpetration.

[1:13:36] and so we convened this robust

[1:13:40] workroup and it looks at

[1:13:42] macrole prevention efforts

[1:13:44] across Nevada so looking at

[1:13:46] things like systemic barriers

[1:13:49] policies and programs that can

[1:13:51] expand access to opportunities

[1:13:53] and resources for all Nevadans

[1:13:56] and at its core this work group

[1:13:57] made up of about I think I want

[1:14:00] to say 28 unique organizations

[1:14:02] recognizes that preventing

[1:14:03] violence requires

[1:14:06] us to look beyond the individual

[1:14:08] behavior and really address the

[1:14:10] systems and conditions that are

[1:14:11] shaping people's daily lives

[1:14:17] so the work group itself is

[1:14:19] comprised of organizational

[1:14:21] partners across the state in

[1:14:23] every corner of the state and

[1:14:25] operates on the core values of

[1:14:27] uplifting lived experiences a

[1:14:29] victim survivors and our

[1:14:32] everyday Nevadans reducing

[1:14:33] systemic and policy barriers

[1:14:37] collaborating with community and

[1:14:39] it is rooted in increasing

[1:14:39] community safety for everyone.

[1:14:44] Over the years the work group

[1:14:46] has worked collaboratively to

[1:14:48] identify five priority areas

[1:14:50] surrounding economic access

[1:14:52] based on the most pressing

[1:14:54] issues facing victim survivors

[1:14:57] in our communities and so our 55

[1:15:00] pillars being housing which

[1:15:03] includes easy and easy access to

[1:15:05] safe and affordable housing

[1:15:08] tenant rights as well as

[1:15:09] emergency shelter

[1:15:12] workers' rights so livable

[1:15:14] wages paid family leave, child

[1:15:15] care and benefits

[1:15:19] healthcare meaning access to

[1:15:21] affordable mental and physical

[1:15:23] health care as well as

[1:15:25] appropriate screening within our

[1:15:26] healthcare systems

[1:15:30] revenue being how we spend

[1:15:32] our money and the need for

[1:15:33] increased dollars to the state

[1:15:35] general budget to appropriately

[1:15:37] fund things like prevention

[1:15:39] programming and supportive

[1:15:41] social support programs and

[1:15:42] lastly being reproductive

[1:15:43] access.

[1:15:46] so when we're talking about

[1:15:47] reproductive access we mean

[1:15:50] wrapparound care for all stages

[1:15:52] of family planning reproductive

[1:15:53] health and choice. so this

[1:15:54] includes

[1:15:56] accessible and affordable

[1:15:59] prenatal care for expecting

[1:16:02] parents access to and informed

[1:16:04] choices regarding contraception

[1:16:07] eququiing individuals with the

[1:16:09] tools necessary for informed

[1:16:12] family planning and wrap around

[1:16:14] unrestricted access to all

[1:16:15] reproductive healthcare

[1:16:18] so why do we send a reproductive

[1:16:20] healthcare as a priority for

[1:16:22] violence prevention. the ants

[1:16:23] are really is simple

[1:16:26] s ear ch continues to show that

[1:16:28] reproductive health access and

[1:16:30] violence are deeply

[1:16:32] interconnected public health

[1:16:34] issues and at its core

[1:16:36] reproductive access is violence

[1:16:38] prevention because when people

[1:16:40] do not have choices about what

[1:16:41] happens to their bodies

[1:16:45] those at risk or victim

[1:16:46] survivors who have already

[1:16:47] experienced violence can become

[1:16:49] trapped in abusive situations

[1:16:51] and increasing their dependency

[1:16:52] on harmdoers.

[1:16:56] Deeply concerning is also that

[1:16:59] approximately 20% of pregnant

[1:17:01] individuals experience some form

[1:17:02] of violence during pregnancy

[1:17:06] with homicide being the leading

[1:17:07] cause of death among pregnant

[1:17:08] individuals.

[1:17:12] We also know that abusers often

[1:17:14] manipulate systems to work

[1:17:16] against victim survivors using

[1:17:18] those very systems to further

[1:17:20] control and punish them for

[1:17:21] circumstances that are far

[1:17:21] beyond their control

[1:17:25] so knowing all of this that is

[1:17:27] why we are super proud to have

[1:17:29] partnered and worked alongside

[1:17:31] if how when to address some of

[1:17:32] the current challenges in

[1:17:34] nevada's reproductive access

[1:17:36] statutes and chair if it's ok

[1:17:38] I'd like to pass it over to

[1:17:40] Sarah Annsworth from If Howwin

[1:17:42] to go over a few specific

[1:17:44] statutes that are priorities of

[1:17:46] the economic justiceorkroup and

[1:17:47] then we'll stand for any

[1:17:48] questions at the end.

[1:18:01] Yes please go ahead

[1:18:06] do we have

[1:18:13] Yes, I'm here.'m just having a

[1:18:15] little screen sharing problem.

[1:18:17] hello chair and members of

[1:18:18] the committee. I'm grateful to

[1:18:19] be here today. I'm gonna go

[1:18:20] ahead and share my screen and

[1:18:21] get started right

[1:18:30] OK

[1:18:32] just confirming everyone can see

[1:18:33] that

[1:18:36] Great. thank you.

[1:18:40] well good morning and

[1:18:42] thank you so much for hosting

[1:18:44] us today to talk with you about

[1:18:46] this really important issue.

[1:18:48] my name is Sarah Ainsworth I'm

[1:18:50] an attorney and the chief legal

[1:18:52] and policy director at Ifwynho

[1:18:53] Lawing for reproductive justice.

[1:18:57] I'm gonna talk today briefly

[1:18:59] about what our organization does

[1:19:01] so you know and then also

[1:19:03] speak about two specific

[1:19:04] Nevada laws that put people at

[1:19:06] risk for criminalization as a

[1:19:08] result of abortion or pregnancy

[1:19:09] loss and then we'll have some

[1:19:11] time for questions and you can

[1:19:12] also ask Serena questions as

[1:19:13] well.

[1:19:16] so quickly about if and how

[1:19:19] we are a national nonprofit

[1:19:21] legal organization we work to

[1:19:23] provide legal services for

[1:19:25] people as to their

[1:19:28] reproductive lives we defend

[1:19:29] people who've been criminalized

[1:19:32] for losing a pregnancy or having

[1:19:34] an abortion and we work closely

[1:19:36] with state legislators and state

[1:19:38] advocates around the country to

[1:19:40] ensure that laws on the books

[1:19:42] that could criminalize people

[1:19:43] are removed and that positive

[1:19:43] laws are passed

[1:19:46] to help ensure that people

[1:19:47] access healthcare not

[1:19:49] criminalization when they

[1:19:49] experience a pregnancy outcome.

[1:19:52] we also provide reprolegal

[1:19:55] helpline which is the only

[1:19:56] nationwide free legal services

[1:19:58] helpline we speak with people in

[1:20:00] every state and the US

[1:20:02] territories including Nevada

[1:20:04] since the Dobbs decision came

[1:20:05] down we have counseled

[1:20:07] over12,000 people throughout the

[1:20:07] United States.

[1:20:11] pe c ific ally in Nevada we have

[1:20:14] supported local attorneys

[1:20:16] in their work to defend people

[1:20:17] who have been criminalized under

[1:20:19] the statute that I'm going to

[1:20:20] speak about today. and we

[1:20:22] also are working closely with

[1:20:24] state advocates likeyrena and

[1:20:26] others who testified before

[1:20:29] you today to ask you to

[1:20:30] repeal the last

[1:20:31] selfmanaged abortion crime in

[1:20:32] the United States.

[1:20:36] so'll quickly go over what the

[1:20:37] statutes are that we're

[1:20:39] concerned about today and their

[1:20:39] impact that they have had on

[1:20:40] people in Nevada.

[1:20:43] so first of all as you all

[1:20:46] know in Nevada abortion is

[1:20:47] lawfully protected and it is

[1:20:48] also accessible

[1:20:52] nonetheless, Nevada retains

[1:20:55] and prosecutors have utilized a

[1:20:56] law that makes it a crime of

[1:20:58] manslaughter for a person to end

[1:20:59] their own pregnancy after 24

[1:21:00] weeks of pregnancy.

[1:21:04] Nevada also has another

[1:21:06] antiquated law that makes it a

[1:21:08] misdemeanor crime to conceal the

[1:21:09] birth of a child a serious

[1:21:09] misdemeanor a gross misdemeanor.

[1:21:13] So since 2018

[1:21:16] at least twonevadans have been

[1:21:18] criminalized for allegedly

[1:21:20] ending their own pregnancy. We

[1:21:22] don't know if there are more

[1:21:24] because each county keeps its

[1:21:25] own records and it's not easy to

[1:21:26] determine whether or not a

[1:21:28] person perhaps was charged,

[1:21:30] threatened, arrested and never

[1:21:31] charged but we know of at

[1:21:34] least two and what this prime

[1:21:36] for selfmanaged abortion does is

[1:21:38] put anyone whether they ended

[1:21:40] their own pregnancy whether

[1:21:42] before 24 weeks or after or

[1:21:43] whether they had a miscarriage

[1:21:44] or a stillbirth but especially a

[1:21:47] later pregnancy loss at risk of

[1:21:49] being investigated arrested and

[1:21:52] even prosecuted for a felony

[1:21:54] and as Serena talked about it

[1:21:56] also hands abusive partners a

[1:21:59] tool and they have been

[1:22:01] emboldened since the loss of the

[1:22:02] federal protection for the

[1:22:04] abortion right in every state.

