[0:08] the joint entrance standing

[0:10] Committee on government affairs

[0:11] will come to order madam

[0:12] Secretary, please call the ro.

[0:16] Senator Krasner

[0:22] He Senator Neal

[0:26] assembly memberm cole

[0:30] assembly member Conidine

[0:33] present assembly member Flanagan

[0:37] assembly member ger

[0:41] assembly memberwynnn

[0:44] and chair flores

[0:49] thank you madam Secretary.

[0:50] please let the record reflect

[0:53] that assembly member er is

[0:55] absent and assembly member

[0:57] uhyynn is not present but

[0:58] please mark them present as they

[1:00] make their way into the

[1:01] committee as it's my

[1:01] understanding that assembly

[1:03] member wenty will be joining us

[1:03] momentarily

[1:05] good afternoon everybody.

[1:08] welcome to the incredibly

[1:09] funittee on government affairs.

[1:09] I see everybody's a

[1:13] energy is high like mine it's

[1:14] our last one

[1:16] but I I do want to thank

[1:17] everybody for their patience we

[1:18] wanted to make sure we had an

[1:19] opportunity to have some

[1:20] conversations before we came

[1:22] into today's meeting and and so

[1:24] thank you for allowing us the

[1:25] time to do that a few minutes

[1:26] prior to today's meeting

[1:28] I'd like to

[1:31] let everybody know that we are

[1:32] going to take the agenda in the

[1:33] order it appears

[1:35] we'll be starting off with

[1:37] public comment for those of you

[1:39] who don't get to participate

[1:40] at the beginning we will have

[1:41] another session of public

[1:43] comment at the very end. I want

[1:45] to remind you thatublic Comm is

[1:45] limited to two minutes

[1:48] Should you have any additional

[1:50] public comment that exceeds a

[1:51] two limit mark, feel free to put

[1:53] that in writing, submit it over

[1:54] to the committee and we'll make

[1:55] sure it gets uploaded to the

[1:56] record so we can get the full

[1:58] breathth of your public

[2:00] comment. With that I'd like to

[2:01] invite those wishing to join us

[2:03] for public comment this morning

[2:04] if you could please come forward

[2:06] we'll start off first here in

[2:07] Las Vegas

[2:10] and then I will move down to

[2:12] carson excuse me move up to

[2:13] carson cityity I see somebody

[2:13] there as well

[2:14] whoever wishes to go first

[2:15] welcome

[2:18] all right good afternoon members

[2:20] of theittee on government

[2:22] affairs. My name is Kevalgano.

[2:24] Once again I'm here to talk

[2:26] about the private investigators

[2:27] licensing boardard, also known

[2:28] as the PILB.

[2:31] has been covered on the news

[2:32] that oversight authorities are

[2:34] reviewing allegations that the

[2:36] PIL be granted security

[2:38] registrations to prohibited in

[2:39] individuals

[2:42] along with allowing unauthorized

[2:44] firearms to be issued for

[2:45] securityrelated employment

[2:48] I want to focus on the

[2:50] verification of employment for

[2:52] armed security, also known as

[2:53] the VEAs form

[2:56] for more than a decade it

[2:57] controlled firearm regulations

[2:59] for security officers despite

[3:01] never having gone through formal

[3:04] rulemaking procedures to become

[3:05] lawfully adopted in the first

[3:05] place.

[3:10] On June7,2012 during a PILB

[3:11] disciplinary hearing

[3:13] defense attorney by the name of

[3:15] cody Mounteer challenged the

[3:18] pILB and their board council

[3:20] about the VEAS form not

[3:21] appearing in the Nevada

[3:21] administrative code

[3:24] for instructions on how to even

[3:25] implement that document.

[3:29] 13 years later on

[3:31] December11,2025, the executive

[3:34] director of the PILb stated on

[3:35] the certified record quote

[3:38] the verification of the

[3:39] employment for armed security is

[3:41] not in NrS or NAC

[3:44] this was a board policy that

[3:46] we've adopted, you know to have

[3:47] some kind of control for the

[3:48] firearms for the industry.

[3:48] end quote

[3:53] My submission materials include

[3:54] two excerpts of those two

[3:56] meetings along with the version

[3:58] of the VEAS form dated from

[4:01] October of2014, 18 speakers

[4:03] showed up for public comment at

[4:05] the June10 PIOB meeting of this

[4:07] year to voice their opinions

[4:08] about the firearm regulations

[4:10] form most of which of them

[4:11] opposed

[4:14] the pILb later posted an agenda

[4:16] for the VAAS workshop scheduled

[4:20] for July twenty8,2026. it was

[4:21] canceled two weeks before that

[4:22] date with no rescheduling as of

[4:23] today

[4:26] almosts done please

[4:29] all right I'd ask this

[4:30] committee to inquire the

[4:31] attorney general's office and

[4:32] its role in all of this, iv that

[4:34] their council was present at the

[4:36] 2012 challenge and never

[4:37] corrected it even 13 years

[4:37] later.

[4:41] Overall I appreciate this

[4:42] committee for listening to this

[4:44] urgent matter. thank you and

[4:45] thank you for joining us and

[4:46] please feel comfortable

[4:47] submitting that in writing as

[4:48] well thank you

[4:48] whoever wish you to go next.

[4:53] Good afternoon chairir Flores

[4:54] and members of the joint interim

[4:56] standingittee on government

[4:58] affairs. My name is Moilani

[5:00] Tupu. I am a resident of Las

[5:02] Vegas and a native Hawaiian and

[5:03] Samoan fourth year medical

[5:04] student speaking today on my own

[5:05] behalf.

[5:06] please note that these

[5:08] statements are my own and do not

[5:09] represent my institution.

[5:11] I'm submitting this comment to

[5:12] address the critical need for

[5:14] administrative accuracy in state

[5:16] data collection specifically by

[5:17] aligning Nevada state agency

[5:20] race and ethnicity reporting

[5:21] with the reviseded statistical

[5:21] Policy Directive number1f

[5:25] Currently several Nevada state

[5:27] agencies combine Asian and

[5:28] nativehawaiian or Pacific

[5:30] islander into a single category.

[5:32] In my research on nativehawaiian

[5:34] and Pacific Islander health in

[5:35] Nevada, I have found that while

[5:37] federal systems like thehaalris

[5:39] factor surveillance system do

[5:40] disaggregate these groups

[5:42] limited survey data hinders

[5:43] robust health research and

[5:44] obscures accurate baseline

[5:45] metrics.

[5:47] althoughthough improving overall

[5:48] survey mechanics remains a

[5:50] broader need for our state

[5:51] health surveillance the more

[5:52] immediate administrative barrier

[5:53] is the reporting of combined

[5:54] categories.

[5:57] This limitation is reflected in

[5:58] publications like the Nevada

[6:00] DHHs Office of analytics

[6:02] minority Healthport which lists

[6:04] Asianmerican and Pacific

[6:05] Islander data as a single

[6:07] category that is not useful in

[6:08] analyzing either distinct

[6:09] population.

[6:11] this data grouping massed

[6:13] critical population differences

[6:15] overlooking thatnevada is home

[6:16] to the third largest population

[6:17] of native Hawaiians in the

[6:19] continental US and prevents the

[6:20] state records from reflecting

[6:22] the true demographic landscape

[6:23] required by federal standards

[6:26] without disaggregated data state

[6:28] agencies lack the precise

[6:29] metrics necessary to understand

[6:31] who they are serving and where

[6:33] resources are needed. thank you

[6:33] for your time, your leadership

[6:34] and for accepting this comment

[6:35] into

[6:39] thank you for joining us. I also

[6:42] received a written request from

[6:43] from yourself and a few other

[6:45] individuals interested in this

[6:47] very area. I know assembly

[6:48] memberwynn and please let the

[6:49] record reflect that assembly

[6:52] memberwyn is present now uhs

[6:53] indicated that he had an

[6:55] interest in helping so I'm sure

[6:56] he'll be reaching out thank you

[6:57] whoever

[7:02] Good afternoonchair Flores and

[7:04] members of the committee my name

[7:05] is Nataia Tahir. I'm a resident

[7:07] of Las Vegas, a South Asianer

[7:08] and a medical student speaking

[7:10] today on my own behalf.gain

[7:11] these statements are my own and

[7:12] do not represent my institution.

[7:14] I just wanted to add one point

[7:16] to what my colleague just here

[7:17] described that this is not a new

[7:19] standard it is not a difficult

[7:20] one to meet as well. Federal

[7:22] standards have listed Asian and

[7:23] native Hawaiian or other Pacific

[7:25] isslander as separate reported

[7:28] category since1997 just about 29

[7:29] years and the 2024 revision of

[7:30] statistical policy

[7:34] Directive15 SPD1f kept that

[7:35] separation in place. What we

[7:36] found in Nevada is that practice

[7:38] is inconsistent, not necessarily

[7:40] absent the division of welfare

[7:42] and supportive services already

[7:43] list the two categories

[7:44] separately on its application

[7:46] for assistance for example the

[7:47] data are being collected to some

[7:48] extent it is at the reporting

[7:51] and republication stage that the

[7:52] two groups get combined back

[7:54] into one. that means the fix is

[7:55] largely a matter of how existing

[7:58] data is tabulated. The

[7:58] legislature has done this kind

[7:59] of update before in 2023

[8:02] assembly bill139 added aiddle

[8:04] Eastern or African category to

[8:06] state data collection separating

[8:07] Asian and nativehawaiian or

[8:08] Pacific islanders is the same

[8:10] kind of change. there's also

[8:12] room to further follow updated

[8:14] SPD1f guidelines to further

[8:15] disaggregate data collection by

[8:15] subgroup.

[8:17] we have submitted like you said

[8:18] a written comment with our

[8:20] documentation and we'd welcome

[8:21] the chance to answer questions

[8:23] from staff or members at any

[8:24] time. thank you for your time

[8:25] and accepting this comment into

[8:26] the record.

[8:27] thank you for joining us.

[8:28] Welcome.

[8:34] thank you to members of the

[8:35] committee and to chairir for

[8:38] flores. I am Janet Carter J A N

[8:42] E Tc A R T E R. I speak today as

[8:44] the vicechair of the toyabi

[8:46] chapter of the Sierra Clubgan

[8:47] organization as you know is the

[8:48] largest volunteer environmental

[8:50] organization in the state of

[8:52] Nevada. We are here today to

[8:53] express our strong support for

[8:55] proposed legislation that would

[8:57] improve the public's access to

[8:58] hearings of the public utilities

[9:00] commission of Nevada. It is the

[9:01] duty of all state regulatory

[9:04] agencies to ensure that the

[9:06] public's interest is fully

[9:08] considered in any rulemaking or

[9:09] legislative process

[9:11] the word public is in the very

[9:12] name of this body for a good

[9:14] reason. This proposed

[9:16] legislation would help ensure

[9:17] that members of the public can

[9:19] provide comments easily and

[9:20] safely regardless of any

[9:22] physical or other limitations we

[9:24] they may face. we've all seen

[9:26] and heard the stories of how

[9:28] members of the public were

[9:29] forced to wait outside in triple

[9:30] digit heat before commenting

[9:32] during the annual consumer

[9:33] session held by the pucCN in

[9:33] June.

[9:36] Members of my organization were

[9:38] unable to continue to wait to

[9:40] make comments because they began

[9:41] suffering symptoms of heat

[9:43] exhaustion. No one should have

[9:44] to risk their life or health to

[9:45] attend a public meeting of any

[9:46] sort

[9:48] in addition our members have

[9:50] experienced barriers to comment

[9:52] before the pucCm they're less

[9:54] obvious than that example. Many

[9:56] working folks cannot attend a

[9:58] meeting in the middle of the day

[9:59] on a weekday. Meetings

[10:00] specifically designed to hear

[10:01] public comments should be

[10:03] offered at various times of the

[10:04] day to accommodate those with

[10:06] other work or family

[10:08] commitments. The headquarters of

[10:10] the PCN as well as this building

[10:11] that we are currently sitting in

[10:13] in Las Vegas are not easily

[10:15] accessible by public transit if

[10:15] you lived in the if especially

[10:16] if you live in the

[10:18] north or northwestern parts of

[10:19] the valley

[10:21] these are just a couple of

[10:23] examples of why virtual or

[10:24] telephonic comments should be

[10:26] allowed for all meetings. The

[10:28] process for written comment must

[10:29] be clearly stated and easy to

[10:31] navigate and of course every

[10:33] attempt must be made to overcome

[10:34] language barriers faced by

[10:35] ratepayers.

[10:38] My organization is obviously

[10:39] concerned that Nevada utilities

[10:41] serve the public's need in our

[10:42] state in an efficient manner

[10:45] that conserves resources as much

[10:46] as possible. therefore our

[10:48] members strongly support any

[10:49] legislation that better enables

[10:51] them to express how our clean

[10:53] energy goals can best be

[10:54] addressed through the regulatory

[10:56] process. We strongly support

[10:58] this legislation that will make

[11:00] it easier for all Nevadans to

[11:02] advocate for healthier, more

[11:04] efficient and economical utility

[11:05] use and thank you for your time.

