[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.