[1:22:05] It hands them another tool of

[1:22:07] control and in fact in one of

[1:22:08] the cases that we've seen in

[1:22:09] Nevada it was in fact the

[1:22:11] abusive partner who contacted

[1:22:13] the police and accused his

[1:22:15] partner of this crime in

[1:22:17] retaliation for an arrest for

[1:22:19] assault against her. no

[1:22:20] charges were ultimately filed

[1:22:22] against her but she was still

[1:22:23] arrested and she was still

[1:22:24] investigated and had to go

[1:22:25] through that terrible

[1:22:25] experience.

[1:22:31] so as I've explained before the

[1:22:33] law sweeps in people who

[1:22:33] miscarry or have stillbirths

[1:22:38] one of them who is probably

[1:22:39] known to you her name at the

[1:22:40] time was Patience Frazier she

[1:22:41] goes by a new last name now.

[1:22:44] she was a mother of three who

[1:22:46] experienced a stillbirth. She

[1:22:47] honored her lost baby with a

[1:22:49] memorial that she shared on

[1:22:50] Facebook and then she was

[1:22:53] targeted for rest

[1:22:56] investigation and ultimately

[1:22:57] prosecution under the

[1:23:00] selffmanaged abortionri. as a

[1:23:01] result of her wrongful

[1:23:03] prosecution and conviction, the

[1:23:05] state of Nevada ultimately paid

[1:23:07] her100,000 dollars while that's

[1:23:09] a significant amount surely for

[1:23:11] the state. Nothing can make up

[1:23:11] for the years she spent in

[1:23:13] prison before her conviction was

[1:23:15] overturned the time away from

[1:23:17] her children and the public

[1:23:18] humiliation that honestly

[1:23:19] continues to this

[1:23:23] So I want to share a little bit

[1:23:24] about what other states have

[1:23:25] done cause I think that's

[1:23:26] important to to let you all

[1:23:27] know

[1:23:29] so the vast majority of states

[1:23:31] never had a crime like this on

[1:23:33] the books and when I say

[1:23:34] never I mean never in the

[1:23:35] history of the United States

[1:23:37] even before abortion began to

[1:23:38] crim be criminalized in the

[1:23:40] late1800s and on into the early

[1:23:43] 20th century the vast majority

[1:23:45] of states never made it a crime

[1:23:46] to have an abortion. They

[1:23:47] criminalized abortion providers

[1:23:52] so as of 2018 only seven

[1:23:54] states in the United States had

[1:23:56] a law like Nevada's

[1:23:57] selfmanaged abortion crime

[1:24:02] and since 2018 all of the other

[1:24:04] states except Nevada have done

[1:24:05] away with them so briefly to

[1:24:07] kind of explain a little bit

[1:24:09] New York and Delaware both

[1:24:12] passed positive statutes that

[1:24:13] reinforced access to abortion

[1:24:15] and abortion rights and in those

[1:24:17] statutes repealed the

[1:24:17] selfmanaged abortion crimes

[1:24:21] Other states who have chosen to

[1:24:22] ban abortions since the Dobbs

[1:24:24] decision repealed their

[1:24:26] selfmanaged abortion crimes as a

[1:24:27] result of their legislation that

[1:24:29] banned abortion entirely but

[1:24:32] exempts pregnant people, people

[1:24:33] who have abortions from any kind

[1:24:36] of criminalization so as of

[1:24:38] all the states that bann

[1:24:39] abortion at this time and there

[1:24:41] are currently13 states enforcing

[1:24:42] abortion bans and one that's

[1:24:43] going back and forth as you know

[1:24:46] this is evolving constantly

[1:24:47] in the state courts none of

[1:24:47] those states

[1:24:50] allow the prosecution of a

[1:24:52] person for having an abortion.

[1:24:53] The crimes are targeted at pro

[1:24:54] at providers

[1:24:57] so inokklahoma and South

[1:24:59] Carolina they banned abortion

[1:25:01] and they repealed their

[1:25:01] selfmanaged abortion crime and

[1:25:03] that's still true today. Arizona

[1:25:04] did the same thing but then in

[1:25:07] Arizona court enjoined their

[1:25:09] abortion ban so while abortion

[1:25:11] is allowed in arizona today

[1:25:12] there's self managed abortion

[1:25:14] crime is still off the books and

[1:25:16] then iniddaho theinth Circuit

[1:25:17] Court of Appeals upheld a

[1:25:19] permanent injunction against

[1:25:20] their selfmanaged abortion crime

[1:25:23] back in 2015 and then when they

[1:25:23] banned abortion they

[1:25:26] re pe al ed a whole host of

[1:25:27] statutes and this one is

[1:25:28] repealed by implication.

[1:25:32] and so just really quickly

[1:25:34] in Oklahoma people in Oklahoma

[1:25:35] followed up by asking the

[1:25:36] attorney general to confirm is

[1:25:38] it in fact true? did the

[1:25:39] legislature intend to do this

[1:25:41] and the attorney general in 2023

[1:25:44] in Oklahoma confirmed indeed and

[1:25:46] then as I I put on the slide

[1:25:50] noted that historically in

[1:25:51] Oklahoma and nationwide pregnant

[1:25:53] women have not been prosecuted

[1:25:54] for seeking obtaining or

[1:25:55] inducing an abortion.

[1:25:59] so now Nevada is the only state

[1:26:00] with such a law that makes

[1:26:01] selfmanaged abortion a

[1:26:05] and then as to the other statute

[1:26:06] concealing birth

[1:26:09] concealing birth has a pretty

[1:26:10] different history. Currently

[1:26:12] only16 states have a statute

[1:26:15] like that. those statutes are

[1:26:17] antiquated statutes that are

[1:26:19] colonial era and actually we're

[1:26:20] precolonial they came over from

[1:26:24] England and they it was a

[1:26:25] colonial era crime used to

[1:26:27] criminalize women for having out

[1:26:29] of wedlock births. The crimes

[1:26:30] are very specific to that and

[1:26:32] indeed massachusetts is

[1:26:34] concealing birth still uses that

[1:26:35] language of out of wedlock umirs

[1:26:36] the

[1:26:39] theory was that if someone had

[1:26:41] had a baby and hid that fact

[1:26:43] they and they couldn't and the

[1:26:45] baby wasn't either maybe

[1:26:46] had died and still it was a

[1:26:48] stillbirth that perhaps the

[1:26:50] woman had killed the infant to

[1:26:52] hide the fact of its birth. so

[1:26:53] this law allowed prosecutors to

[1:26:55] bring very serious charges

[1:26:57] against women without having to

[1:26:58] prove that a homicide actually

[1:26:59] occurred

[1:27:02] so this crime is antiquated

[1:27:03] meaning it no longer appears in

[1:27:04] the United States uniform

[1:27:06] Criminal Code which is as you

[1:27:08] know because you're legislators

[1:27:10] legislators look to for

[1:27:12] updates often to ensure

[1:27:13] that their criminal codes are up

[1:27:14] to date and to see trends around

[1:27:15] the United States.

[1:27:17] so

[1:27:20] really what we have now is a law

[1:27:22] still on the books and it's only

[1:27:24] modern use is to go after

[1:27:25] people who experienced a

[1:27:27] miscarriage or a stillbirth for

[1:27:28] criminalization what happened to

[1:27:31] them this is a picture of

[1:27:32] Anneynum. this happened to her

[1:27:35] in Arkansas. herr conviction was

[1:27:35] ultimately overturned on appeal.

[1:27:40] so basically what happens is

[1:27:42] these crimes being on the books

[1:27:43] increase the risk that some

[1:27:45] people will be criminalized for

[1:27:47] abortion or pregnancy loss and I

[1:27:50] say some people because some

[1:27:52] people are never likely to come

[1:27:54] into the crosshairs of the

[1:27:56] criminal legal system because

[1:27:57] they experienced a pregnancy

[1:28:00] loss we we have learned from

[1:28:01] our studies over time and from

[1:28:04] our own caseload that the vast

[1:28:05] majority of people who are

[1:28:07] targeted are living in poverty

[1:28:07] they are

[1:28:09] experiencing economic insecurity

[1:28:11] when this happens to them they

[1:28:14] are often very young. they are

[1:28:15] disproportionately women of

[1:28:16] color. they are

[1:28:18] disproportionately immigrants

[1:28:20] and they instead of getting a

[1:28:22] healthcare response to a

[1:28:25] healthcare issue. they are

[1:28:28] instead criminalized and it is

[1:28:29] that criminalization that in

[1:28:30] fact undermines public health

[1:28:32] because it scares people from

[1:28:33] seeking care when they need it

[1:28:33] the most.