[11:08] and thank you for joining us

[11:12] good afternoon chairir Flores

[11:14] and members of the committee my

[11:16] name is Leemccalister. I am the

[11:18] executive director of the Nevada

[11:20] chapter of the American Academy

[11:22] of Pediatrics. althoughthough we

[11:23] submitted written comment on

[11:26] Monday I want to briefly add1

[11:28] point today. The Nevada chapter

[11:30] of the AapP takes no position on

[11:31] the legal liability question

[11:33] before you that's outside our

[11:35] expertise. We ask only that

[11:37] child health consequences be

[11:37] part of the record.

[11:40] F fear of a parent's arrest or

[11:42] deportation is causing Nevada

[11:45] families to delay or avoid well

[11:47] child visits immunizations and

[11:49] benefits their own citizen

[11:51] children are legally entitled to

[11:54] roughly3 in8 Nevada children

[11:55] have at least one immigrant

[11:57] parent and 93% of those are US

[12:00] born citizens. that chilling

[12:01] effect doesn't stop with the

[12:03] family directly involved. it

[12:05] threatens child and public

[12:06] health by reaching into exam

[12:07] rooms, school nurses offices and

[12:08] w

[12:09] w ic enrollment lines

[12:12] and it isn't limited to children

[12:14] whose families are affected. U

[12:16] see Riverside researchers note

[12:17] that even children who aren't

[12:19] directly targeted feel the

[12:20] impact when their communities

[12:22] are disrupted, creating what

[12:24] they call collective trauma

[12:25] among kids who watch a friend's

[12:26] parent taken away

[12:29] so as the committee weighs a

[12:30] bill draft request we ask that

[12:31] it be evaluated for its effect

[12:34] on child health access including

[12:36] sensitive locations protections

[12:38] for schools, hospitals and

[12:39] clinics. thank you for your time

[12:40] and attention.

[12:42] and thank you for joining us

[12:44] good afternoon and wel

[12:48] good afternoon chair and members

[12:50] of the committee my name is

[12:52] justinhobson H O as in paul S O

[12:54] N and I am a clean energy

[12:56] organizer with faith organis

[12:58] alliance a coalition partner of

[13:00] Nevada Environmental justice

[13:03] Coalition. let's be honest about

[13:05] what accessibility means if a

[13:07] working parent has to choose

[13:08] between a paycheck and a public

[13:10] comment that is not access. If a

[13:12] senior has to wait outside in

[13:14] triple digit heat just to be

[13:15] heard that is not access. If a

[13:18] r ural Nevadan has to drive

[13:20] hours for a nonElish speaker has

[13:22] to cut their three minutes in

[13:23] half because they need an

[13:26] interpreter that is not access

[13:27] and we have already seen this

[13:27] happen

[13:30] ack in June community members

[13:32] showed up to participate in a

[13:34] pucCN consumer session and were

[13:36] forced to wait outside in

[13:37] extreme heat because the

[13:39] commission decided to limit the

[13:39] number of people who could

[13:40] enter.

[13:43] these aren't inconveniencies

[13:45] inconveniences there barriers

[13:46] that determine whose voice gets

[13:48] heard. That matters because the

[13:51] pucCN makes decisions that

[13:52] directly affect whether families

[13:54] can afford to keep the lights

[13:56] on. when more than 200,000

[13:58] Nevadan households already face

[14:00] an unaffordable energy burden we

[14:02] cannot create a regulatory

[14:03] system where the people with the

[14:05] greatest stake have the hardest

[14:07] time participating. Our request

[14:09] is simple. makeke accessibility

[14:10] a standard, not a privi

[14:13] le ge Hold meetings at times

[14:14] working people can attend.

[14:16] providevide permanent phone and

[14:19] virtual testimony. Make written

[14:21] comments simple providevide

[14:23] meaningful language access and

[14:24] make sure meeting locations are

[14:28] truly accessible. The PCN should

[14:30] not decide whether Nevadans

[14:31] deserve access based on the

[14:33] meeting the day or the

[14:34] circumstances if the commission

[14:36] has the power to shape our

[14:38] utility bills thennevadans must

[14:39] have the power to shape the

[14:39] decisions that is what account

[14:43] ability looks like. That is what

[14:45] energy equity looks like. I urge

[14:46] this committee to support

[14:49] pucCN accessibility reform.

[14:49] thank you.

[14:51] and thank you for joining us

[14:51] please

[14:58] my name is Cassandra Jones and I

[14:59] am the director of organizing

[14:59] for faith in action Nevada.

[15:03] I'm here to represent our

[15:04] members who experience

[15:06] difficulty engaging with the

[15:08] pucCN previously including

[15:12] dealing with navigating wanting

[15:14] to testify but not being able to

[15:16] do so during their work hours

[15:19] inconsistent virtual access and

[15:20] even dealing with extreme

[15:22] temperatures while waiting to

[15:23] testify at previous meetings.

[15:26] they car deeply are directly

[15:29] impacted and want to participate

[15:30] fully and safely.

[15:33] we believe that the pucCN should

[15:36] make every attempt possible for

[15:37] s residents to share their

[15:37] concerns

[15:42] in ways that are accessible to

[15:44] the every every person that

[15:45] wants to participate

[15:48] in that to that end please

[15:50] support the BDr to make sure the

[15:53] pucCN is accessible to the

[15:53] public they serve

[15:54] thank you

[15:57] and thank you for joining us

[15:57] please

[16:01] thank you good afternoon uhir

[16:02] and members of the committee my

[16:04] name is Juan Carlo Guarddado and

[16:06] I am a community organizer which

[16:08] isannevada where I live the

[16:09] Eucilriccountability campaign

[16:12] so in my work I speak with

[16:13] volunteers and working families

[16:16] every day. many of them struggle

[16:18] to pay high energy bills and are

[16:20] sometimes forced to choose

[16:22] between paying for electricity,

[16:24] buying food or buying for

[16:25] medicine

[16:28] Our families want to make their

[16:29] voices heard at the PuccN

[16:31] but unfortunately

[16:34] every time I bring volunteers to

[16:36] consumer sessions we face

[16:39] significant barriers. First, the

[16:39] schedule

[16:42] meetings are often held when

[16:43] people are at work

[16:46] Second, the distance I have

[16:48] ridden the bus with community

[16:49] members and get to the PucCN

[16:55] pucCN officefice and can take

[16:58] almost two hours each way, ir,

[17:02] language access information is

[17:03] not always available inspanish.

[17:08] and when we need interpreter our

[17:09] speaking time is cut in half.

[17:11] and finally the condition

[17:14] in one of the last consumer

[17:16] session we saw many seniors

[17:18] forced to wait outside in

[17:20] temperatures over100 degrees

[17:23] just to have the opportunity to

[17:24] give public comments

[17:28] this ferrier should be put out

[17:30] of the process. we cannot have

[17:32] fair right decisions when the

[17:34] very people affected by those

[17:36] decisions came not fully

[17:37] participate.

[17:37] I urge

[17:42] to support these BDr for pucCN

[17:43] accessibility reform

[17:45] we need virtual participation

[17:46] options

[17:49] meeting times that work for

[17:49] worker families

[17:52] and mainful languages access

[17:58] please support this PDr and help

[18:00] make the piece in truly

[18:01] accessible to the public. thank

[18:02] you for your time.

[18:03] thank you for joining us

[18:04] Welcome

[18:08] good afternoon chairir Flores

[18:09] and members of the committee.

[18:10] I'm Hector Arriola, policy

[18:12] fellow with the Nevada

[18:13] Environmental Justice coalition

[18:14] and on behalf of our coalition

[18:16] we strongly urge you to

[18:18] support the bill draftling

[18:20] requests expanding public access

[18:22] to the public utility commission

[18:24] of Nevada. This would include to

[18:25] allow virtual or telephonic

[18:26] participation options for every

[18:28] public comment period

[18:30] improve the written comment

[18:31] process to be straightforward

[18:33] and easy to navigate, improve

[18:35] standard practices to ensure

[18:35] language accessibility for the

[18:36] public

[18:38] non-English speakers saw their

[18:40] speaking time cut in half

[18:42] because interpretation now can

[18:44] counts against their

[18:45] allocated time contradicting the

[18:47] commission's own language access

[18:48] plan and for the last12 years

[18:50] the pucCN held two consumer

[18:52] sessions per day for their

[18:54] annual general consumer session

[18:55] one in the afternoon and one in

[18:57] the evening to maximize public

[18:59] participation this year they cut

[19:00] back to a single session at 1

[19:02] p.m. in the middle of a workday

[19:04] citing that they're legally

[19:05] required to only host one

[19:05] consumer session per year.

[19:08] we want to ensure that consumer

[19:10] sessions will be held at a

[19:11] reasonable time where working

[19:13] people can attend just as a

[19:14] reminder as everyone has been

[19:16] mentioning on June16 community

[19:18] members including retirees on

[19:20] heat sensitive medication and

[19:21] fixed incomes were forced to

[19:22] wait outside in triple digit

[19:24] heats without access to

[19:25] restrooms, air conditioning or

[19:27] seating. The pucCN executive

[19:28] director blamed the private

[19:30] building landlord and fire code

[19:32] for keeping people out. They

[19:33] also cited the landlord as the

[19:35] recent press interviews, rallies

[19:35] and press conferences aren't

[19:36] allowed

[19:41] on site. We also we you also

[19:42] are not asking for multiple

[19:44] leases we're asking for the

[19:46] consumer sessions to be held in

[19:47] accessible government buildings

[19:48] like the Nevada legislator or

[19:50] the Clark County government

[19:51] building where the pucCN has

[19:53] held has held meetings in the

[19:53] past

[19:57] consumer sessions are vital. the

[19:58] decision made by the PugucCNs

[20:00] have direct impacts on millions

[20:02] of Nevadans and our ability to

[20:04] afford basic utilities. Consumer

[20:05] sessions are critical for

[20:07] communities to have direct

[20:09] voices in the in this process.

[20:10] RC should amplify these voices

[20:12] not suppress them. Re

[20:14] respectfully ask for your

[20:15] support for this BDr that

[20:16] enshrines remote language

[20:18] access, reasonable meeting times

[20:20] and streamlined comment process

[20:22] and accessible buildings

[20:23] building locations. thank you

[20:24] thank you for joining us

[20:27] before we go to the next speaker

[20:28] here in Vegas because we only

[20:30] have one person in carson City'm

[20:31] I'm just going to give them the

[20:32] courtesy we'll go to carson City

[20:33] please.

[20:36] thank you for that courtesy

[20:38] Senator Flores and members of

[20:40] the committee the Nevada I'm

[20:41] Erik Spratley SP R A Tl E Y.

[20:44] here on behalf of the Nevada

[20:45] sheriffs and chiefefs

[20:45] association

[20:48] representing the sevent elected

[20:49] sheriffs and numerous chiefs of

[20:51] police and other law enforcement

[20:53] leadership in the state of

[20:55] Nevada we greatly appreciate the

[20:56] thoughtful and considerate work

[20:57] this interim commission has done

[21:01] in this interim but then we are

[21:03] brought to agenda item number6

[21:05] work session D6 requesting of a

[21:07] draft bill based on some

[21:08] testimony from a guy

[21:11] representing a group of people

[21:14] who defend bad cops you got that

[21:17] testimony in July. he says he

[21:18] likes the way a certain police

[21:22] agency in Clark County

[21:23] provides the questions that

[21:24] they're going to ask

[21:25] and then

[21:28] he doesn't like the way that

[21:31] LVMPD does it and to make it

[21:32] clear the Las Vegas metropolitan

[21:34] Police department is a premier

[21:36] law enforcement agency in the

[21:37] United States if not the world

[21:39] and that's not to say that they

[21:42] don't do things wrong

[21:44] occasionally but they are spot

[21:46] on on their internal affairs

[21:48] investigations and handing the

[21:50] questions to the to the officer

[21:52] who might be using some flot

[21:53] camera inappropriately or

[21:55] something like that you know you

[21:56] want to address those kinds of

[21:57] things but then we've got bad

[21:59] cops doing bad things and now

[22:01] you want law enforcement to

[22:03] provide the the questions

[22:03] that they're going to ask and

[22:05] not ask any other questions

[22:06] that's just dumb we dealt with

[22:07] that back in 2019 we've always

[22:07] been trying

[22:11] to deal with it NrS289 is locked

[22:13] in it's good if an if a law

[22:14] enforcement organization is

[22:15] going outside of that there's

[22:16] some other remedies

[22:18] but to bring a committee bill

[22:21] that's inappropriate this guy

[22:23] has a problem with an agency or

[22:24] two and this committee

[22:26] represents the entire state of

[22:27] Nevada and so this narrowly

[22:29] focused bill is inappropriate

[22:30] and so on behalf of the Nevada

[22:31] sheriffs and chiefefs

[22:32] association we're going to ask

[22:35] that you strike agenda item6

[22:38] work sectiond6 from your

[22:39] consideration today because

[22:41] we're talking about a small

[22:43] fragment from an individual who

[22:45] made testimony you didn't get

[22:45] the other side of it you didn't

[22:46] ask

[22:48] for it or we just showed up so

[22:49] we're gonna ask that you

[22:50] strike that and thank you very

[22:51] much for your time.

[22:53] and thank you for joining us

[22:56] do we have anybody else in

[22:57] carson cityity?