[1:28:36] and for that reason, every major

[1:28:37] medical group in the United

[1:28:39] States from the American Medical

[1:28:40] association to the American

[1:28:42] College of Obstetricians and

[1:28:44] Gynecologists to the American

[1:28:45] Public Health Association

[1:28:47] explicitly opposed the

[1:28:48] criminalization of people for

[1:28:50] abortion or pregnancy loss. I

[1:28:53] did send these slides to you all

[1:28:55] for so that you have them but

[1:28:58] since I sent them there's aid

[1:29:00] now update which I'll skip to

[1:29:01] here breaking news the Nevada

[1:29:02] State Medical association also

[1:29:03] specific

[1:29:06] ally adopted this this

[1:29:08] opinion last week they passed a

[1:29:10] resolution saying that no person

[1:29:12] should be penalized, prosecuted

[1:29:14] or subjected to adverse action

[1:29:15] based on their pregnancy

[1:29:17] outcomes and they are calling

[1:29:18] for the repeal of these two

[1:29:19] crimes.

[1:29:23] so that is the end of my

[1:29:25] presentation and the summary is

[1:29:26] simply that no one should be

[1:29:27] criminalized for their

[1:29:29] pregnancy outcomes and we

[1:29:30] should repeal both of these

[1:29:32] crimes and I'm both Serena and I

[1:29:34] can take any questions that you

[1:29:35] have now and thank you so much

[1:29:35] for your time today.

[1:29:40] thank you for your time today we

[1:29:42] appreciate you being here and

[1:29:43] presenting all that information

[1:29:45] to us. are there questions in

[1:29:45] Las Vegas?

[1:29:48] right vicechair Miller

[1:29:51] thank you so much chair

[1:29:53] and thank you for the

[1:29:55] presentationgain always bringing

[1:29:55] awareness to

[1:29:58] some of these things that

[1:30:00] we're just not aware are

[1:30:02] occurring and I do I have two

[1:30:04] brief questions. First I just

[1:30:05] want to make sure that I

[1:30:06] understand is the term

[1:30:09] selfmanaged abortion being used

[1:30:11] because I know medically an

[1:30:13] abortion is what we consider a

[1:30:15] miscarriage is is that what

[1:30:18] we're using so that a self

[1:30:19] managed abortion would not be a

[1:30:22] natural abortion of the baby

[1:30:24] a miscarriage as we would call

[1:30:25] it but as a choice when when

[1:30:26] someone

[1:30:29] chooses to go get a medically

[1:30:30] performed abortion

[1:30:34] yes, I'll make one more

[1:30:36] distinction there you know as

[1:30:37] you say your name for the record

[1:30:39] sorry I'm sorry this is Sarah

[1:30:40] Ainsworth and I'm happy to

[1:30:42] answer that question. so

[1:30:44] they'll make one further

[1:30:47] distinction. I as you know we

[1:30:49] use the term the medical term is

[1:30:50] abortion for the end of a

[1:30:51] pregnancy a spontaneous

[1:30:53] abortion's the term typically

[1:30:55] used for a then unplanned

[1:30:57] miscarriage that happens without

[1:30:59] anyone's involvement. A

[1:31:00] selfmanaged abortion is when

[1:31:01] somebody ends

[1:31:03] their pregnancy on their own

[1:31:05] typically outside the medical

[1:31:06] system or through a telehealth

[1:31:09] abortion and those are almost

[1:31:10] exclusively in the United States

[1:31:11] done with the use of the same

[1:31:12] abortion pills a person might

[1:31:14] get at a clinic and then there's

[1:31:15] a clinicbased abortion which

[1:31:18] could be both pills or a

[1:31:20] medical procedure and so when

[1:31:22] I say specifically self managed

[1:31:23] abortion I'm using it in the

[1:31:25] same way the statute uses it

[1:31:26] where if somebody does something

[1:31:27] to themselves, takes some

[1:31:29] medicine or something else to

[1:31:30] end their own pregnancy.

[1:31:31] I hope that helps

[1:31:34] it does help thank you so much

[1:31:36] for that because I know there's

[1:31:37] also even the distinction

[1:31:38] between

[1:31:39] in

[1:31:42] a medical abortion and a D andC

[1:31:43] and again because what the

[1:31:44] medical community uses and what

[1:31:47] we use just as laymen are

[1:31:50] often muddles the issue so

[1:31:51] thank you for that

[1:31:54] my next question is obviously

[1:31:56] this is a concern. I mean it

[1:31:57] remains a concern that some of

[1:31:57] the most

[1:32:00] personal and sensitive

[1:32:01] experiences that women

[1:32:04] will have in their lifetime

[1:32:06] always comes up for you know

[1:32:09] government and other people to

[1:32:09] believe that

[1:32:13] it's their business and and so

[1:32:14] my questions when I see that

[1:32:18] concern about repealing this

[1:32:21] because of again miscarriages

[1:32:23] and stillbirths. I I wanna ask

[1:32:24] two other scenarios

[1:32:28] just so that so I understand

[1:32:30] or others understand the breadth

[1:32:33] of where this this could go

[1:32:34] would you believe that there

[1:32:35] would be a concern for again

[1:32:38] there are oftentimes a

[1:32:39] stillbirth but often as well as

[1:32:40] when

[1:32:44] the child is born and then in

[1:32:45] immediate death after birth

[1:32:46] whether it's

[1:32:50] you know our days sometimes and

[1:32:52] as well as do you believe this

[1:32:54] could potentially impact like

[1:32:56] private closed adoptions where

[1:32:58] again a girl or a woman has a

[1:33:00] baby choosing to put that baby

[1:33:01] up for adoption

[1:33:04] concealing that because that

[1:33:06] is you know their private right

[1:33:09] and and business do do you see

[1:33:10] where it could impact that as

[1:33:10] well

[1:33:13] I'm really glad you asked those

[1:33:14] questions because in fact we

[1:33:17] have seen impact in both both

[1:33:21] kinds of circumstances so the

[1:33:22] woman that whose conviction

[1:33:24] was overturned in Arkansas had

[1:33:26] in fact not concealed the birth

[1:33:29] of her stillborn baby from

[1:33:30] the hospital or for medical

[1:33:33] providers but she had not

[1:33:34] told her mother whom she lived

[1:33:36] with that she was pregnant and

[1:33:37] that was the basis for her

[1:33:41] conviction and the Arkansas

[1:33:41] Court of appppeals took issue

[1:33:44] with that but the jury

[1:33:46] unfortunately did not so she had

[1:33:47] to go through this terrible

[1:33:48] proceeding and really because

[1:33:49] she was just her plan was to

[1:33:51] give this baby up for adoption.

[1:33:52] she had another child she was

[1:33:54] taken care of and she was afraid

[1:33:55] she'd lose her housing if she

[1:33:57] informed her mother that she

[1:33:58] was pregnant and having another

[1:33:59] baby so she had been hiding that

[1:33:59] fact from her

[1:34:02] and then as to the other

[1:34:04] situation yes we have seen

[1:34:06] people accused of doing

[1:34:09] something or accused accused

[1:34:10] essentially when they've had a

[1:34:11] stillbirth that the that the

[1:34:13] baby was born alive and wasn't a

[1:34:15] stillbirth and what that looks

[1:34:17] like in our cases typically

[1:34:18] we have to make sure that we

[1:34:22] have evidence to show that

[1:34:23] in fact this was a stillbirth

[1:34:24] and no one did anything untoward

[1:34:27] it was just a tragic loss

[1:34:29] what that means is a great deal

[1:34:29] of expense forensic

[1:34:33] pathologists etc. so defending

[1:34:34] people costs a significant

[1:34:36] amount of money in order to

[1:34:38] defend them as they deserve

[1:34:40] and yes as you pointed out in

[1:34:42] every one of these situations

[1:34:44] someone is experiencing

[1:34:46] something very private that

[1:34:48] in almost every state is simply

[1:34:49] not the subject of the criminal

[1:34:49] legal system.

[1:34:51] Quick follow up here

[1:34:54] thank you for that. I'd also

[1:34:56] as we're discussing this it also

[1:34:58] my concern would also stretch to

[1:34:59] to

[1:35:02] to women who choose to carry

[1:35:04] babies for other people to be a

[1:35:05] surrogate and again

[1:35:10] that's a beautiful choice but

[1:35:12] it's it's something that people

[1:35:13] may want to keep private so I

[1:35:14] just want to make sure that

[1:35:16] we're considering all of the

[1:35:17] scenarios around

[1:35:20] pregnancy and childbirth and so

[1:35:21] thank you for that.

[1:35:25] right senator wynn

[1:35:30] thank you for the presentation.

[1:35:31] obviouslybviously

[1:35:36] I I have some questions and

[1:35:38] concerns about some other

[1:35:39] potential examples when you look

[1:35:40] at the current

[1:35:44] state of the statute that only

[1:35:45] exists here in the state of

[1:35:46] Nevada

[1:35:50] could this potentially

[1:35:51] criminalize

[1:35:53] and look at the actions of all

[1:35:54] pregnant women that maybe don't

[1:35:57] have access to prenatal care or

[1:36:00] prenatal education or other

[1:36:03] resources is there anything

[1:36:05] it would could potentially cover

[1:36:07] someone who takes advil not

[1:36:08] realizing you're not supposed to

[1:36:09] take ibuprofen when you're

[1:36:10] pregnant

[1:36:13] because they get a headache.

[1:36:13] isn't that correct?

[1:36:18] it is absolutely correct and it

[1:36:19] is in line with the things that

[1:36:21] we have seen and around the

[1:36:22] country and other states while

[1:36:24] you know the statute has very

[1:36:26] specific language and you might

[1:36:28] say well it's cabined at post 24

[1:36:30] weeks it's cabined it at a

[1:36:32] medication. The fact is is that

[1:36:33] medication is not defined in the

[1:36:35] statute. it could include all

[1:36:37] kinds of things and we know

[1:36:39] that people often harshly

[1:36:41] judge pregnant women for using

[1:36:42] certain things during pregnancy

[1:36:44] or even what they eat or how

[1:36:45] they exercise and so we have

[1:36:45] seen

[1:36:48] in fact prosecutions look at

[1:36:50] what people have done as if it

[1:36:52] were sometimes a criminal act

[1:36:54] even when it is clearly not and

[1:36:56] also 24 weeks it has to be

[1:36:57] proved right it's a fact it's an

[1:36:59] element of the statute so

[1:37:01] somebody who might be near that

[1:37:02] might not be near that but still

[1:37:03] come under

[1:37:06] investigation or prosecution

[1:37:07] so it's a it's a very dangerous

[1:37:09] statute for both the people's

[1:37:10] explicitly seems to target but

[1:37:12] for everyone else that could

[1:37:13] fall under its gamut.

[1:37:14] thank you

[1:37:19] Other questions here in Las

[1:37:20] Vegas?

[1:37:25] not seeing any we will go to

[1:37:26] carson City any questions?

[1:37:29] not seeing any and on zoom

[1:37:34] right not seeing any thank you

[1:37:35] so much again for your

[1:37:37] presentation and for answering

[1:37:39] all of our questions that will

[1:37:41] close out agenda item number4

[1:37:43] and take us to agenda item

[1:37:45] number6. the moment you have all

[1:37:46] been waiting for our work

[1:37:49] session at this time I will turn

[1:37:51] it over to our illustrious

[1:37:53] policy analyst Mrelgarejo to

[1:37:54] walk us through the work session

[1:37:55] document

[1:38:00] you for the recordesarmogarejo

[1:38:01] committee policy analyst and

[1:38:02] senior principal policy analyst

[1:38:04] with the sear division of the

[1:38:06] legislative co bureau as no

[1:38:08] nonpartisan staff I can neither

[1:38:10] advocate for nor against a

[1:38:12] measure that comes before this

[1:38:13] committee and the work session

[1:38:15] document which is available to

[1:38:17] the public here and we have

[1:38:18] printed copies and available

[1:38:20] online is designed to assist the

[1:38:21] committee in determining the

[1:38:24] actions it wishes to take the

[1:38:25] committee may vote to approve

[1:38:25] the recommendations as provided

[1:38:26] in the work session

[1:38:29] document, approve it with

[1:38:30] amendments combined

[1:38:31] recommendations where

[1:38:34] appropriate or take no action as

[1:38:35] a reminder the committee can

[1:38:36] request1f legislative measures

[1:38:39] uh10 related to the judiciary

[1:38:42] generally and not more than5 may

[1:38:43] relate to juvenile justice

[1:38:46] issues the committee can also

[1:38:49] request or approve sending

[1:38:51] letters or place a position

[1:38:52] statement in the final report to

[1:38:54] address specific topics there is

[1:38:55] no limitation in number of

[1:38:56] letters or position statements

[1:38:56] that the committee

[1:39:00] may adopt Cheiro present the

[1:39:01] recommendations in the order

[1:39:01] which they appear

[1:39:03] the first recommendation

[1:39:07] requests the drafting

[1:39:09] legislation to authorize jails

[1:39:11] in and detention facilities to

[1:39:12] create a voluntary delayed

[1:39:14] release program for individuals

[1:39:16] released from jail or detention

[1:39:18] facilities during overnight

[1:39:20] hours. the recommendation

[1:39:21] includes three components

[1:39:23] outlined in paragraphs A1

[1:39:25] through A3 ensure that concludes

[1:39:25] recommendation number one

[1:39:30] right. any questions on

[1:39:31] recommendation number one

[1:39:34] not seeing any I would accept a

[1:39:37] motion to approve we we have a

[1:39:39] motion from vicechair Miller. we

[1:39:40] have a second from Senator

[1:39:41] Wwynnn any discussion on the

[1:39:41] motion

[1:39:45] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:39:47] aye i and he opposed it

[1:39:52] all right passes unanimously we

[1:39:54] will approve a recommendation

[1:39:55] number one and move to

[1:39:55] recommendation number 2.

[1:39:59] thank you chair for the record

[1:40:00] saysaruggaro community policy

[1:40:02] analyst next recommendation

[1:40:05] recommendation number 2

[1:40:06] requests drafting legislation

[1:40:07] concerning the definition used

[1:40:10] oversight and reporting of

[1:40:11] solitary confinement in Nevada

[1:40:13] correctional facilities. the

[1:40:14] recommendation includes six

[1:40:15] components outlined in

[1:40:17] paragraphs A through F ensure

[1:40:17] that concludes recommendation

[1:40:18] number 2.

[1:40:22] any questions on this

[1:40:23] recommendation

[1:40:27] not seeing any I would accept a

[1:40:28] motion to approve so

[1:40:31] we have a motion from vicechair

[1:40:32] Miller. we have a second from

[1:40:33] Senatorwynn any discussion on

[1:40:34] the motion?

[1:40:38] not seeing any all in favor

[1:40:39] sayii and he opposed

[1:40:43] all right sounds like a

[1:40:44] unanimous passage of

[1:40:46] recommendation number 2 as well

[1:40:47] and that will take us to

[1:40:48] recommendation number3.

[1:40:52] for the recordsarcreittee policy

[1:40:54] analysts recommendation number3

[1:40:56] requests the drafting of two

[1:40:58] individual letters the first a

[1:41:00] letter concerns access to

[1:41:02] counsel for persons in custody

[1:41:03] and second letter addresses

[1:41:05] funding to reduce a reliance on

[1:41:07] solitary confinement the

[1:41:09] recommendation includes the two

[1:41:10] components the two letters which

[1:41:12] are outlined in progress A and B

[1:41:13] and chair that concludes

[1:41:17] any questions on this

[1:41:17] recommendation?

[1:41:21] I don't see any so I would

[1:41:23] accept a motion to approve so

[1:41:25] we have a motion from vicechair

[1:41:26] Miller and a second from Senator

[1:41:27] Wwynn any discussion on the

[1:41:28] motion

[1:41:31] on not seeing any all in favor

[1:41:32] say aye ii

[1:41:35] any opposed nay

[1:41:38] all right that takes that

[1:41:41] we've approved this

[1:41:42] recommendation that takes us to

[1:41:43] the next recommendation

[1:41:46] chair for the record

[1:41:49] Caesarcrejoun policy analyst

[1:41:51] the fourth recommendation

[1:41:52] requests drafting legislation to

[1:41:54] recognize certified domestic

[1:41:56] violence advocates as qualified

[1:41:57] third parties who may sign

[1:41:59] affidavits supporting lease

[1:42:01] termination chair that

[1:42:01] concludes recommendation

[1:42:02] number4.

[1:42:08] right. I think we have a

[1:42:09] question from assembly

[1:42:09] memberhansen go ahead.

[1:42:13] thank you chair. I just wanted

[1:42:14] to see if we could get someone

[1:42:19] to clarify what is exactly

[1:42:21] does it mean a certified

[1:42:22] domestic violence advocate like

[1:42:25] what are the qualifications to

[1:42:27] qualify them to be one of those

[1:42:27] third parties.