[23:00] seeing none we'll come back to

[23:01] Las Vegas. whoever wishes to go

[23:01] next

[23:02] thank you

[23:05] thank you for being here and

[23:07] taking public comments and for

[23:08] all the work that you've done

[23:09] this summer. my name is

[23:14] Leslie Vega L E S L A E V E G A

[23:15] and I'm with the Progressive

[23:17] Leadership alliance of Nevada or

[23:19] plan we organize with working

[23:20] class Nevadans on issues

[23:22] including utility affordability,

[23:24] environmental justice and

[23:26] consumer protection and we're

[23:27] members of the Nevada

[23:28] Environmental justice coalition

[23:32] we urge you to move forward

[23:33] with this bill draft request

[23:35] to make the public utilities

[23:36] commission of Nevada more

[23:37] accessible to the public

[23:40] for everydaynevadans

[23:41] hardworking Nevadans that can't

[23:43] attend these public utility

[23:44] commission meetings in person

[23:46] access is

[23:51] feels inconsistent travelling to

[23:53] the pucCN can take a lot of

[23:56] time whether it's by bus or by

[23:58] vehicle personal vehicle and

[23:59] submitting written comment

[24:01] requires navigating a really

[24:03] complicated website and a very

[24:05] technical specific process.

[24:08] Language creates another barrier

[24:11] a previous person giving

[24:14] comments said that3 in8

[24:16] children have a immigrant

[24:17] parent I thought that was so

[24:17] powerful a powerful

[24:19] statistic

[24:22] language creates another barrier

[24:25] at the pucCN the proceedings

[24:27] and the materials are primarily

[24:29] in English probably only in

[24:31] English I haven't seen them

[24:33] often in another language

[24:35] when community organizations

[24:36] like Plann or members of the

[24:38] NEJc provide their own

[24:40] interpreter interpretation

[24:42] consumes half of a speaker's

[24:44] already limited public

[24:47] comment time so if individual

[24:48] like in this meeting gets two

[24:49] minutes essentially that

[24:51] nonEnglish speaker gets one

[24:52] minute and their interpreter

[24:53] gets the other

[24:56] these barriers determine who

[24:58] gets hurt and who gets left out.

[24:59] Working people should not have

[25:01] to choose between a day's wages

[25:04] and public participation at the

[25:05] pucCN

[25:08] Elders should not have to wait

[25:09] in dangerous heat to share their

[25:11] concerns. I was there I

[25:13] showed up early there was a long

[25:16] line of about50+ people and we

[25:18] waited three hours many

[25:20] people left because they were

[25:21] starting to feel sick from the

[25:22] heat.

[25:25] somebody I'm not sure who

[25:27] provided water cool water for us

[25:30] and that was generous but other

[25:31] than that we weren't we weren't

[25:32] given access even to the

[25:34] restroom or for folks that were

[25:36] beginning to feel sick a chance

[25:37] to go inside into the AC.

[25:41] public participation should not

[25:44] be dependent on our income mark

[25:45] if you could just do your

[25:46] closing remark I'll leave it

[25:47] there thank you so much thank

[25:48] you for joining us

[25:49] whoever wishes to go next

[25:54] and if there's anybody else

[25:55] please feel free to occupy the

[25:56] seats come forward.

[26:00] good afternoon chairir Flores

[26:02] and members of the committee on

[26:04] government affairs. My name is

[26:06] Julia Gibson and I'm also with

[26:07] thegressive Leadership alliance

[26:08] of Nevada.

[26:12] seververe heat exhaustion caused

[26:14] by deliberate confinement forced

[26:17] labor or the denial of adequate

[26:20] shelter, water and ventilation

[26:21] in a conflict zone

[26:24] can legally constitute wilfully

[26:27] causing great suffering or

[26:27] inhumane treatment

[26:30] under article147

[26:33] of the fort Geneva convention

[26:35] and a prosecutable

[26:37] war crime

[26:41] under article eight of the Rome

[26:41] statue.

[26:43] though it may seem like it

[26:47] this is not an international

[26:49] armed conflict so thus not a war

[26:49] crime.

[26:53] but the civilian equivalent is a

[26:54] crime against humanity.

[26:56] this is only one tactic

[27:00] utilized by the public utilities

[27:02] commission to limit

[27:03] accessibility, avoiding

[27:04] accountability

[27:08] for their implementation of the

[27:09] daily demand charge.

[27:12] withoutout the proposed set

[27:14] standards outlined in this BDR

[27:18] the pucCN will continue to

[27:19] create their own standards

[27:22] thank you I yield my remaining

[27:23] time back to the committee.

[27:24] thank you for joining us

[27:25] sir

[27:31] good afternoon chair and members

[27:33] of the community are members of

[27:35] the committee and members of the

[27:36] community for that matter. My

[27:38] name is Anar Green. I am here

[27:40] with Battle born Progress. I am

[27:43] also standing in solidarity with

[27:45] the Nevadanvironal justice

[27:46] coalition

[27:47] and I am here

[27:50] like my colleagues to urge you

[27:54] all to support the BDr in regard

[27:55] to accessibility reform

[27:58] I won't rehash everything you've

[28:00] heard because you've heard it

[28:01] already from

[28:02] scheduling a meeting in the

[28:03] middle of the day when people

[28:05] couldn't be there to making

[28:07] people stand outside in triplere

[28:10] heat to inviting members of

[28:11] three different law enforcement

[28:14] agencies to intimidate everyone.

[28:16] The reality is the public

[28:17] utilities commission of Nevada

[28:19] did what they did because they

[28:20] could.

[28:24] to heck with all the excuses and

[28:25] stories they've told they did it

[28:26] because they could

[28:28] and that's why we're here urging

[28:29] you

[28:33] to consider this BDr about

[28:36] accessibility reform because no

[28:37] one should have to face with any

[28:38] of us had to face on June16th.

[28:42] and the reality is the way the

[28:45] pucCN has behaved has been

[28:48] unpucking believable and if you

[28:49] cringed because you thought I

[28:50] was being profane right there

[28:54] good because we cringe everyday

[28:56] at the profane behavior of the

[28:58] public utilities commission of

[28:59] Nevada. so thank you for your

[29:01] time we urge you to consider

[29:03] this BDR and I'll yield the rest

[29:03] of mine.

[29:07] and thank you for joining us. Is

[29:08] there anybody else wishing to

[29:09] come forward in Las Vegas?

[29:11] seeing none

[29:15] and seeing none in Carson City

[29:16] will go to the phone lines

[29:17] anybody wishing to join us over

[29:17] the phone?

[29:21] the public line is open and

[29:22] working and there are no cos to

[29:23] provide public comment at this

[29:24] time.

[29:27] Thank you. Next we'll move to

[29:29] the next agenda item which is

[29:30] agenda item number3 the approval

[29:33] of the minutes for March5th and

[29:35] April2nd.membs they trust that

[29:36] you've all had an opportunity to

[29:37] review those you have a copy of

[29:39] those on your desk and

[29:39] accessible via online

[29:42] at this time I'd like to

[29:43] entertain emotion

[29:46] for the approval of the minutes

[29:53] was that oh so senatorynynnn has

[29:54] made excuse me assembly member

[29:55] win

[29:59] that did I just insult you

[29:59] assembly member

[30:04] assembly memberwyn has made the

[30:06] motion to approve the minutes

[30:09] for March5th and April2nd and

[30:10] vicechair consonent has seconded

[30:11] that members any discussion

[30:14] seeing none all those in favor

[30:16] please signify by saying aye

[30:17] those again say a

[30:21] motion carries unanimously thank

[30:24] you. next I'd like to invite

[30:26] Mr Warren Hardy to come

[30:28] forward for a presentation which

[30:29] he promised would be very brief

[30:34] good afternoon welcome whenever

[30:36] you're ready. thank you chair

[30:37] members of the committee Warren

[30:38] Hardy

[30:41] I'm here on behalf of a couple

[30:43] of my clients umnevada pick

[30:44] apart and ssa recycling

[30:47] this is not a bill that we're

[30:50] seeking for our business

[30:51] these two clients are

[30:52] historically very involved in

[30:54] trying to work on legislation

[30:56] that does certainly better the

[30:58] industry but hopefully betters

[31:01] better is the circumstances

[31:04] for members of the public

[31:05] at the I think at the very first

[31:07] meeting of this of this

[31:08] committee there was a

[31:10] presentation on the abandoned

[31:12] vehicles and the problems

[31:14] there I was in attendance for

[31:15] that and

[31:16] went back and spoke to my client

[31:18] again we we were very involved

[31:20] in the catalytic converter

[31:23] statute in the in the new

[31:26] scrap metal copper wire theft

[31:28] legislation which has proven to

[31:30] be successful. So I went back to

[31:32] my client and to the industry

[31:33] and said this is another issue

[31:35] that we need to build on can

[31:37] we come up with some suggestions

[31:38] on how we might draft

[31:41] legislation to continue to

[31:43] address the problem of abandoned

[31:44] vehicles. We did last session as

[31:45] you know

[31:48] AB4fif which was a a pretty

[31:50] successful piece of legislation

[31:52] dealing with abandoned vehicles.

[31:54] we we look at this as an

[31:56] extension of that or building on

[31:59] that to address hopefully

[32:00] vehicles before they are

[32:02] abandoned and and the vehicles

[32:04] that are existing out there that

[32:06] are are likely to be abandoned

[32:08] because of the law. so if it

[32:10] pleases the chair do you have a

[32:12] PowerPoint presentation I'm

[32:14] gonna introduce a new concept

[32:15] for Nevada it's not

[32:18] new nationally but it's a a a

[32:20] description that we are a

[32:21] description that we call

[32:22] derelict vehicles and that's a

[32:26] very specific type of vehicle

[32:27] again we're looking to build on

[32:30] the success of 24 assembly bill

[32:32] fifte which was specifically

[32:34] addressed at abandoned vehicles

[32:36] and did also increase the junk

[32:38] certificate threshold from 200

[32:40] to500 to include more of these

[32:42] bills unfortunately the way the

[32:44] bill is drafted it requires a

[32:45] vehicle to be abandoned

[32:48] to be in the public in the

[32:50] desert and some public place

[32:54] and it also requires that they

[32:55] meet the definition of a junk

[32:58] vehicle as defined in statute

[33:00] so it does a pretty good job of

[33:02] addressing that narrow set of

[33:03] circumstances or those narrow

[33:04] set of vehicles and it was

[33:06] primarily aimed at at RVs and

[33:08] boats and and and other types

[33:10] of vehicles that we all see

[33:13] abandoned and dumped in in in

[33:16] the in the in the state so

[33:18] this is is looking to build on

[33:20] that so what I mean what do I

[33:21] mean by a derelict vehicle

[33:21] versus an a

[33:22] ban d on ed or a junk

[33:24] vehicle.dar derelict vehicle if

[33:26] you looked at the the states and

[33:28] I I list them here in a minute

[33:29] but there's a few states that

[33:32] have derelict vehicle statutes.

[33:34] they primarily defined a

[33:36] derelict vehicle as one that is

[33:38] at least10 years old that has

[33:40] a relatively low value is

[33:43] incomplete or inoperable and

[33:46] who's and whose primary or

[33:48] highest value as a scrap metal

[33:49] or disc dismantled parts rather

[33:50] than transportation

[33:52] it also is a vehicle that does

[33:54] not have ownership documents and

[33:56] that's the key to this

[33:57] legislation. This is where we're

[33:58] running into the biggest

[34:00] problem. I did suggest some

[34:01] language for a derelict vehicle

[34:02] there

[34:06] so the problem is the these

[34:08] derelict vehicles many of them

[34:11] lack titles and because they

[34:13] lack titles owners cannot

[34:15] legally sell them so we get as

[34:17] an industry we literally get

[34:19] hundreds of calls a month from

[34:20] somebody who says I have a

[34:21] vehicle that belonged to my

[34:23] uncle. it's been in my front

[34:25] yard since1972 can you buy it?

[34:29] and either as a scrap metal

[34:32] or as a auto recycler to

[34:34] resell the parts we cannot buy

[34:36] it because there is no title,

[34:38] there is no ownership document

[34:39] so we have to tell them no

[34:42] unfortunately they really don't

[34:44] have any recourse. The recourse

[34:46] they have is to find somebody

[34:47] that can do a mechanic's lien

[34:49] but even doing that would be

[34:50] stretching the law a little bit

[34:52] because mechanic's liens are

[34:54] designed for mechanics who did

[34:55] work on the vehicle and the

[34:56] person didn't pay it or pick it

[34:58] up. they can obtain a title

[35:00] through the lien process so the

[35:02] the the laws are not really

[35:04] conducive to this hypothetical

[35:06] individual who has their uncle's

[35:07] car in their front yard because

[35:08] they can't do it and and so they

[35:09] will

[35:11] continue to try and ultimately

[35:13] they'll get so frustrated that

[35:14] they will either just leave it

[35:16] on the side of their house or in

[35:17] front of their house or they'll

[35:18] take it and dump it in the

[35:19] desert. We believe this is a big

[35:22] reason this is a big cause of

[35:23] or the reason for abandoned

[35:24] vehicles

[35:28] so I I just sorry I got a

[35:29] little ahead of myself. I gave

[35:31] you the the the real life

[35:32] example there so that's really

[35:34] what we're trying to do here is

[35:36] set up a circumstance where

[35:37] these homeowners or these

[35:40] quote unquote owners of these

[35:42] vehicles or possessors of these

[35:44] vehicles can not only get rid of

[35:46] them but can actually be paid

[35:48] for them. we are not

[35:51] permitted to pay them for

[35:51] these vehicles

[35:54] and I'm just going to run

[35:55] through some examples here.

[35:57] these are pictures that we took

[36:00] of of the types of vehicles

[36:01] we're talking about that are

[36:05] inoperable broken down not

[36:07] and and sitting in either the

[36:09] street or in people's yards and

[36:11] as you can see people will start

[36:12] to take parts off them and they

[36:14] will start and and just continue

[36:15] to decrease the value of these

[36:18] vehicles as they as they move

[36:19] forward so the these are the

[36:21] types of vehicles and this is an

[36:23] example I don't know where this

[36:23] was taken. I think it was

[36:25] over in North Las Vegas

[36:29] where somebody who's taken these

[36:30] vehicles some of these might

[36:32] belong to the company but we do

[36:33] find that people come and dump

[36:35] them. cars get dumped on a

[36:36] regularly regular basis in front

[36:39] ofssa recycling because people

[36:40] don't know what to do with them

[36:42] and frankly it's nice that they

[36:43] dumped them there instead of the

[36:45] middle of the desert but we

[36:46] can't take them. we can't do

[36:48] anything. They then become and

[36:51] we can now under AB4fi5 we

[36:52] can now treat that as an

[36:54] abandoned vehicle and and go

[36:55] through that process but until

[36:56] it's dumped like this there's no

[36:59] recourse in the law and it'd be

[37:00] far better to be able to have

[37:02] people receive some compensation

[37:03] for the vehicles that are in

[37:04] their yard.

[37:07] what we're proposing here in in

[37:10] 2013 my client brought a

[37:12] piece of legislation that we

[37:13] affectionately call the kill the

[37:16] vi process it's a process where

[37:19] for an end of life vehicle

[37:21] a VI number can effectively be

[37:23] removed from circulation. The

[37:24] reason one of the reasons we did

[37:27] that was that it's not

[37:29] uncommon for somebody to go into

[37:31] a a scrapyard or a pick apart

[37:33] yard and take a vi off of a

[37:33] vehicle

[37:36] and then put it on a stolen

[37:37] vehicle. so the scenario would

[37:40] be you've got a a mintre Toyota

[37:41] Camry from1997

[37:45] in the yard they will go remove

[37:47] the vin plate from that and

[37:48] place it on a stolen mint

[37:51] green1997 Toyota Camry. What

[37:54] this law effectively does is

[37:56] kills that vi so that is of no

[37:58] value for them to do that

[37:59] anymore. That law has been in

[38:01] effect since 2013 and it has

[38:03] been highly effective at at

[38:06] stopping this this problem.

[38:09] this statute that we have in

[38:11] Nevada Nrs47105 which

[38:11] contemplates the

[38:14] kill the vi process is already

[38:17] full of protections for the

[38:19] public. there's a Dmv

[38:21] notification process and a

[38:24] waiting period vehicles may

[38:26] only be processed for scrap or

[38:28] parts and that's an important

[38:29] component from a public

[38:31] protection standpoint that

[38:32] guarantees that these are truly

[38:34] end of life vehicle that have no

[38:38] market value. and they cannot

[38:40] under any circumstances once you

[38:43] use the487105 process under any

[38:44] circumstances can they be

[38:45] brought back into service

[38:48] on the street. the the law

[38:49] effectively protects bad actor

[38:50] or prevents bad actors from

[38:52] being able to acquire old plates

[38:54] but it also has a process that

[38:56] notifies both the Dmv and law

[38:57] enforcement again it's worked

[38:58] very well

[39:01] what we're proposing under the

[39:04] context of Nrs405 it's expanding

[39:06] it slightly to add this concept

[39:09] for certain under a very narrow

[39:11] definition certain vehicles that

[39:14] do not have titles. the the

[39:16] protections that are proposed in

[39:17] this and the the way this will

[39:20] be proposed to work is we are

[39:22] required if we utilize487105 to

[39:26] to to to post an

[39:27] additional bond I think it's

[39:28] a50,000 dollars bond to be able

[39:29] to do that

[39:33] the vehicle we picked13 years

[39:34] we're still in the process of

[39:36] talking to stakeholders to see

[39:37] what the best year is but the

[39:37] vehicle would have to be

[39:42] between8 and13 years old based

[39:43] on on the the industry standard

[39:44] and what's being done in other

[39:46] states the vehicle has not been

[39:48] registered in Nevada for three

[39:50] or more years. The vehicle is

[39:52] acquired only for dismantling

[39:54] and scrap and the vehicle must

[39:56] be transported by a licensed and

[39:57] bonded record. We believe that

[39:59] provides the protection so this

[40:01] law could not cannot be abused

[40:02] and the big one is that it

[40:04] cannot not it can only be used

[40:06] for dismantling and scrap. If a

[40:07] vehicle has any real value it's

[40:07] not

[40:10] going to be dismantled for

[40:12] scrap. it's going to be they're

[40:14] going to find some process to

[40:15] acquire a title

[40:17] and and and keep the vehicle

[40:18] alive. so we provide we believe

[40:20] that provides significant

[40:22] protections for the public.

[40:24] the reason we like47105 as a

[40:27] vehicle is it already contains

[40:29] the existingdmv oversight.

[40:31] there's the existing waiting

[40:33] waiting periods anddmv can stop

[40:35] the process at any point if they

[40:37] and they regularly run run

[40:37] theIN to see if it's

[40:40] stolen or if there's any any

[40:42] issues and they can tell us at

[40:44] any time to stop. it also

[40:46] contains the bonding requirement

[40:50] that in case we do dispose of a

[40:52] vehicle that somebody did not

[40:54] want or did not intend to have

[40:56] disposed there's bonding

[40:57] capability for them to come back

[40:59] and be compensated. the other

[41:01] bill's been in effect for

[41:04] since since 2013 and I'm going

[41:05] to check with my client but I

[41:06] don't think we've ever had

[41:08] somebody come back on the bond

[41:11] because we we inadvertently

[41:13] destroyed a vehicle. yeah we in

[41:14] the in the in the whatever it is

[41:16] since 2013 we've never so 13

[41:19] years we've never had we've

[41:21] never had a case where that is

[41:22] avon but it's important to have

[41:23] it anyway

[41:28] these are the other states that

[41:30] allow some method of of end of

[41:32] life transactions for non titled

[41:34] vehicles none of them

[41:37] have47105 which we have that

[41:38] provides these additional

[41:40] protections. and again I just

[41:42] went through the sca scape

[41:44] the safeguards again. we

[41:46] believe that this will help

[41:47] consumers who desperately want

[41:48] to get rid of these vehicles and

[41:50] literally have no way to do it

[41:51] unless they go through the lien

[41:53] law and technically skirt the

[41:55] intent of the lien law. we

[41:55] believe this

[41:58] will reduce blight and illegal

[42:00] dumping. in fact it will it will

[42:02] cut it off before it becomes

[42:04] an abandoned vehicle it

[42:06] supports regulated recycling

[42:08] protects against fraud and the

[42:10] theft and builds on what this

[42:12] legislature did with the the

[42:14] abandoned vehicles law last

[42:16] session. there's one other

[42:18] provision that we're suggesting

[42:20] we kind of sneak in there we use

[42:21] regularly in the industry and in

[42:22] the legislature and the

[42:24] legislative record's full of the

[42:25] concept of the term end of life

[42:28] vehicle but there is no

[42:29] definition of end of life

[42:31] vehicle in statutes so we're

[42:32] recommending that we define what

[42:36] an end of life vehicle is

[42:37] means a vehicle that has been

[42:39] transferred to a licensed

[42:40] automobile record or salvageable

[42:41] for dismantling, recycling,

[42:43] crushing, shredding or disposal

[42:44] or for which the vehicle

[42:45] identification number is

[42:47] intended to be permanently

[42:48] retired so that the vehicle may

[42:49] not again be titled or

[42:49] registered

[42:52] and with that I'd be happy to

[42:53] answer any questions

[42:57] thank you for the presentation

[42:58] and we'll start off with the

[42:59] vicechair please.

[43:04] thank you chair. I just you

[43:06] said that they will run the vi

[43:07] to make sure that the vehicle

[43:08] isn't stolen but if they run the

[43:09] VinN they can also find out who

[43:10] the former or last owner was

[43:11] right?

[43:17] chair thank you Warren Hardy for

[43:19] the record. not always

[43:20] sometimes they're out of state

[43:22] sometimes they've never been

[43:24] registered in Nevada the

[43:26] nevada is kind of an interesting

[43:28] place with regard to a lot of

[43:29] this stuff and so there are

[43:31] mechanisms to do that there's a

[43:33] national databases that you can

[43:36] run and often they do so it

[43:37] still doesn't

[43:40] address the problem of not being

[43:42] able to title it. in many cases

[43:43] these people will say this

[43:45] belonged to my uncle Joe who

[43:46] died in

[43:50] 1942 and he can't there's nobody

[43:52] else that's legally on the title

[43:53] to be able to request the

[43:55] duplicate title. so just

[43:57] identifying the owner isn't

[43:59] sufficient to clean clean up the

[44:00] problem you have to have some

[44:02] streamlined process to dispose

[44:03] of non

[44:07] Please follow thank you

[44:10] so when you're saying that it is

[44:12] only the Nevada when they're

[44:13] running they they're only

[44:14] running theI innevada and the

[44:15] reason why I'm asking is we have

[44:17] so many people who move here

[44:19] and then potentially move away

[44:20] temporarily. I mean there's just

[44:21] a lot of transients in our in

[44:23] our state and if someone moves

[44:24] here with the vehicle and then

[44:27] let's say is in the military

[44:29] and leaves for a year or so

[44:31] if we only run

[44:35] the the vehicle in Nevada before

[44:38] this will they run the run it if

[44:40] it is vehicle that is or was

[44:41] titled in another state or will

[44:42] they only check to see if it's

[44:44] stolen in Nevada. thank you for

[44:45] the opportunity to clarify that

[44:47] again Warren Hardy. I didn't

[44:48] mean to indicate that they only

[44:50] run Nevada. DmV runs it through

[44:52] a process called Nvitis which is

[44:55] a national database and so

[44:55] they they will be able to

[44:57] identify that and under the lien

[44:59] law there's requirements to

[45:00] reach out and those sorts of

[45:01] things which all is applicable

[45:02] to a vehicle that has

[45:05] some value and you're going to

[45:07] go through that process if you

[45:09] have a vehicle that has value.

[45:10] you're going to figure out a way

[45:12] to get it retitled. nobody's

[45:14] gonna shred or junk or part out

[45:18] 2023 Lexus. right those

[45:19] aren't going to apply here.

[45:21] These are older vehicles that

[45:25] there's no clear of ownership

[45:26] documents for

[45:29] so we can identify in most of

[45:30] the cases who the last

[45:31] registered owner was

[45:33] that no no matter what part

[45:35] of the state they're from but

[45:36] whether they're whether they're

[45:38] alive or whether it's worth the

[45:41] time and economic effort to go

[45:44] find them for a300 dollars car

[45:45] is really the question

[45:49] Senator Neal

[45:55] didn't I didn't even say I had

[45:56] foot

[45:59] I was I guess what I'm

[46:03] OK so I'll ask this first

[46:03] question. I

[46:06] you know there's a whole market

[46:08] of people that

[46:09] you know

[46:12] and I'll give you this example

[46:14] so when you go and your car is

[46:15] damaged and you

[46:18] take it to the insurance place

[46:20] like and you try to get it

[46:21] fixed and they all of a sudden

[46:23] they say oh this is unfixable

[46:24] and then you find your car

[46:26] out

[46:31] being rebuilt and now running

[46:36] through some group or company.

[46:37] I'm trying to figure out who

[46:38] else benefits from this bill

[46:45] So thank you Chair Warren

[46:45] Hardy for the record it's a good

[46:48] good question senator. this bill

[46:49] really

[46:52] so the the the what you just

[46:53] described is the way we

[46:54] primarily get our vehicles at

[46:57] Nevada pick apart our our job is

[47:00] to recycle parts we are a place

[47:02] where somebody can go to get

[47:05] a computer for an older

[47:08] vehicle that is $2500 to replace

[47:09] as new but you can pick it up

[47:12] for $200 from a pick apart yard

[47:14] that is our primary business the

[47:17] roughly70% of the vehicles we

[47:18] have on the property

[47:23] for to be picked are from those

[47:24] sources from insurance

[47:26] auctions vehicles that have been

[47:28] totaled and there's a process

[47:30] already in statute for those

[47:32] vehicles which ultimately

[47:34] declares them junk vehicles only

[47:36] good for for for that purpose.