[1:42:32] great question, I'm going to go

[1:42:33] to the legal first

[1:42:35] if they can answer that question

[1:42:39] give us just a moment

[1:42:43] thank you chair

[1:42:46] Bradley Wilkinson committee

[1:42:47] counsel

[1:42:50] you know that is a good question

[1:42:53] and we were hoping to hear from

[1:42:56] Mr Horn today to see exactly

[1:42:57] what they have in mind because

[1:43:01] it was not clear to us who

[1:43:01] those people are

[1:43:07] would it be fair to say Mr

[1:43:08] Wilkinson that even if we

[1:43:11] approve the BDr today we could

[1:43:13] further clarify in the drafting

[1:43:14] process what those

[1:43:17] qualifications would be in order

[1:43:18] to become certified and we could

[1:43:21] work with the coalition and

[1:43:24] legal staff to draft

[1:43:25] requirements

[1:43:29] chair that that is all quite

[1:43:29] true we would certainly do that

[1:43:33] just as a matter of drafting

[1:43:34] to you know make sure we nail

[1:43:35] down exactly

[1:43:35] the

[1:43:39] definition that we want to use

[1:43:39] for that term

[1:43:44] Thank you and I think you had

[1:43:46] mentioned that this was a

[1:43:49] recommendation from Safenest

[1:43:50] I don't know if they have

[1:43:51] somebody here today who can

[1:43:53] answer those questions. I will

[1:43:55] tell you all I told all of our

[1:43:57] presenters that we didn't need

[1:43:58] them to come back today so

[1:44:03] I I do see somebody who's

[1:44:05] thinking about coming forward to

[1:44:05] answer a question

[1:44:12] so it looks like he's decided to

[1:44:13] come forward and

[1:44:17] give us some shed some light on

[1:44:17] this so thank you Mr Horn

[1:44:24] good morning good morning madam

[1:44:25] chair members of the committee

[1:44:26] for the record my name is

[1:44:27] William Horn of western Public

[1:44:30] affairs representing Safeest and

[1:44:32] yes unfortunately Miss

[1:44:34] Ortenberger is traveling through

[1:44:36] the state right now driving so

[1:44:40] I don't have the exact

[1:44:42] definition of what the a

[1:44:44] certified advocate is at this

[1:44:47] time we we definitely will

[1:44:50] work with uhlCB on on getting

[1:44:53] that but these are advocates

[1:44:54] who worked directly with

[1:44:58] victims of domestic violence

[1:45:02] in in our court system etc and

[1:45:04] they are they are trained I

[1:45:05] don't know what the

[1:45:07] certification process exactly is

[1:45:10] but they are trained and

[1:45:12] then they would provide be able

[1:45:15] to give those affidavits signed

[1:45:17] for those affidavits to prevent

[1:45:20] these survivors from being

[1:45:22] evicted etc. and doing it so

[1:45:24] that's the purpose of this

[1:45:25] request for a BDr

[1:45:26] and

[1:45:28] we will narrow that definition

[1:45:29] down

[1:45:30] during the

[1:45:32] drafting process madam

[1:45:37] thank you so much

[1:45:43] right unless we have further

[1:45:43] questions from Carson City

[1:45:47] I will come back down here to

[1:45:48] Las Vegas and vice

[1:45:49] chairirmier

[1:45:52] thank you chair. my question

[1:45:54] is who currently has the legal

[1:45:57] ability to sign these affidavits

[1:45:59] for lease termination eviction

[1:46:01] protection and emergency

[1:46:01] relocation

[1:46:07] for the record William Horn

[1:46:10] is is my understanding is that

[1:46:13] it or is the survivors that

[1:46:15] are submitting these affidavits

[1:46:15] and it's not always

[1:46:22] they're readily available or

[1:46:24] it's a traumatic experience for

[1:46:25] them etc.

[1:46:29] and seeking these affidavits

[1:46:31] also if you put yourself in

[1:46:35] the position of the landlord for

[1:46:37] instance and you have your

[1:46:39] tenant saying that I'm a

[1:46:41] survivor of domestic violence

[1:46:43] that's why you know I signed

[1:46:44] this affidavit that you and I

[1:46:45] don't wish to be evicted at this

[1:46:46] time

[1:46:48] if you have a third party doing

[1:46:49] it

[1:46:52] saying yes we were part of

[1:46:54] this proceeding etc we're

[1:46:57] working with this person

[1:47:00] and I'm signing this affidavit

[1:47:03] attesting to these facts that

[1:47:06] this person fits within the

[1:47:07] protections of being evicted.

[1:47:12] I think legal might also be able

[1:47:13] to weigh in here

[1:47:13] thank you Mr Horn

[1:47:22] Thank youir. yes there

[1:47:26] are a number of ways you can

[1:47:28] provide the that the victim

[1:47:30] can provide the necessary

[1:47:32] proof in the written notice

[1:47:33] that's given to the landlord

[1:47:36] and that's in Nrs118.345

[1:47:40] one of one thing would be

[1:47:41] copy of the

[1:47:42] order for protection

[1:47:46] another is a copy of a

[1:47:47] written report from a law

[1:47:47] enforcement agency

[1:47:50] and then the third one is the

[1:47:51] written affidavit

[1:47:54] in the correct format that's

[1:47:55] signed by a qualified third

[1:47:55] party

[1:47:59] and then qualified third

[1:48:01] parties actually defined in the

[1:48:03] statute as a physician licensed

[1:48:05] to practice in the state a

[1:48:05] psychiatrist

[1:48:07] licensed to practice a

[1:48:08] psychologist

[1:48:10] social worker registered nurse

[1:48:13] marriage and family therapist

[1:48:14] or

[1:48:19] most jump down heremember the

[1:48:21] clergy of a church or religious

[1:48:21] society

[1:48:25] and then the last one which

[1:48:28] is that issue here is any person

[1:48:29] who's employed by an agency or

[1:48:29] service

[1:48:33] which advises persons regarding

[1:48:35] domestic violence or refers them

[1:48:36] to persons or agencies where

[1:48:37] they're requests and needs can

[1:48:39] be met and who is licensed to

[1:48:40] provide healthcare persuent to

[1:48:44] the provisions of Title54 of Nrs

[1:48:45] or as a member of the board of

[1:48:47] directors or serves as the

[1:48:50] executive director of the agency

[1:48:51] or service

[1:48:53] who's received training relating

[1:48:55] to domestic violence and who's a

[1:48:56] resident of the state

[1:49:00] so that the agency is limited to

[1:49:02] those people someone who's a

[1:49:04] healthcare provider a member of

[1:49:05] the board or the executive

[1:49:06] director

[1:49:09] and this proposal would expand

[1:49:09] it to

[1:49:13] the c certified domestic

[1:49:14] violence advocate who could act

[1:49:15] on

[1:49:16] as the qualified third party

[1:49:22] thank you for that

[1:49:26] I look forward to hearing more

[1:49:29] in regular session about the

[1:49:30] qualifications and the training

[1:49:31] around the certified

[1:49:31] practitioners. Thank you.

[1:49:36] right thank you everybody

[1:49:39] unless there are further

[1:49:39] questions

[1:49:42] I would accept oh there are

[1:49:43] was that

[1:49:47] assembly memberhansen please go

[1:49:48] ahead and I'm sorry this would

[1:49:51] probably be more appropriate and

[1:49:52] after the motion for discussion

[1:49:54] on the motion but just to

[1:49:56] clarify I I just really wanted

[1:49:57] to I I'm in support of moving

[1:49:59] this forward, of course that's

[1:50:00] what's wonderful about this

[1:50:02] process we we still have time we

[1:50:04] have drafting we have the

[1:50:06] session to vet and and get a lot

[1:50:08] of these questions answered and

[1:50:09] you know safeness and our

[1:50:12] domestic violence advocates in

[1:50:13] in the state of Nevada have been

[1:50:14] so wonderful in doing some great

[1:50:16] work and so

[1:50:20] I I don't want to diminish them

[1:50:22] their ability to be involved in

[1:50:24] this that all I just a little

[1:50:28] history we had this kind of a

[1:50:30] situation with DI schools come

[1:50:31] before us with a regulation

[1:50:34] ateggecom that created quite a

[1:50:37] kind of a problem so that's why

[1:50:38] I'm being a little particular

[1:50:40] about checking into these what

[1:50:42] are the qualifications because

[1:50:44] it could either hinder or it

[1:50:46] could help and then how that

[1:50:47] language really

[1:50:49] lays out as super important

[1:50:52] so that was what was behind is

[1:50:54] I'm a little gun shy from a

[1:50:55] regulation that kind of got

[1:50:57] through that caused some issues

[1:50:59] for my constituents and and

[1:51:01] in the rural so thank you for

[1:51:03] the indulgence and for letting

[1:51:05] me be able to ask the question

[1:51:07] and and put my support to move

[1:51:08] the measure forward so far.

[1:51:09] thank you.

[1:51:15] right thank you so much. with

[1:51:16] that I would accept a motion to

[1:51:17] approve this recommendation

[1:51:21] we have a motion from vicechair

[1:51:22] Miller. we have a second from

[1:51:23] Senator wynn. any discussion on

[1:51:24] the motion?

[1:51:28] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:51:31] aye i posed nay

[1:51:34] all right the motion carries to

[1:51:35] approve this recommendation.

[1:51:37] and that takes us to the next

[1:51:38] recommendation

[1:51:41] thank you chair for the record

[1:51:42] staysarmug committee policy

[1:51:45] analyst the fifth recommendation

[1:51:47] requests drafting legislation

[1:51:48] concerning safety standards and

[1:51:50] regulation of electric bicycles,

[1:51:52] electric scooters, electric

[1:51:53] motorcycles and other electric

[1:51:54] devices the recommendation

[1:51:56] includes the seven components

[1:51:57] outlined in paragraphs A through

[1:51:57] G.

[1:51:59] and chair

[1:52:06] right. any questions on this

[1:52:09] recommendation. This did come

[1:52:10] out of the study that we

[1:52:12] conducted pursuant to AB4 of the

[1:52:13] special session

[1:52:16] and I don't see any questions

[1:52:19] so I would accept a motion to

[1:52:20] approve

[1:52:23] all right we have a motion from

[1:52:24] vicechair Miller. we have a

[1:52:26] second from Senatornwynn any

[1:52:27] discussion on the motion?

[1:52:30] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:52:31] aye

[1:52:32] i and a

[1:52:34] all right I

[1:52:39] we confirm with some gonzalez

[1:52:39] that you're an i

[1:52:44] yes thank you just want to make

[1:52:46] sure we get our record correct

[1:52:49] and we unanimously approved this

[1:52:50] recommendation and that will

[1:52:51] take us to the next

[1:52:51] recommendation

[1:52:54] chair for the record

[1:52:55] Caesaruggarejo committee policy

[1:52:58] analysts recommendation number6

[1:53:00] request drafting legislation

[1:53:02] concerning debtbased driver's

[1:53:03] license suspensions and

[1:53:05] supervision fees for persons on

[1:53:07] parole, probation or residential

[1:53:07] confinement

[1:53:11] the recommendation includes

[1:53:13] the two components outlined in

[1:53:14] paragraphs A and B and chair

[1:53:15] that conclude

[1:53:20] Any questions on

[1:53:21] recommendation6?

[1:53:23] Yes, as a member cole

[1:53:28] thank you chair so my

[1:53:28] question is on the civil traffic

[1:53:30] citations I don't remember what

[1:53:32] year it was because I was not a

[1:53:33] somebody person at the time but

[1:53:34] fairly recently there was a

[1:53:38] change where the the fees and

[1:53:39] everything were associated with

[1:53:40] a criminal violation rather than

[1:53:43] a civil so is this meant to

[1:53:44] eliminate things that were based

[1:53:46] on criminal like in the past

[1:53:48] we're going forward or how does

[1:53:50] that work because currently a

[1:53:51] civil would be reckless driving

[1:54:02] I don't know if legal wants to

[1:54:03] weigh in here or wants me to

[1:54:13] I think the intention here oh go

[1:54:13] ahead Mr Wilkinson

[1:54:17] oh no that's ok you can you can

[1:54:17] go ahead if you want.

[1:54:23] when we did pass the bill to

[1:54:24] decriminalize numerous

[1:54:27] traffic citations. the intention

[1:54:28] of the legislature and anybody

[1:54:29] else who was there can correct

[1:54:31] me if I'm wrong was also to

[1:54:34] eliminate the revocation of

[1:54:35] driver's license based on

[1:54:37] somebody's failure to pay their

[1:54:39] fines that bill was passed at

[1:54:42] the same time as another bill

[1:54:44] that did not include that

[1:54:46] provision and so the purpose of

[1:54:47] this recommendation is to

[1:54:48] restore the original in

[1:54:51] t ent of the larger policy

[1:54:52] proposal which was to both

[1:54:54] decriminalize certain traffic

[1:54:55] citations and ensure that

[1:54:57] individuals are not having their

[1:54:58] license revoked simply for

[1:54:59] failure to pay

[1:55:01] that accurately

[1:55:03] reflects the

[1:55:05] the purpose of the

[1:55:09] recommendation. OK

[1:55:12] so this probably could be after

[1:55:14] the motion but I think my

[1:55:16] concern would be that we

[1:55:17] currently have situations where

[1:55:19] people are continuing to speed

[1:55:21] and what you know whether it's70

[1:55:23] or80 miles an hour you know

[1:55:24] they're they're definitely

[1:55:25] dangerous to society so it would

[1:55:29] Thank you. I'll also just point

[1:55:31] out that the points on their

[1:55:32] record would still accumulate

[1:55:35] and there are still sanctions

[1:55:36] for having too many points on

[1:55:38] your record. this will just

[1:55:40] eliminate the the specific

[1:55:41] sanction of removing their

[1:55:43] driving privileges for the

[1:55:43] specific violation of not paying

[1:55:44] their fees.

[1:55:49] any other questions on this

[1:55:49] measure

[1:55:53] right. I don't see any so at

[1:55:55] this point I would accept a

[1:55:58] motion to approve so all right

[1:56:00] we have a motion from vicechair

[1:56:01] Miller a second from

[1:56:03] Senatorwynnn any further

[1:56:03] discussion on the motion

[1:56:07] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:56:08] aye ii

[1:56:11] any opposed nay

[1:56:15] all right this measure also

[1:56:17] carries and that takes us to the

[1:56:17] next

[1:56:18] recommendation

[1:56:23] thank you chairiressarre

[1:56:24] committee policy analyst for the

[1:56:26] record recommendation number7

[1:56:27] requests drafting legislation

[1:56:28] concerning

[1:56:32] statewide data collection

[1:56:33] enforcement victim protections

[1:56:35] and services related to human

[1:56:37] trafficking. the recommendation

[1:56:39] includes10 components outlined

[1:56:42] in paragraphs A through J in

[1:56:43] addition there's another

[1:56:44] recommendation that was proposed

[1:56:45] to the committee that's not

[1:56:46] included in the work session

[1:56:48] document today which is to

[1:56:52] to move the state the state of

[1:56:53] nevada human trafficking

[1:56:55] coalition under the

[1:56:56] responsibility of the officeice

[1:56:57] of the attorney general

[1:56:58] and chair that concludes

[1:57:04] right. any questions on

[1:57:05] recommendation number7

[1:57:09] not seen any I would accept a

[1:57:10] motion to approve

[1:57:14] so we have emotion from

[1:57:16] vicechair Miller a second from

[1:57:17] Senator Wwynnn. any discussion

[1:57:18] on the motion

[1:57:22] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:57:23] ayei and he opposed me

[1:57:28] all right this motion carries

[1:57:29] and that takes us to our next

[1:57:29] recommendation.

[1:57:35] thank you chair for the record

[1:57:37] saysarmugh committee policy

[1:57:38] analysts recommendation number8

[1:57:40] requests the drafting of two

[1:57:42] individual letters related to

[1:57:44] funding and financing for human

[1:57:45] trafficking prevention, victim

[1:57:47] services and billing structures

[1:57:49] for residential programs and the

[1:57:51] recommendation includes to both

[1:57:53] components in paragraphs A and B

[1:57:53] make sure that concludes

[1:57:54] recommendation8.

[1:57:57] any questions on this

[1:57:57] recommendation?

[1:58:02] I don't see any so I would

[1:58:03] accept a motion to

[1:58:09] right we have a motion in a

[1:58:10] second. I'll take the motion

[1:58:13] from senator wynn and the second

[1:58:14] from vicechair Miller. any

[1:58:15] discussion on the motion

[1:58:19] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:58:20] ayei and he opposed this

[1:58:22] and he opposed nay

[1:58:25] all right we have approved

[1:58:27] recommendation number8 moving on

[1:58:27] to the next recommendation.

[1:58:31] think the chair for the record

[1:58:32] Caesar Mare committee policy

[1:58:34] analysts recommendation 9

[1:58:36] request the drafting of a letter

[1:58:38] concerning public public

[1:58:39] defence staffing and support

[1:58:41] services and the recommendation

[1:58:42] includes both components A and B

[1:58:49] any questions on recommendation

[1:58:49] 9?

[1:58:53] I don't see any so I'd accept a

[1:58:54] motion to approve we have a

[1:58:57] motion from vicechair Miller. we

[1:58:57] have a second from Senator

[1:58:58] Wwynn. any discussion on the

[1:58:59] motion

[1:59:03] not seeing any all in favor

[1:59:05] sayii and nay

[1:59:07] all

[1:59:11] motion carries to approve

[1:59:13] recommendation number 9 onto

[1:59:13] recommendation number10.

[1:59:16] thank you chair for the record

[1:59:18] saysar magarejo committee policy

[1:59:20] analyst recommendation number10

[1:59:22] requests drafting legislation

[1:59:23] concerning postconviction

[1:59:24] representation for indigent

[1:59:26] defendants by the department of

[1:59:27] indigent deffenceervices and

[1:59:28] that concludes recommendation

[1:59:28] number10.

[1:59:31] any questions on recommendation

[1:59:32] number10?

[1:59:36] I don't see any site accept a

[1:59:38] motion to approve so moved right

[1:59:39] we have a motion from vicechair

[1:59:40] Miller. we have a second from

[1:59:41] Senator Wwynnn. any discussion

[1:59:42] on the motion

[1:59:46] not seeing any all in favor say

[1:59:47] aye i and

[1:59:49] and he opposed nay

[1:59:51] they don't see sorry

[1:59:53] the motion carries that

[1:59:57] brings us to the next

[1:59:57] recommendation

[2:00:02] thank you chair for the record

[2:00:04] says that my committee policy

[2:00:05] analyst recommendation

[2:00:06] number11 requests drafting

[2:00:08] legislation concerning

[2:00:09] concerning the duration of

[2:00:11] juvenile competency proceedings

[2:00:12] to ensure that concludes

[2:00:13] recommendation11.

[2:00:16] any questions on this

[2:00:17] recommendation SL member call

[2:00:22] thank you chair so my

[2:00:23] question would be if at the end

[2:00:24] of six months they cannot

[2:00:28] attain competency they're just

[2:00:30] released into the community at

[2:00:31] that point? Is that what would

[2:00:32] happen or is there some

[2:00:33] additional

[2:00:43] ga in seeing as I told all of

[2:00:44] our presenters that they didn't

[2:00:45] have to be here at the work

[2:00:46] session.

[2:00:49] I will try to speak for them and

[2:00:50] I'm sure they can clarify if I

[2:00:51] get this wrong but

[2:00:53] they would not be released

[2:00:55] directly to the community. their

[2:00:56] criminal case would be closed

[2:00:57] but they would still have to go

[2:00:59] through whatever process

[2:01:00] they're going through to receive

[2:01:01] treatment at a mental health

[2:01:03] care facility and then be you

[2:01:04] know reintegrated into their

[2:01:05] family and into their community.

[2:01:09] thank you

[2:01:11] any further questions

[2:01:16] right, not seeing any I would

[2:01:17] accept a motion to approve this

[2:01:18] recommendation so

[2:01:20] we have a motion from vice

[2:01:21] chairir Miller. we have a second

[2:01:22] from Senatornwynnn. any

[2:01:23] discussion on the motion?

[2:01:28] right all in favor say aye ii

[2:01:30] and he opposed nay

[2:01:33] all right we have one nay from a

[2:01:34] select member call

[2:01:35] and the motion carries

[2:01:39] that takes us to our next

[2:01:39] recommendation number12.