[47:40] so when we say who does this

[47:42] benefit? I suppose it benefits

[47:44] the industry a little bit

[47:47] because it it opens up an avenue

[47:48] for people to sell us cars

[47:52] that we can then process. but I

[47:53] would suggest it it it more

[47:54] benefits the consumer who wants

[47:57] to sell the car. there's nothing

[47:58] in this bill that would not be

[48:00] permitted for anybody to go get

[48:02] a vehicle out of your front yard

[48:04] that you don't want to sell and

[48:06] that's an important distinction

[48:07] here. it would require you to

[48:10] initiate this process. one of

[48:11] the things metro suggested that

[48:14] we think is a is a decent idea

[48:15] is that there be an affidavit at

[48:17] least signed where the person

[48:18] who possesses the car attests

[48:19] that

[48:20] they're legally in possession of

[48:22] the vehicle. but these are

[48:24] vehicles that really have no

[48:26] economic value other than to be

[48:30] parted out or shredded. so again

[48:31] I I pointed out at the beginning

[48:32] this is not something we're

[48:34] looking for for our industry

[48:35] because it's great for our

[48:38] business. this is a continuation

[48:39] of what we've done the last

[48:41] several sessions in helping with

[48:43] legislation that impacts our

[48:43] business but we think is good

[48:44] for the public

[48:50] please follow so in the page

[48:51] where it says

[48:56] you know the wrecker cannot

[48:58] legally acquire the acquire the

[49:00] vehicle as the owner can provide

[49:04] a title so let's say

[49:08] someone decides that you know

[49:11] it's an HOA who has who has the

[49:12] power to determine derelict

[49:14] vehicles

[49:18] warren harddy for the record

[49:20] another another good question so

[49:23] really under this statue the

[49:25] owner of the derelict vehicle

[49:26] has that determination. there's

[49:28] already statute in the case of

[49:30] an apartment complex or an HMO

[49:32] where the property owner can ask

[49:34] a a vehicle to be towed to be

[49:36] removed. that's a separate and

[49:37] we're not touching that here.

[49:40] that that that does create a

[49:43] stream for a lien. the reason

[49:44] these vehicles are aren't being

[49:45] picked up because there's no

[49:46] economic value to them

[49:50] when when an HOA homeowners

[49:51] association or a property

[49:53] manager or an apartment calls

[49:55] somebody because somebody has a

[49:56] vehicle there that's

[49:59] parked illegally they cannot

[50:00] they can authorize that to be

[50:03] towed then that then then then

[50:04] whatever the tow company that's

[50:06] on the police law enforcement

[50:07] rotation will come and pick it

[50:08] up and impound it and they then

[50:10] go through the process of

[50:12] notifying the owner they have to

[50:14] look at all the surrounding

[50:16] states they have to run a

[50:17] completein check and actually

[50:19] notify the owner that they're in

[50:21] possession then they can come

[50:22] and pay the fees and get the

[50:24] vehicle back. That is not

[50:25] impacted at all by this statute.

[50:25] This

[50:29] is a s this this proposed

[50:31] statute would be the owner of

[50:33] the vehicle says come and get

[50:36] it. I I've gotten a letter from

[50:38] the HOA saying I have to remove

[50:40] it. that would be a good

[50:42] example where the owner then has

[50:44] no recourse they they could

[50:46] cheat and and get somebody to

[50:48] run the lien process for them

[50:49] but that's not what the lien

[50:52] process contemplates. They have

[50:55] two choices they can dump

[50:55] the vehicle or they can leave it

[50:59] there on their property. so

[51:01] this would not be this would be

[51:02] triggered by the owner of the

[51:04] vehicle who wants to dispose of

[51:05] the vehicle. that's the intent

[51:07] of this. we've already got the

[51:08] statute on abandoned vehicles

[51:10] for for the for vehicles that

[51:12] are truly abandoned. This is a

[51:15] separate set that hopefully

[51:16] will stop people from dumping

[51:17] the vehicles because they have

[51:18] no other way to dispose of them

[51:21] final question

[51:23] so how did you guys arrive at at

[51:25] least the model is10 years old

[51:25] that's relatively

[51:33] On my world new I mean my car

[51:35] is10 years old and it has a low

[51:38] value I mean because it's10

[51:39] years old

[51:43] so it it's I mean

[51:46] cause you just explained like

[51:48] the benefit is that you would

[51:49] get the parts right?

[51:52] thank you chairir Warren Hardy

[51:56] so that is sort of an an

[51:59] average of what other states do.

[52:01] I think, I think New York is8

[52:05] years uhlouisiana's 13 years.

[52:08] I think what we proposed is13

[52:10] although we want to reserve the

[52:12] right to to to change that if it

[52:14] looks like it makes sense. The

[52:16] thing to focus on is not that.

[52:17] The thing to focus on is the

[52:20] fact that this process cannot be

[52:22] utilized on a vehicle that is

[52:23] not

[52:23] end of life

[52:27] So if there's literally any

[52:29] value to that vehicle. it is not

[52:30] going to go through this process

[52:33] because you're forfeiting if you

[52:34] go through this process you're

[52:36] forfeiting the opportunity to to

[52:38] ever have that vehicle on the

[52:40] road again and that's the

[52:42] biggest protection for for

[52:45] this the residents that that

[52:47] that that kills the vi kills the

[52:49] vehicle it may no longer it will

[52:50] never be on the road again. so

[52:52] if you have a car that's10 years

[52:54] old that has value on the road

[52:56] it's never going to see this

[52:57] process

[52:59] OK.

[52:59] thanks dear

[53:02] somebody remember what

[53:08] thank you chair. I just wanted

[53:09] to ask about

[53:12] maybe following up on what

[53:14] senatorneal asked in terms of

[53:15] the

[53:17] number of years right? Ca some

[53:17] of these

[53:20] are playing around between

[53:24] derelict and then classic right

[53:26] because we have vehicles who are

[53:28] that are more than10 years old

[53:30] are considered classic right and

[53:33] so um'm just wondering if you

[53:36] putting a years on here right?

[53:37] Will dad also limit you from

[53:42] non operating vehicle who does

[53:44] not meet the year threats whole

[53:46] but have the same kind of issues

[53:48] where it's non operating and the

[53:51] owner's not going to do anything

[53:52] about it's just gonna sit there

[53:54] on the driveway or on you know

[53:56] the streets would putting a

[54:01] timeline of the vehicle identity

[54:02] itself

[54:05] will also hinder you from

[54:06] executing what you're trying to

[54:06] do

[54:10] thank you chairir Warren Hardy.

[54:12] I I don't think so assemblyman I

[54:13] think the thing to focus on here

[54:14] is in dealing with these types

[54:16] of vehicles there's a whole

[54:18] toolbo there's a whole statutory

[54:20] toolbox. there's junk vehicles

[54:21] there's we now have abandoned

[54:23] vehicles there's all these

[54:25] options out there this

[54:28] nothing happens under this until

[54:31] the owner wants to act. And so I

[54:33] can guarantee you that there

[54:35] will not be a classic vehicle

[54:38] that is taken under this statute

[54:41] because it has value I mean I

[54:42] can't I really can't guarantee

[54:43] that cause somebody might, you

[54:45] know, grandpa may have loved

[54:48] his57 Chevy and his grandkid who

[54:50] inherited it doesn't and wants

[54:52] it gone so I I can't

[54:54] guarantee it but again this

[54:55] entire thing is initiated and

[54:56] driven

[54:58] by the consumer by the by the

[55:00] person. there's nothing in here

[55:01] that authorizes us

[55:06] unlike AB4fi5 us or law

[55:08] enforcement or anything anybody

[55:10] else to initiate this derelict

[55:14] vehicle process. this is

[55:16] entirely driven by the consumer

[55:17] and so they're gon they're gonna

[55:18] I don't think they're gonna make

[55:19] a decision if there's value to

[55:21] that car to go through this

[55:23] process because it will kill the

[55:26] vi on a'57 Chevy just like it

[55:27] does on a 97 camera.

[55:28] u ll up chair

[55:33] please follow up thank you so

[55:33] just want to be clear that

[55:37] one of the other language

[55:38] proposed language asking for

[55:40] vehicle has not been registered

[55:42] innevada for three+ year and you

[55:44] said other state may have had a

[55:46] different time frame what if the

[55:49] vehicle is registered with a

[55:51] closer timeline in a different

[55:52] state but it happens to be

[55:54] physically right now in Nevada

[55:57] do we consider you know

[55:59] family's dynamic that may make

[56:01] the situation a little bit more

[56:02] harder let's just say if there's

[56:03] a dispute you know between

[56:07] whoever currently has the car

[56:07] versus the the legal owner of

[56:08] the car

[56:12] that Mr Chair Warren Hardy again

[56:13] that that certainly is a

[56:15] possibility which is the reason

[56:16] for the50,000 dollars bond so if

[56:18] there's a dispute going on and

[56:20] somebody gets rid of a car and

[56:22] and that the owner comes back

[56:24] and says wait a minute that was

[56:26] my car they have the ability to

[56:27] go against the bond to be

[56:27] compensated.

[56:31] similar scenario what you're

[56:32] talking about here is with the

[56:36] with the A for NrS47105 and

[56:38] again in 13 years we've never

[56:39] nobody's ever gone after the

[56:39] bond

[56:44] and then I'm wondering if the

[56:46] cost right so you said here that

[56:47] the vehicle must be transported

[56:49] by license bone wrecker right

[56:52] and and assuming maybe I don't

[56:53] know this for sure but I'm

[56:54] assuming that even though

[56:56] there's no economic value to the

[56:58] owner there might be some

[57:00] potential value for the the

[57:02] folks that collect this right?

[57:05] so is there a cost to the owner

[57:05] of giving this up

[57:09] that's a great question Mr Chair

[57:10] Warren Hardy no and in fact

[57:14] there there is currently a a a

[57:17] high cost to an a a resident

[57:18] that wants to get rid of one of

[57:19] these in order to do it legally

[57:21] they have to go through a lien

[57:23] process which can be very

[57:25] expensive, can be very to timely

[57:27] under this proposal it's exactly

[57:30] the opposite. we are creating an

[57:32] economic benefit for the the

[57:33] owner of the vehicle or the

[57:35] possessor of the vehicle because

[57:36] they have now the ability to

[57:37] sell the vehicle to us

[57:40] we will pay what it makes sense

[57:42] on a on a on a market basis for

[57:44] the vehicle but we'll pay

[57:46] them some something that's

[57:48] fair. So actually have an

[57:49] opportunity to receive money for

[57:51] this where currently they can

[57:53] only not receive money for it.

[57:54] they got to figure out a way to

[57:56] pay to get it off their property

[57:57] and that's going to involve

[58:00] money for sure and likely

[58:02] involve stretching the the

[58:04] lien laws or other laws in order

[58:06] to do it. So this creates some

[58:07] economic value for the

[58:10] owner of the vehicle. About30%

[58:11] of our vehicles are people that

[58:13] bring them in and sell them to

[58:14] the to us. they come in they

[58:16] they have the title they say I

[58:18] want to get rid of it and we pay

[58:19] for it and then we part it out

[58:20] and then it goes to the

[58:24] recycling stream that's

[58:26] what we're creating here really

[58:28] for those very narrow set of

[58:31] circumstances that says you

[58:32] can't this car's never going to

[58:34] be back on the road. you want to

[58:35] get rid of it we can actually

[58:36] enter this law pay you legally

[58:39] for it which we cannot do right

[58:41] now so there's no economic value

[58:42] to the possessor of that

[58:44] vehicle. This would create some

[58:45] economic value in

[58:50] I appreciate that thank you and

[58:51] chair if I may I know that

[58:52] metro's in the room maybe for

[58:54] other reasons but I kind of want

[58:57] to see in terms of you know

[58:58] all the things that we have out

[59:00] there and you know our public

[59:02] safety officer has so much to do

[59:04] with. I wonder if this is a

[59:06] problem that's increasing. I

[59:08] know I have some sometimes

[59:10] some calls from constituents

[59:11] that want to report on their

[59:13] neighbors that the car's been

[59:15] there for a long time and you

[59:16] know I know we have a reporting

[59:17] mechanism right now through the

[59:20] m v for these things to kind

[59:22] of being soft but I wonder from

[59:26] a law enforcement standpoint is

[59:28] this is one of those kind of

[59:30] like you know nuisance that keep

[59:32] recurring and perhaps this could

[59:33] be one of the good solutions for

[59:33] it.

[59:36] ir I won't speak for metro or

[59:38] law enforcement at the direction

[59:40] of the chair I did speak at

[59:41] length to the department of

[59:43] motor Vehicles many of the local

[59:44] governments in southern Nevada

[59:46] and the department of motor

[59:48] Vehicles all of whom indicated

[59:50] support for this metro had the

[59:52] suggestion that we seek some

[59:54] sort of a attestation that

[59:57] they have that they are the

[59:59] legal possessor of the vehicle

[1:00:00] but yeah I know Captain Martinez

[1:00:02] is here so I don't want to put

[1:00:03] him on the spot but if he does

[1:00:04] have

[1:00:06] any knowledge that would be

[1:00:07] also helpful. thank you chair.

[1:00:12] Welcome please

[1:00:18] good afternoon chair and members

[1:00:20] of the committee. we did

[1:00:22] consult with Warren about

[1:00:24] this piece of legislation and I

[1:00:25] think this would add to as

[1:00:26] Warren said what we did last

[1:00:29] session we heard a lot last

[1:00:30] session and from constituents is

[1:00:33] the assembly memberwyn is saying

[1:00:36] reference these vehicles not

[1:00:37] only in the public right away

[1:00:38] but also in people's front yards

[1:00:39] right so we have code

[1:00:41] enforcement that we work with

[1:00:42] all the time in the county in

[1:00:44] the city regarding vehicles that

[1:00:45] are non operable

[1:00:48] in people's yards and it becomes

[1:00:49] a blight for their neighbors so

[1:00:51] like the assembly member said

[1:00:52] you get calls from your

[1:00:54] constituents because they don't

[1:00:55] want to see the blight this

[1:00:56] law would build off of the

[1:00:59] AB4fif that we worked on last

[1:01:00] session and put a lot of work

[1:01:03] into and even during those

[1:01:05] discussions Warren and I had

[1:01:06] discussions about continuing

[1:01:08] this in the interim and then

[1:01:09] looking for some other

[1:01:10] alternatives that him and his

[1:01:12] clients were aware of in other

[1:01:14] states and I think this is what

[1:01:15] the result is of that

[1:01:18] continued conversation and

[1:01:20] research and it will prevent

[1:01:22] because when they don't have an

[1:01:23] option they take it out to the

[1:01:25] desert all of you probably

[1:01:26] see that illegal dumping in your

[1:01:28] in your districts where you go

[1:01:30] out to the desert and you're

[1:01:31] hiking around and you see things

[1:01:32] that are dropped off you see

[1:01:34] vehicles that are left on the

[1:01:36] side of the road. you see boats

[1:01:37] that are side of the road that's

[1:01:38] what that's what the AB415 dealt

[1:01:40] with. now we're trying to give

[1:01:43] consumers an option to be able

[1:01:45] to take it to a recycling yard

[1:01:45] and dispose of

[1:01:48] it properly and then not take it

[1:01:51] out to the desert and then also

[1:01:53] when it comes to stolen vehicles

[1:01:54] I've heard that brought up as

[1:01:57] well you know law enforcement

[1:01:59] could be contacted and and the

[1:02:00] owners of the vehicles could say

[1:02:01] hey can you run this vin number?

[1:02:04] can you check it? uhdmv would be

[1:02:05] able to do the same and they've

[1:02:07] been in contact with Warren and

[1:02:09] look at you know is it stolen

[1:02:11] and that those are nationwide

[1:02:13] once a vehicles entered into

[1:02:15] NCIC as we say those are

[1:02:15] nationwide hits so

[1:02:18] rather it's stolen in Nevada and

[1:02:20] found in New York that's gonna

[1:02:22] come up but there is a time

[1:02:24] frame in regards to how long

[1:02:26] those vehicles stay in NCIC

[1:02:28] because everything expires over

[1:02:29] time so you're not continuously

[1:02:32] flooding the system. you

[1:02:33] could you could google it. I

[1:02:34] don't want to give anybody you

[1:02:36] know, ideas of like if I hang

[1:02:37] onto this car and I park it in a

[1:02:39] storage unit and I wait the time

[1:02:40] frame now that57 Chevy as Warren

[1:02:44] said becomes mine so just

[1:02:45] keep that that in mind that all

[1:02:45] those

[1:02:47] mechanisms are in place to

[1:02:49] prevent that and and when you

[1:02:50] have that vehicle in your front

[1:02:51] yard and you're tired of looking

[1:02:53] at it and you have no

[1:02:53] alternative you're gonna take it

[1:02:54] to the desert

[1:02:57] follow up chair please thank you

[1:02:59] captain for that information. So

[1:03:00] I just want to be sure that you

[1:03:01] know we put this on record that

[1:03:02] the

[1:03:05] language that is being proposed

[1:03:07] right now it is comparable into

[1:03:10] your knowledge as far as some of

[1:03:12] the different counterparts in

[1:03:14] our country in our different

[1:03:16] states having similar rules

[1:03:18] in place so that we can help

[1:03:19] cause I think this is also part

[1:03:21] of this you know growth that we

[1:03:22] have in Nevada where we have you

[1:03:24] know increase in populations

[1:03:25] folks move from here from all

[1:03:28] over the country so are the

[1:03:30] proposed language comparable

[1:03:31] with what's happening across the

[1:03:32] board

[1:03:34] chair to you through you to

[1:03:36] the assembly member when I

[1:03:37] didn't read all of those states

[1:03:39] that Warren put up there but I

[1:03:40] trust I've worked around Warren

[1:03:42] I trust him wholeheartedly to be

[1:03:44] like yup that information is

[1:03:45] correct and his client I

[1:03:46] could go back and take a cursory

[1:03:49] research of those but I would

[1:03:51] say that it it you know would be

[1:03:52] comparable especially if you

[1:03:53] know he's putting it up there

[1:03:54] and putting his word on it for

[1:03:57] sure I'd take that probably to

[1:03:57] the bank so

[1:04:00] other than that I think this

[1:04:02] bill would help continue to

[1:04:04] build off of what your

[1:04:06] legislative body has done in the

[1:04:07] last couples or previous

[1:04:07] sessions as well

[1:04:10] chair if I could just briefly

[1:04:11] add to

[1:04:15] I would say it's comparable I'm

[1:04:17] sorry Warren Hardy again it

[1:04:19] is comparable to what other

[1:04:20] statesing we've done here is

[1:04:22] taken but it's a little

[1:04:23] different because we have

[1:04:26] Nrs47105. and what that does

[1:04:29] because we have NrS47105 is

[1:04:31] built in protections for the

[1:04:33] consumer because we already have

[1:04:35] a process that requires admv to

[1:04:37] run the VI and see if it's

[1:04:37] stolen and figure all those

[1:04:38] things out

[1:04:40] so it's comparable but better

[1:04:41] because of47105.

[1:04:46] so sorry real quick Joshmartinez

[1:04:47] if I could just add one more

[1:04:47] thing that's where the

[1:04:49] affidavits sir come comes into

[1:04:51] play and that's where what our

[1:04:54] detectives from our viper task

[1:04:55] force would look look at to be

[1:04:56] able to backtrack if we do have

[1:04:58] to do an investigation it adds

[1:05:00] just another layer right there

[1:05:01] to the process

[1:05:03] I appreciate that I appreciate

[1:05:04] the answer thank you and and

[1:05:06] thank you for coming up. I know

[1:05:07] sometimes it's hard to get

[1:05:08] pulled up on the spot so thank

[1:05:11] you captain for your

[1:05:12] testimony there. thank you chair

[1:05:13] for your

[1:05:13] indulgence

[1:05:15] Thank you.ext we'll go to

[1:05:15] assembly member flanagan.

[1:05:20] thank you umchair Flores thank

[1:05:22] you for the presentation. I know

[1:05:23] this sounds like well this deals

[1:05:24] with

[1:05:26] vehicles that people own and

[1:05:28] they want to remove.

[1:05:31] I guess I'm assuming the

[1:05:33] conversation may continue

[1:05:35] wondering how cities or

[1:05:37] municipalities come into play

[1:05:39] when they have neighborhoods

[1:05:41] that may not be governed by HO

[1:05:43] as and the residents don't call

[1:05:45] you but the neighbor has to deal

[1:05:46] with the eyesore of the

[1:05:49] nonworking vehicle and is that

[1:05:51] part of the ongoing conversation

[1:05:53] if this does move forward

[1:05:53] then you give some

[1:05:56] another very good question

[1:05:58] Warren Hardy for the record. so

[1:06:01] the circumstances under which an

[1:06:06] HOA or a neighbor or a

[1:06:08] property manager at apartment

[1:06:09] complex can call and get a

[1:06:12] vehicle removed against the will

[1:06:14] of the owner of the vehicle are

[1:06:16] already in place it's an

[1:06:18] extensive process there's a lot

[1:06:19] of protections in the process

[1:06:21] but yes law enforcement can

[1:06:22] remove a vehicle that is

[1:06:23] dangerous or has a that's

[1:06:23] already in

[1:06:26] place this doesn't toucht that

[1:06:29] at all. Nothing in this law

[1:06:32] speaks to or makes it easier

[1:06:34] nothing in our proposal makes it

[1:06:35] easier for a neighbor to call

[1:06:36] and say I want that vehicle

[1:06:37] gone.

[1:06:40] Now I suppose if they call the

[1:06:41] police the police come out and

[1:06:42] ask about it then becomes a

[1:06:44] nuisance but they still have to

[1:06:46] trigger the process. they still

[1:06:48] have to do it so those things

[1:06:50] are already in place and this

[1:06:51] wouldn't impact

[1:06:56] members of senator neal

[1:07:01] thank you chair. How many

[1:07:02] companies would benefit from

[1:07:03] this legislation?