[2:01:44] thank you chair for the

[2:01:46] recordarrellun policy analyst

[2:01:48] recommendation number12 requests

[2:01:49] drafting legislation concerning

[2:01:51] the the time a youth may remain

[2:01:53] in juvenile detention while

[2:01:54] awaiting transferred to a state

[2:01:56] correctional facility ensure

[2:01:57] that concludes recommendation

[2:01:57] number t2.

[2:02:00] right. any questions on

[2:02:01] recommendation number12?

[2:02:06] seen any sideic accept a

[2:02:07] motion to approve

[2:02:09] we have a motion from vice

[2:02:10] chairir Miller. we have a second

[2:02:11] from senator Wwynnn. any

[2:02:12] discussion on the motion

[2:02:15] not seeing any all on paper say

[2:02:16] aye i ii

[2:02:19] any opposed nay

[2:02:22] all right the motion carries

[2:02:23] that takes us to our next

[2:02:27] thank you chair for the

[2:02:29] recordesar megare come be policy

[2:02:32] analyst recommendation number13

[2:02:34] requests drafting legislation

[2:02:35] concerning deadlines for

[2:02:37] courtordered evaluations of

[2:02:38] youth who remained in detention

[2:02:39] ensure that concludes

[2:02:42] any questions on

[2:02:43] recommendation13?

[2:02:46] I don't see any. so I would

[2:02:47] take a motion to approve

[2:02:50] all right we have a motion from

[2:02:52] vicechairiller a second from

[2:02:53] Senator Wwynn any discussion on

[2:02:54] the motion

[2:02:57] not seeing any all in favor say

[2:02:58] aye i

[2:03:01] any opposed nay

[2:03:03] the motion carries

[2:03:08] we'll move on to our next

[2:03:09] recommend

[2:03:12] chair for the record

[2:03:15] Carungarejounity policy analyst

[2:03:18] the recommendation4 requests

[2:03:20] drafting legislation concerning

[2:03:21] certain young offenders whose

[2:03:23] sentences will expire before

[2:03:25] they reach 26 years of age and

[2:03:26] chair that concludes

[2:03:27] recommendation14.

[2:03:31] right any questions on

[2:03:31] recommendation14?

[2:03:32] Vice chairir Miller

[2:03:36] thank you chair. when it

[2:03:40] refers to establish a program is

[2:03:41] this a program for training

[2:03:42] for re entry

[2:03:47] early release but what is the

[2:03:48] program well I guess you

[2:03:49] wouldn't need early release well

[2:03:49] I'm asking

[2:03:56] my recollection is this would

[2:03:58] be a housing program so that we

[2:04:00] could have a separate or I

[2:04:02] shouldn't say separate but a

[2:04:03] designated facility for

[2:04:04] offenders who are not

[2:04:05] necessarily

[2:04:07] juveniles or meet the definition

[2:04:08] of youthful but

[2:04:09] who are less than 26 years of

[2:04:10] age

[2:04:11] OK, thank you

[2:04:14] any other questions

[2:04:18] not seeing any I would accept

[2:04:20] a motion to approve

[2:04:21] recommendation14

[2:04:23] we have a motion from vice

[2:04:25] chaiririller. we have a second

[2:04:25] from Senator wynn any discussion

[2:04:26] on the motion

[2:04:30] right all in favor say aye i

[2:04:33] and he opposed nay

[2:04:37] all right the motion carries and

[2:04:37] that takes us to recommendation

[2:04:38] 15

[2:04:43] you for the recordesaruggarejo

[2:04:44] committee policy analyst

[2:04:46] recommendation 15 requests

[2:04:48] drafting legislation concerning

[2:04:49] standards for government use of

[2:04:51] automated license plate reader

[2:04:52] systems ensure

[2:04:59] right. questions on

[2:05:01] recommendation 15 starting with

[2:05:01] vicechair Miller.

[2:05:04] thank you chair I

[2:05:08] I do not want this to open into

[2:05:10] a hearing because I know there's

[2:05:11] a lot of questions and concerns

[2:05:13] and we hear a lot from the

[2:05:15] public on this and and issues

[2:05:17] that we've seen not just locally

[2:05:19] but nationally as well with this

[2:05:21] especially around the abuse

[2:05:24] and misuse of this type of

[2:05:25] technology by officers

[2:05:27] and of course

[2:05:30] you know constitutional

[2:05:31] infringement so my question is

[2:05:34] where when it says it it a

[2:05:36] twofold question one is the

[2:05:38] point of this to enact standards

[2:05:42] and regulations on a program

[2:05:44] that is right now not regulated

[2:05:46] so that it would there would be

[2:05:47] some standards and best

[2:05:48] practices in place

[2:05:49] that's my first question

[2:05:54] my understanding is yes but I

[2:05:56] wanna kick it over to legal to

[2:05:57] make sure that I'm not missing

[2:05:58] some area of statute

[2:06:01] Thank you chairir

[2:06:05] Yes that that is exactly

[2:06:05] correct. there

[2:06:09] are no standards in place right

[2:06:09] now

[2:06:12] so what this would do is

[2:06:15] establish those standards for

[2:06:15] agencies to follow

[2:06:19] and my second question with that

[2:06:20] thank you is

[2:06:24] to adapt written policies with

[2:06:26] the agencies with each different

[2:06:28] jurisdiction themselves be

[2:06:30] creating their own policies or

[2:06:32] would this be we would be

[2:06:33] legislating policies that

[2:06:35] so so who's writing these

[2:06:35] policies?

[2:06:40] because I know there's different

[2:06:42] approaches and opinions even

[2:06:44] within Nevada from

[2:06:45] different jurisdiction

[2:06:54] Yes, that that is true. the

[2:06:55] model act there

[2:06:58] has a

[2:07:00] most of that information

[2:07:04] about what the the content of

[2:07:05] the policies is supposed to

[2:07:05] include

[2:07:07] I'm not sure to what extent

[2:07:10] there's leeway for an agency to

[2:07:11] depart from

[2:07:13] what's contained in the modelel

[2:07:13] Act

[2:07:17] but most of the standards are

[2:07:18] are going to be right there in

[2:07:19] the model

[2:07:25] OK thank you for that. I would I

[2:07:26] would just like to say chair

[2:07:27] that I would like to make sure

[2:07:29] that if this moves forward that

[2:07:32] we are legislating specifically

[2:07:33] what we expect to be followed

[2:07:36] thank you. understood and I

[2:07:37] think we also have a question

[2:07:38] sorry other questions down here

[2:07:40] before I go to

[2:07:44] our friends from afar I will go

[2:07:45] now to assembly

[2:07:45] membermberhansson.

[2:07:50] Thank you chair. I think I've

[2:07:52] got some of the clarification

[2:07:53] from my colleague's question

[2:07:56] so we we also call these flock

[2:07:58] cameras so the thing is I I

[2:08:00] guess what I was a little

[2:08:02] confused by is we're gonna have

[2:08:04] a BDR for these guardrails but

[2:08:06] we haven't we've not passed any

[2:08:10] legislation legalizing reading

[2:08:12] of license plates for like

[2:08:13] citations

[2:08:16] so in some ways to me it was

[2:08:18] like the cart before the horse,

[2:08:20] but if it's flock cameras that

[2:08:21] are currently used

[2:08:24] for those of you in the legal

[2:08:25] field make sure I'm

[2:08:26] understanding this right. We use

[2:08:27] these kind of cameras

[2:08:32] we can't use them for citations

[2:08:34] but we can use them after the

[2:08:36] fact if a crime has occurred and

[2:08:37] there's maybe some evidence on

[2:08:37] them

[2:08:40] is that do I have that

[2:08:41] understanding right?

[2:08:53] I can answer that. I I think the

[2:08:54] point of them they're used for

[2:08:55] investigatory purposes

[2:08:58] primarily it's not it can't be

[2:08:59] used as a

[2:09:02] red light camera or you know

[2:09:03] definitive proof of running a

[2:09:04] red light

[2:09:08] for example but rather you

[2:09:09] know used for investigating

[2:09:12] a wide variety of crimes

[2:09:15] you know involving movement of

[2:09:15] people, movement of vehicles

[2:09:18] locations at which people were

[2:09:21] but no it's not

[2:09:24] you know used specifically as

[2:09:25] evidence in a

[2:09:27] citation although

[2:09:30] you know that could come into

[2:09:31] play at some point

[2:09:36] OK thank you for that and so

[2:09:38] yeah chair I guess yeah I I'll

[2:09:40] support moving it forward with

[2:09:42] the idea that I think we're

[2:09:43] gonna have a whole lot of

[2:09:46] discussion in the next session

[2:09:48] on this subject in particular

[2:09:50] and and guardrails are important

[2:09:53] so thank you for letting me

[2:09:54] try to get some clarity.

[2:09:55] appreciate it.

[2:09:59] of course and I think I actually

[2:10:00] have to kind of clarifying

[2:10:01] questions as well

[2:10:03] which is that my understanding

[2:10:06] is that you know absent any law

[2:10:09] that prohibits the use of flock

[2:10:10] cameras or license plate readers

[2:10:11] there there's nothing to

[2:10:15] prohibit law enforcement

[2:10:17] agencies, private security

[2:10:18] companies other

[2:10:22] agencies or entities from

[2:10:25] installing these cameras so

[2:10:27] there are no rules in place at

[2:10:28] this point in time, right?