[1:07:06] competitors we have innevada

[1:07:16] Yeah'll allll auto records I

[1:07:17] don't have a number I can get

[1:07:18] back to you on that

[1:07:22] but again this is not central

[1:07:25] our business model contemplates

[1:07:26] acquiring vehicles for

[1:07:27] dismantling from

[1:07:31] insurance auctions and auto

[1:07:33] auctions and all those sorts of

[1:07:34] things this is never this is not

[1:07:35] something we would have brought

[1:07:36] forward on our own. I can tell

[1:07:38] you that this is something we

[1:07:40] brought forward because the

[1:07:41] committee had the presentation

[1:07:43] and we felt we could offer some

[1:07:43] suggestions on how to how to

[1:07:44] help

[1:07:48] so this passes we could expect

[1:07:49] to see

[1:07:50] commercials saying

[1:07:54] this list of your car is at

[1:07:56] least10 years old has relatively

[1:07:59] low value incomplete inoperable

[1:08:00] and you don't have ownership

[1:08:02] documents call1-800

[1:08:08] chairir Warren Hardy sadly

[1:08:11] that those already exist and

[1:08:14] those are illegal actors those

[1:08:17] are illegal actors and

[1:08:18] unfortunately people take

[1:08:19] advantage of that because they

[1:08:20] have no option

[1:08:23] if you want a vehicle removed

[1:08:24] from your property

[1:08:27] you have to go to one of those

[1:08:28] illegal operators who will take

[1:08:29] it in violation of the law

[1:08:33] so to the extent it benefits my

[1:08:33] client, it puts

[1:08:38] bonded licensed authorized auto

[1:08:40] records in the ability to accept

[1:08:43] those it will have the impact

[1:08:45] potentially of eliminating the

[1:08:47] the illegal actors that's where

[1:08:48] those come from and they are

[1:08:50] everywhere. you can go on

[1:08:52] OfferUp right now and they'll

[1:08:53] tell you how much they'll give

[1:08:56] you for your untitled vehicle

[1:09:00] that is100% illegal and we won't

[1:09:01] participate it and the current

[1:09:04] law does push these poor people

[1:09:05] who would rather follow

[1:09:08] the law to those folks to just

[1:09:09] get rid of it illegally

[1:09:10] so

[1:09:14] to that extent it does benefit

[1:09:16] us that we can now compete

[1:09:18] legally for the vehicles that

[1:09:21] unscrupulous actors are pursuing

[1:09:23] illegally so how are you going

[1:09:24] to distinguish between good

[1:09:26] actor and bad actor being that

[1:09:28] that's been out there. I mean

[1:09:30] people put stuff on OfferUp

[1:09:31] because they think ok I can put

[1:09:33] a car and put a dresser I can

[1:09:35] put whatever right because it

[1:09:35] becomes a platform

[1:09:39] in which folks they're like oh I

[1:09:40] can put my stuff out there

[1:09:42] because someone else put their

[1:09:43] stuff out there

[1:09:45] so how do you distinguish

[1:09:46] between what's illegal and

[1:09:49] what's not you know the ba I

[1:09:50] mean cause we see consumers

[1:09:53] operate all the time and they

[1:09:55] don't actually know the

[1:09:57] difference. I know catmartinez

[1:09:58] wants to say something but let

[1:09:59] me just say we we won't there

[1:10:00] there's no enforcement

[1:10:04] in here what we're doing here is

[1:10:05] providing an options for

[1:10:06] somebody who wants to legally

[1:10:08] dispose of this car to be able

[1:10:10] to do it. There is literally in

[1:10:13] some cases no way for these

[1:10:15] people to legally dispose of

[1:10:16] that car. they're going to have

[1:10:18] to have it towed so that it

[1:10:20] enters the lien process we're

[1:10:22] gonna have to get somebody to do

[1:10:23] a lien illegally on their

[1:10:26] behalf. all this does is create

[1:10:29] a legal pathway sollll and

[1:10:29] Camartinez wanted to address

[1:10:30] that as well

[1:10:33] Joshmartinez for the record

[1:10:36] chaired through you to

[1:10:38] senator neal the illegal

[1:10:40] operators that Warren's

[1:10:42] talking about we work with his

[1:10:45] industry we have a coalition of

[1:10:47] of detectives and sergeant

[1:10:49] that have worked with his folks

[1:10:51] for a long period of time they

[1:10:52] have monthly meetings to

[1:10:54] identify bad actors that are out

[1:10:56] there. we've worked on local

[1:10:59] ordinances as well as Nrs to

[1:11:00] improve our ability to go after

[1:11:01] those bad actors in regards

[1:11:02] to doing business without a

[1:11:04] business license obtaining you

[1:11:06] know pro property under false

[1:11:08] pretenses and some of the other

[1:11:10] laws that are out there and so

[1:11:11] we've targeted those folks not

[1:11:12] only in the scrap metal

[1:11:15] business that are elite that are

[1:11:17] working illegally out there

[1:11:18] where they have somebody bring

[1:11:19] them the material on a street

[1:11:21] corner or the same thing with a

[1:11:23] car they could have somebody

[1:11:24] come pick up that car they could

[1:11:26] chop it up into 1000 pieces and

[1:11:27] and that's how they dispose

[1:11:30] dispose of it down you know

[1:11:31] later on down the road

[1:11:33] sometimes people will wait

[1:11:36] years. this gives the the folks

[1:11:38] out there inunity and when we

[1:11:41] heard the issue last session

[1:11:43] this goes to what was being

[1:11:45] discussed in northern Nevada

[1:11:45] where you have a different

[1:11:47] layout up in the north where you

[1:11:49] have large parcels of property

[1:11:51] and somebody just drops off an

[1:11:53] abandoned vehicle on my parcel

[1:11:56] or or your neighbor's parcel and

[1:11:57] now they don't know how to how

[1:11:58] to get rid of it and that's

[1:12:00] where we came to a compromise in

[1:12:01] the public right away with a

[1:12:04] B 415 and like we said before

[1:12:06] this now allows those folks in

[1:12:08] in the private capacity if

[1:12:10] somebody drops off a vehicle in

[1:12:11] the northern part of the state

[1:12:14] on their large large piece of

[1:12:15] property that they own they

[1:12:17] could now have a remedy too to

[1:12:19] deal with that car that was just

[1:12:20] dropped on their property

[1:12:21] because somebody wanted to get

[1:12:23] rid of it but maybe that slows

[1:12:25] that process down by having this

[1:12:26] in place if this was to pass

[1:12:27] because now that person that

[1:12:29] dropped the car has the remedy

[1:12:30] if they own that car outright to

[1:12:31] be able to go take it

[1:12:32] to a recycler

[1:12:35] And Mr Chair I I just revi

[1:12:36] remind you of something I said

[1:12:38] earlier. I don't know what the

[1:12:39] impact will be.ertainly these

[1:12:40] bad actors are still going to be

[1:12:41] out there trying to acquire

[1:12:43] these vehicles without titles

[1:12:45] but I'll just remind you we get

[1:12:47] hundreds as an industry we get

[1:12:50] hundreds of these calls a month

[1:12:52] of people saying I'd like to you

[1:12:53] to buy my vehicle and we have to

[1:12:53] tell them no

[1:12:56] and so they have no choice but

[1:12:57] to either dump it, go to an

[1:12:59] illegal and I appreciate you

[1:13:00] bringing that up because I

[1:13:01] didn't I didn't bring that up

[1:13:02] but it's100% true they do have

[1:13:03] the option to go to an

[1:13:06] unlicensed person and sell their

[1:13:08] vehicle but I can tell you in

[1:13:09] our case it will be hundreds a

[1:13:11] month where we can say bring it

[1:13:13] down and we'll pay you for it

[1:13:13] and you'll be done with it.

[1:13:15] legally.

[1:13:24] anything else

[1:13:34] internal comment

[1:13:36] thank you again for the for

[1:13:38] the presentation and thank you

[1:13:40] for working alongside of law

[1:13:42] enforcement in our local juris

[1:13:44] jurisdictions to to ensure that

[1:13:46] we're all on the same page

[1:13:48] and then we'll see if the the

[1:13:49] committee has the appetite to

[1:13:50] consider it a little bit later

[1:13:51] in the agenda today. thank you

[1:13:52] again.

[1:13:55] members thank you for for all

[1:13:57] those questions and and for

[1:13:58] engaging with this

[1:13:59] conversation

[1:14:02] and and it was at my request

[1:14:05] that I asked him to come in as

[1:14:06] you all recall we had a

[1:14:09] conversation earlier probably

[1:14:11] in our first or second meeting

[1:14:12] where we were addressing the

[1:14:14] issue of abandoned vehicles a

[1:14:16] problem that I know in my

[1:14:18] district is a huge problem

[1:14:20] and I'm grateful to local

[1:14:22] jurisdiction working together

[1:14:24] to try to reach some type of

[1:14:26] solution though there there's a

[1:14:27] lot of things we still got to do

[1:14:28] to to get there

[1:14:31] next I'd like to move on to

[1:14:33] the next item agenda item

[1:14:34] number5 which is a discussion

[1:14:36] regarding legislative auditors

[1:14:38] review of the child fatalities

[1:14:40] and near fatalities

[1:14:41] do you have anybody joining

[1:14:45] us are we down south or up in

[1:14:46] carson cityity? there we go. I

[1:14:47] see you in carson City.

[1:14:48] welcomelcome. whenever you're

[1:14:49] ready just please make sure you

[1:14:50] hit that mic

[1:14:52] and it should be turning green

[1:14:53] when it's on

[1:15:04] Good afternoon chair and members

[1:15:05] of the committeete. My name is

[1:15:10] Haley Cornelia Swift HAil E Y C

[1:15:16] O Rn El I A dash S W IFT Senior

[1:15:18] child welfare specialist for the

[1:15:20] record. this agenda item is

[1:15:22] related to assembly bill 261

[1:15:23] from the 2007 legislative

[1:15:26] session later codified an

[1:15:27] Nrs218g.550

[1:15:31] which has required child welfare

[1:15:32] agencies to submit to us the

[1:15:34] case files of children who

[1:15:35] suffered a fatality or near

[1:15:37] fatality if the agencies had

[1:15:37] prior contact with the child or

[1:15:38] family.

[1:15:40] since that time we have reviewed

[1:15:43] over1000 such cases the delivery

[1:15:44] of child welfare services in

[1:15:46] Nevada is governed by various

[1:15:49] laws and regulations. state laws

[1:15:50] related to child welfare

[1:15:51] services or codified mely

[1:15:52] innrs432b.

[1:15:56] d c F S has also adopted

[1:15:57] regulations in NAC432b.

[1:16:00] in their oversight role, dcFs's

[1:16:03] statutory duty includes adopting

[1:16:04] regulations to carry out the

[1:16:06] provisions of applicable state

[1:16:08] laws including establishing

[1:16:10] uniform standards for providing

[1:16:11] child welfare services.

[1:16:14] regarding child fatality and

[1:16:16] near fatality reporting and

[1:16:17] public disclosure policies have

[1:16:19] been developed bydcFs concerning

[1:16:21] the release of information to

[1:16:23] the public as required under

[1:16:25] Nrs2432b.175

[1:16:29] statewide policy requires that

[1:16:31] any time a child who has had

[1:16:31] contact with or has been in the

[1:16:33] custody of a child welfare

[1:16:35] agency suffers a fatality or

[1:16:37] near fatality, the local child

[1:16:39] welfare agency will review the

[1:16:39] child fatality or near fatality.

[1:16:42] d c F s will perform an

[1:16:44] additional administrative review

[1:16:46] as outlined in statewide

[1:16:49] policy0402view of child fatality

[1:16:49] or near fatality cases.

[1:16:53] as part of our duties outlined

[1:16:57] in Nrs218g.550, we review the

[1:16:58] case file and the case

[1:16:59] information stored

[1:16:59] electronically in the

[1:17:01] centralized child welfare system

[1:17:03] to determine whether the case

[1:17:04] was handled in a manner

[1:17:05] consistent with state and

[1:17:07] federal law and whether any

[1:17:10] measures procedures or protocols

[1:17:11] could have assisted in

[1:17:11] preventing the fatality or near

[1:17:12] fatality.

[1:17:14] we frequently discuss questions

[1:17:16] and concerns identified in our

[1:17:18] case reviews with the child

[1:17:19] welfare agencies to seek

[1:17:20] understanding and clarification

[1:17:23] for the past several years

[1:17:24] qualifications of our child

[1:17:26] welfare specialists include

[1:17:27] extensive backgrounds in child

[1:17:29] welfare in nevada and active

[1:17:29] social work licenses.

[1:17:33] this process is not an audit and

[1:17:34] is not required to be reviewed

[1:17:36] or accepted by the legislature.

[1:17:38] However, the product of our

[1:17:39] reviews is a letter issued to

[1:17:41] the legislature summarizing the

[1:17:42] results and notable concerns we

[1:17:43] identified.

[1:17:46] the most recent letter for the

[1:17:47] review period from january

[1:17:50] firstst through December31,2025

[1:17:51] is included in your packet under

[1:17:51] agenda item5.

[1:17:55] in summary we identified some

[1:17:56] concerns with child welfare

[1:17:58] agencies compliance with certain

[1:18:00] regulations and statewide

[1:18:02] policies. this lack of

[1:18:03] compliance prior to an incident

[1:18:05] may have increased the risk a

[1:18:07] child welfare agency did not

[1:18:08] properly intervene when an

[1:18:10] allegation of abuse or neglect

[1:18:11] was received.

[1:18:13] on page three of the letter we

[1:18:14] include a summary of the

[1:18:16] deficiencies noted in our

[1:18:18] reviews as part of our process

[1:18:20] we issued letters to child

[1:18:21] welfare agencies to express our

[1:18:23] concerns with management about

[1:18:23] how several cases were handled.

[1:18:27] after expressing our concerns

[1:18:28] child welfare agency officials

[1:18:30] indicated they performed their

[1:18:32] own internal review of the cases

[1:18:33] and identified the need for

[1:18:35] additional improvements such as

[1:18:36] clarifying and reinforcing

[1:18:39] policy and practice improving

[1:18:40] the quality and completeness of

[1:18:42] documentation and providing

[1:18:43] training for staff.

[1:18:45] as we perform case reviews in

[1:18:46] the future we will continue to

[1:18:48] monitor child welfare aggencies

[1:18:50] efforts to help ensure

[1:18:51] improvement and sustained

[1:18:53] implementation of the corrective

[1:18:53] actions reported

[1:18:55] we are happy to answer any

[1:18:56] questions the committee might

[1:18:57] have regarding our

[1:19:08] and thank you for that. I know

[1:19:09] we will have other folks who

[1:19:10] will be joining us even here

[1:19:13] in Las Vegas but members any

[1:19:14] questions for now and I know

[1:19:17] that and I do appreciate you

[1:19:19] making yourselves available

[1:19:19] we'll start off withenatorneal.

[1:19:25] Thanks chair

[1:19:31] thank you for putting the audit

[1:19:33] in the record

[1:19:37] I guess the thing was when I saw

[1:19:37] this audit drop out

[1:19:41] which is pretty much dated

[1:19:42] July21st,2026.

[1:19:46] the first question that I asked

[1:19:48] was you know this statement of

[1:19:50] internal review

[1:19:52] and it seems that

[1:19:55] this isn't the first time

[1:19:59] that similar issues have popped

[1:20:00] up

[1:20:04] so when an agency says oh we're

[1:20:05] doing internal review

[1:20:09] how do you make sure that

[1:20:11] they're really acting because it

[1:20:12] was my understanding that

[1:20:16] there were prior years where

[1:20:18] there had been the same exact

[1:20:19] concerns and then the same

[1:20:20] response was we're doing an

[1:20:23] internal review to you know

[1:20:25] address these concerns which is

[1:20:25] actually very vague

[1:20:28] that's the first

[1:20:36] Thank youhayornelia swift child

[1:20:37] welfare specialist for the

[1:20:38] record chair through you to

[1:20:42] senator Neal first and foremost

[1:20:44] these are not audits and the

[1:20:45] letter doesn't contain

[1:20:47] recommendations our statutory

[1:20:48] authority is limited to

[1:20:50] reviewing the cases to determine

[1:20:51] whether they were handled in a

[1:20:52] manner which was consistent with

[1:20:54] state and federal law and to

[1:20:56] determine if anything could have

[1:20:57] prevented the fatality or near

[1:21:00] fatality we are not an

[1:21:03] oversight entity that can issue

[1:21:03] any type of corrective

[1:21:06] action. how we do communicate

[1:21:08] our concerns to the relevant

[1:21:10] child welfare agencies anddcFS

[1:21:12] who has oversight over the the

[1:21:15] county child welfare agencies. I

[1:21:17] will also note that each child

[1:21:20] welfare case is extremely

[1:21:21] complex and while the

[1:21:26] scenarios or the situations may

[1:21:28] sound similar each family is an

[1:21:30] experiencing a very unique

[1:21:33] situation that then comes to a

[1:21:35] category that enters into our

[1:21:37] letter. there is not one

[1:21:39] definitive cause of repeat

[1:21:40] findings and concerns with these

[1:21:43] six cases they may stem from

[1:21:45] multiple factors and each

[1:21:47] respect respective child welfare

[1:21:48] agency may best be able to

[1:21:51] answer the question regarding

[1:21:52] why this keeps occurring or why

[1:21:53] there's similar find

[1:21:53] ing s

[1:21:58] thank you for that I'm

[1:21:59] sorry thought it was super

[1:21:59] confused because

[1:22:02] there was a legislative council

[1:22:03] bureau audit

[1:22:07] on July21,2026

[1:22:12] which was the legislator's

[1:22:14] auditor review of child

[1:22:16] fatalities and near fatalities

[1:22:18] when a child welfare welfare

[1:22:20] agency has had prior contact

[1:22:21] with the child or family under

[1:22:28] pursuant to 281G550 so are we

[1:22:30] not talking about the same thing

[1:22:32] because technically I I just

[1:22:34] assumed you were in the same

[1:22:37] nucleus because in this in in

[1:22:38] the second paragraph

[1:22:42] of the first page of the audit

[1:22:44] it says the three child welfare

[1:22:47] agencies in Nevada or Clark

[1:22:47] County Familyervices

[1:22:51] Washoe County Humanervices

[1:22:52] aggency and the division of

[1:22:54] child and Familyervices rural

[1:22:56] region. so are you

[1:22:57] Dcfs

[1:23:03] todd Peterson for the record

[1:23:04] chief deputy legislative auditor

[1:23:07] chair through you to

[1:23:08] senatorial so I think what

[1:23:10] you're referring to is a letter

[1:23:13] that is posted on our website

[1:23:15] it's it's included within the

[1:23:16] audit division this is a

[1:23:19] responsibility that the

[1:23:21] legislature is placed on the

[1:23:22] audit division through

[1:23:26] Nrs218G but as Miss Cornelia

[1:23:28] Swift mentioned, these are not

[1:23:29] audits performed according to

[1:23:32] government auditing standards

[1:23:34] which require an extensive

[1:23:36] review process and and which is

[1:23:38] also part of our authority under

[1:23:42] 218g and within those audits

[1:23:44] that we have authority to to

[1:23:46] perform of state agencies and

[1:23:50] now the the local school

[1:23:52] districts we do provide

[1:23:55] recommendations and there is

[1:23:58] a whole process in statute that

[1:23:59] is required for the the entity

[1:24:02] to follow up and to implement

[1:24:04] those recommendationsurrently an

[1:24:09] interrs218G there is no

[1:24:11] requirement for that for these

[1:24:12] child welfare reviews.