[2:10:35] Yes sure that that is correct

[2:10:35] there are not any

[2:10:40] statutes that pertains

[2:10:41] specifically to this kind of

[2:10:41] camera

[2:10:47] and it was also my understanding

[2:10:48] in you know choosing to bring

[2:10:49] this

[2:10:51] proposal forward that we do not

[2:10:52] have any other committees that

[2:10:54] are currently considering

[2:10:55] legislation on this issue

[2:10:59] I don't know if that's something

[2:11:01] that OKok I'm getting some

[2:11:03] confirmation here that other

[2:11:04] committees have declined to take

[2:11:06] up this issue so I thought that

[2:11:08] to my colleague is

[2:11:10] someverhansson's point there

[2:11:12] will be much discussion on this

[2:11:15] and it seemed appropriate to

[2:11:17] at least have a vehicle to hash

[2:11:19] out those details and if we're

[2:11:22] able to come to some kind of

[2:11:23] conclusion about how we should

[2:11:24] be regulating the use of these

[2:11:26] cameras then we can do that

[2:11:27] with this particular

[2:11:27] bill.

[2:11:31] and with that I'll take any

[2:11:31] other questions

[2:11:35] but not seeing any we'll move to

[2:11:36] a motion if there is one to

[2:11:37] approve this recommendation.

[2:11:43] all right we have a motion from

[2:11:44] Senator Nwynn we have a second

[2:11:46] from vicechair Miller. any

[2:11:47] discussion on the mo

[2:11:51] right, not seeing any all in

[2:11:53] favor say ayeyi

[2:11:55] any opposed nay

[2:11:59] ok. that

[2:12:03] motion carries and we will move

[2:12:04] now to our next recommendation.

[2:12:09] you for the recordesargarejo

[2:12:10] committee policy analyst

[2:12:12] recommendcommation16 requests

[2:12:14] drafting legislation concerning

[2:12:17] evaluations specialty court

[2:12:19] probation and geriatric parole

[2:12:21] ability the recommendation

[2:12:21] includes the three components

[2:12:23] outlined in paragraphs A through

[2:12:24] C ensure that concludes

[2:12:25] recommendation

[2:12:32] any questions on this one as

[2:12:33] some of them are cool

[2:12:36] so my question is on sub

[2:12:40] item C so I guess my question is

[2:12:41] is there a certain amount of

[2:12:43] minimum time that the people

[2:12:45] would serve under a vehicular

[2:12:47] homicide or habitual

[2:12:49] criminals before they're

[2:12:51] considered for geriatric parole

[2:12:52] because my concern would be you

[2:12:54] know they commit the crime at64

[2:12:55] or65 or whatever that age

[2:13:04] I'm going to ask legal to wait

[2:13:05] in here because I'm not

[2:13:08] qualified to answer that

[2:13:16] and of course I sent all of our

[2:13:18] presenters away so we have

[2:13:19] nobody else to answer questions

[2:13:20] for us.

[2:13:26] Cha I'm not sure I understand

[2:13:28] that question. could you

[2:13:29] please repeat that

[2:13:33] happy to so my question was

[2:13:36] related to how the parole

[2:13:37] process works for geriatric

[2:13:41] they're convicted of vehicular

[2:13:44] homicide or habitual criminals

[2:13:45] we're removing the exclusion

[2:13:47] pursuant to this the sea and the

[2:13:50] BDr request how does that

[2:13:51] work or is there a minimum

[2:13:52] amount of time that they would

[2:13:54] serve of their sentence before

[2:13:55] they would be eligible for

[2:13:56] parole or is it immediately when

[2:13:58] they hit a particular age if so

[2:13:59] what is that age? thank you

[2:14:02] Yes

[2:14:07] multiple people have pointed

[2:14:09] out that the statute

[2:14:10] NrS213.121

[2:14:11] 55

[2:14:15] in subsection one paragraph E

[2:14:19] has the requirement for

[2:14:19] eligibility

[2:14:22] that a person have served at

[2:14:23] least the majority of the

[2:14:25] maximum term or maximum

[2:14:25] aggregate term of

[2:14:29] his or her sentence so that

[2:14:29] requirement would remain

[2:14:32] in law even if the other

[2:14:37] exclusionary crimes that are

[2:14:39] proposed here were removed

[2:14:41] from paragraph A of

[2:14:41] subsection one

[2:14:45] thank you so much thank you

[2:14:46] chair

[2:14:48] thank you

[2:14:51] right. any other questions?

[2:14:55] not seeing any I would accept a

[2:14:55] motion to approve

[2:14:59] all right we have a motion from

[2:15:00] vice chair Miller. we have a

[2:15:01] second from Senator Wwynn. any

[2:15:02] discussion on the motion

[2:15:04] chair

[2:15:07] all right I think that was a

[2:15:10] slim memberhansen yes thank you

[2:15:11] sorry couldn't type quick enough

[2:15:15] and I I'm comfortable with A and

[2:15:18] B in the in this BDr

[2:15:20] proposal. I'm not real

[2:15:21] comfortable with see

[2:15:23] so I unfortunately am going to

[2:15:23] be now on this one

[2:15:29] right. any other discussion?

[2:15:34] not seeing any all in favor say

[2:15:35] aye i

[2:15:36] and he opposed nay

[2:15:37] nay

[2:15:41] all right I think we just

[2:15:45] OK we have two nas as a just

[2:15:46] because we have to keep the

[2:15:47] record assembly member cole and

[2:15:48] assembly memberhansson

[2:15:53] and maybe have ane so I

[2:15:53] apologize

[2:15:54] that's ok.

[2:15:56] I'm in a

[2:15:58] got it so we have three nays

[2:16:00] the rest are eyes

[2:16:02] and with that the motion does

[2:16:04] still carry to approve this

[2:16:05] recommendation

[2:16:07] and that takes us to

[2:16:14] our final recommendation17

[2:16:15] please take it away

[2:16:17] thank you chair for the record

[2:16:20] saysaruggareoun community policy

[2:16:21] analyst recommendcommendations

[2:16:23] se7 requests drafting

[2:16:25] legislation concerning the use

[2:16:26] of prone restraints by peace

[2:16:27] officers and should that

[2:16:28] concludes recommendation se7

[2:16:30] then the recommendations in the

[2:16:31] work session document.

[2:16:35] right. any questions on this

[2:16:35] recommendation?

[2:16:39] I don't see any so I'd accept a

[2:16:41] motion to approve so

[2:16:43] all right we have a motion from

[2:16:44] vicechair Miller. we have a

[2:16:45] second from Senator Wwynn any

[2:16:46] discussion on the motion?

[2:16:49] not seeing any all in favor say

[2:16:50] aye

[2:16:51] ii

[2:16:53] any opposed nay

[2:16:58] all right the motion carries we

[2:16:59] have approved

[2:17:03] Recommation number17 and I think

[2:17:04] that takes us to the end of our

[2:17:05] work session document, correct?

[2:17:08] all right that brings us to the

[2:17:10] end of this agenda item and we

[2:17:12] will move on to the next item on

[2:17:13] our agenda which is our second

[2:17:15] period of public comment we

[2:17:17] invite anybody wishing to give

[2:17:18] public comment in person in

[2:17:20] Carson City or Las Vegas to the

[2:17:21] front

[2:17:26] But I don't see anybody coming

[2:17:27] forward in either location

[2:17:28] so we'll go to the phones for

[2:17:29] public comment

[2:17:34] public comment please press 9

[2:17:35] now to take your place in the

[2:17:35] queue.

[2:17:45] we have no coers wishing to

[2:17:45] provide public comment.

[2:17:50] OK then that brings us to

[2:17:53] agenda item number8 as we get

[2:17:54] ready to adjourn. I just want to

[2:17:57] thank our committee members for

[2:17:59] their commitment over this

[2:18:02] interim to passing some or to

[2:18:05] assessing some many many issues

[2:18:06] and coming up with these

[2:18:08] recommendations out of our work

[2:18:10] session document and equally

[2:18:12] I want to thank our staff we

[2:18:15] have incredible staff atlCB as

[2:18:17] you all know our

[2:18:17] administrator Kathleen Capron

[2:18:20] our committee policy analyst

[2:18:22] CaarilcaRajo our committee

[2:18:25] counsel Bradley Wilkinson our

[2:18:29] secretary Maria Veasquez and so

[2:18:31] so many other members of our

[2:18:32] staff who I don't have their

[2:18:34] names in front of me but we have

[2:18:36] amazing staff at ABH we have our

[2:18:39] other analysts and

[2:18:40] secretaries who have been

[2:18:42] filling in and helping we have

[2:18:44] all of our staff atlCB legal,

[2:18:47] our finance staff our

[2:18:50] research staff and I just

[2:18:52] want to thank all of you so so

[2:18:54] much for all of your hard work

[2:18:56] over this interim and

[2:19:00] with that unless there are other

[2:19:01] comments questions

[2:19:06] all right then that takes us

[2:19:09] to agenda item number8. we are

[2:19:09] adjourned

[2:19:13] thank you so much chair. see you

[2:19:14] all soon.

Joint Interim Standing Committee on the Judiciary

Agenda

Transcript