[1:24:15] if that if that answers your

[1:24:18] question it it does so can you

[1:24:20] educate me like so how should I

[1:24:23] treat the letter right? so if I

[1:24:24] get the letter right so I got

[1:24:26] the letter on July 20 firstst I

[1:24:28] read it and then I read through

[1:24:30] it I responded because you know

[1:24:32] you see Clark County

[1:24:33] Familyervices had11 fatalities

[1:24:38] number of near fatalities35

[1:24:39] totalling46

[1:24:44] Waho County Humanervices had4

[1:24:47] number of fatalities and one

[1:24:50] number of near fatalities which

[1:24:51] total5.

[1:24:53] so when I see the letter

[1:24:57] should I discard the

[1:24:58] information? how should I treat

[1:24:59] the information as a legislator

[1:25:04] ho ul d I just say oh this was

[1:25:05] just a letter for some kind of

[1:25:07] reference and disregard? what

[1:25:08] should I do with this

[1:25:08] information?

[1:25:12] todd Peterson for the record

[1:25:16] that's a good question that is a

[1:25:18] question that we have internally

[1:25:20] as far as this information

[1:25:23] once again in statute we are

[1:25:25] required to perform these

[1:25:28] reviews and and to look for

[1:25:30] opportunities for improvement

[1:25:33] there is no in statute there is

[1:25:38] no requirement that we produce a

[1:25:39] report of

[1:25:42] this work but we felt internally

[1:25:44] that it was important that we

[1:25:47] summarize our work and and

[1:25:50] provide that to the legislature

[1:25:52] and we also provide this

[1:25:54] information to the child welfare

[1:25:58] agencies and uhdcFs who has

[1:25:59] oversight and monitoring

[1:26:00] responsibilities.

[1:26:07] OK. so thank you for that. So

[1:26:08] ok

[1:26:12] so I'm gonna ask another

[1:26:13] question cause I would like to

[1:26:15] be educated because you you know

[1:26:15] when you guys send stuff I read

[1:26:16] it

[1:26:19] I should probably find

[1:26:24] anything else to do so when

[1:26:26] when I you know I read like it

[1:26:29] was on page two and it was you

[1:26:30] know giving us kind of this

[1:26:32] legislative history right the

[1:26:33] several bills have been passed

[1:26:37] during the 2007 legislative

[1:26:37] session to improve child welfare

[1:26:44] which had legislative auditor

[1:26:45] required to review information

[1:26:46] to determine whether that a case

[1:26:48] was handled in a manner

[1:26:49] consistent with state and

[1:26:49] federal law

[1:26:53] what should the so when we get

[1:26:54] those letters I mean we're

[1:26:55] having this conversation in

[1:26:55] government affairs so

[1:26:59] should we be considering

[1:27:02] legislation to strengthen

[1:27:06] the auditor's ability the

[1:27:08] auditor's office ability to come

[1:27:09] back and do a full

[1:27:13] report and if so

[1:27:18] would we advise through a

[1:27:21] legislative act that we look at

[1:27:24] case history from 2007 to

[1:27:28] 2027 or 29 to determine whether

[1:27:30] or not there is an issue of

[1:27:32] fidelity with the law or not

[1:27:36] cause that sounds like a real

[1:27:38] good piece of legislation that

[1:27:39] would probably give some

[1:27:41] substantial history of

[1:27:44] behavior internal reviews

[1:27:47] responses when they were alerted

[1:27:49] via a letter that wasn't an

[1:27:49] audit

[1:27:56] todd Peterson for the record

[1:28:01] senator Neal uh'll I'll start

[1:28:02] off I'll try and answer that

[1:28:04] question the best I can, but

[1:28:06] I'll start off with we're not

[1:28:08] advocating for any additional

[1:28:09] work we have quite a

[1:28:13] quite a bit of work that's

[1:28:15] currently required of our office

[1:28:19] this is an important issue

[1:28:22] though the safety and wellbeing

[1:28:24] of children and I think through

[1:28:25] statute there are entities

[1:28:30] for exampledcFs that have the

[1:28:32] authority and currently have the

[1:28:34] responsibility to ensure the

[1:28:37] safety of of the children in

[1:28:39] Nevada we are a safety net

[1:28:43] to help remind them and help

[1:28:46] maybe bring some efficiencies

[1:28:47] to the process and

[1:28:52] but I would my recommendation

[1:28:55] would be that the legislature

[1:28:59] consider the issue and look at

[1:28:59] how

[1:29:02] they look at the current

[1:29:04] processes that are in place how

[1:29:07] they might be strengthened to

[1:29:09] continue to ensure the safety

[1:29:10] and welfare of children

[1:29:16] and this is a comment here so I

[1:29:17] would like to give you know the

[1:29:20] legislative auditors a shout

[1:29:22] out because I appreciate your

[1:29:23] work. I know how much work you

[1:29:26] do. I want to give you like a

[1:29:27] super shout out on the recent

[1:29:28] education audits that you put

[1:29:29] out

[1:29:29] they were wonderful

[1:29:32] they were so good that I was

[1:29:34] just like this is this is night

[1:29:38] reading to some popcorn. so

[1:29:40] thank you so much for the work

[1:29:41] that you do and the level of

[1:29:43] detail that you put in because I

[1:29:44] am one of the people who look

[1:29:46] forward to when you put these

[1:29:49] audits out and how to

[1:29:50] effectively use them in the

[1:29:52] public space to better our

[1:29:53] community

[1:29:53] thank you

[1:29:59] Next we will go to vicechair

[1:30:01] please thank you chair I know

[1:30:03] there was a lot already just

[1:30:04] discussed and I know you said

[1:30:06] you're focusing on process and

[1:30:08] you're looking at the148 cases

[1:30:10] that were there but what I was

[1:30:12] wondering is when you are

[1:30:14] looking at this and you're

[1:30:15] considering the factors do

[1:30:16] you ever incorporate

[1:30:18] whether or not there's

[1:30:20] sufficient staffing or case

[1:30:21] loads as a factor to any of this

[1:30:22] that could be helpful to the

[1:30:23] legislature.

[1:30:29] Haley Cornelius Swift senior

[1:30:30] child welfare specialist for the

[1:30:32] record chair through you to

[1:30:36] vicechaironsidine we complete a

[1:30:39] process as established by a

[1:30:41] manual where we review cases in

[1:30:44] accordance with statewide policy

[1:30:47] so our review is ensuring that

[1:30:50] the caseworker at the supervisor

[1:30:51] and anyone else involved in the

[1:30:53] case followed statewide policy

[1:30:54] and that is the scope of our

[1:30:55] review.

[1:31:04] members any additional questions

[1:31:05] oh sorry something remember

[1:31:05] whenn please

[1:31:09] thank you chair and thank you

[1:31:11] for your work on this very

[1:31:11] important topic

[1:31:13] just sitting here just

[1:31:15] calculating the math and it

[1:31:18] seems to be you know obviously

[1:31:20] these are the cases provided by

[1:31:21] the different jurisdiction for

[1:31:24] you to be able to review and

[1:31:25] I know this is on an annual

[1:31:26] basis

[1:31:29] according to what you know my

[1:31:32] colleague has said in terms

[1:31:34] of having enough data for the

[1:31:35] last 20 years to truly

[1:31:37] see where the trends are

[1:31:41] do you know off the top of

[1:31:44] your head and you know I'll

[1:31:45] be happy to look at it offline

[1:31:46] as well but do you know on top

[1:31:47] of your head that these

[1:31:51] concerns like you said6 this

[1:31:52] year I'm not aware of the

[1:31:53] previous year numbers but

[1:31:56] do you keep track as a

[1:32:01] body of how many of these

[1:32:03] instances are repetitive over

[1:32:04] the years

[1:32:08] perhaps you know cause I I know

[1:32:10] that you said that you are just

[1:32:13] responsible for just reviewing

[1:32:15] the the the facts based on the

[1:32:16] policy and just

[1:32:21] send a letter expressing your

[1:32:21] concerns

[1:32:26] but in terms of the repetitive

[1:32:27] repetitiveness nature of these

[1:32:28] concerns

[1:32:30] and I don't know the members

[1:32:31] sitting right there on the dais

[1:32:32] I don't know how long you've

[1:32:34] been involved with this process

[1:32:36] but have you seen in the last

[1:32:38] for example5 years just to be

[1:32:40] easy the last five years that

[1:32:43] these concerns are in a

[1:32:43] repetitive manner.

[1:32:54] Thank you for the question Haley

[1:32:55] Cornelia swift senior child

[1:32:56] welfare specialist for the

[1:32:58] record chair through you to

[1:33:01] assembly memberyynn we do have

[1:33:04] information in our letter that

[1:33:06] describes the deficiencies noted

[1:33:08] there are footnotes next to the

[1:33:10] ones that were previously

[1:33:13] recorded in the prior year. I

[1:33:16] will note that we have a

[1:33:20] changed the way in which we have

[1:33:23] published our information and so

[1:33:25] we do not at this time have the

[1:33:26] data

[1:33:30] that would be provided on not

[1:33:32] like a long term schedule we

[1:33:35] do have information from last

[1:33:38] year to this year and then when

[1:33:40] we do review a case file, it's

[1:33:41] important to note that while the

[1:33:42] fatality or near fatality may

[1:33:44] have happened in that calendar

[1:33:46] year prior case history

[1:33:51] can be as far as567 years back

[1:33:52] and so if we already sent a

[1:33:55] letter last year regarding a

[1:33:56] similar concern we'll take a

[1:33:59] look at that case to determine

[1:34:02] if the time frames overlap

[1:34:04] because we also don't want to

[1:34:08] bring it to the attention of

[1:34:10] the child welfare agency for

[1:34:11] something that they did in the

[1:34:13] past if they are working on

[1:34:16] correcting it now and we

[1:34:17] essentially don't want to

[1:34:22] identify a deficiency twice

[1:34:23] if they're in the process of

[1:34:24] remediating it.

[1:34:24] ol low up chair

[1:34:30] please thank you thank you for

[1:34:31] that answer and I appreciate the

[1:34:33] context because I think what I

[1:34:35] really want to see in terms of

[1:34:36] looking at

[1:34:37] redefining the

[1:34:41] process if you will for the

[1:34:44] intent of assembly bill 261 back

[1:34:46] 20 years ago in terms of making

[1:34:48] sure that there is a bit of a

[1:34:52] I guess two way street in terms

[1:34:54] of you providing the letter,

[1:34:56] right you're providing the

[1:34:58] findings is there I don't know

[1:35:00] if it's in statute or not are

[1:35:02] they required by statute to

[1:35:04] respond to you even though

[1:35:05] you're not a

[1:35:08] oversight body right when you

[1:35:10] send that letter to the agencies

[1:35:11] is there a

[1:35:16] I guess timeline or maybe there

[1:35:17] isn't one maybe we need to come

[1:35:20] up with one that will respond

[1:35:23] into what you are asking them to

[1:35:24] do

[1:35:30] todd Peterson for the record

[1:35:32] through you chair to assembly

[1:35:33] memberwyn

[1:35:36] their my understanding is

[1:35:38] there's no requirement in

[1:35:41] statute for them to respond to

[1:35:43] our requests they are

[1:35:46] required to provide us the

[1:35:48] case file once the it has been

[1:35:50] identified that a child has

[1:35:53] suffered a fatality or near

[1:35:55] fatality and has had prior

[1:35:56] history with the child welfare

[1:35:57] agency they are required to

[1:35:59] provide us the case file for us

[1:36:02] to review but as far as

[1:36:03] answering or following up on our

[1:36:03] questions

[1:36:06] I don't believe by statute

[1:36:07] they're required to however, I

[1:36:10] would note that we have good

[1:36:12] relationships with the child

[1:36:14] welfare agencies and they do

[1:36:16] respond in a timely manner and

[1:36:18] answer our questions and

[1:36:21] oftentimes it's there's there's

[1:36:22] follow up to our questions and

[1:36:25] there's there's discussions so

[1:36:26] that we can understand better

[1:36:28] the cases and and the

[1:36:30] circumstances behind the

[1:36:31] incident that we are reviewing

[1:36:38] Quick follow up chair please.

[1:36:40] thank you Mr Pearson so just

[1:36:41] following up on what you

[1:36:44] presented earlier in terms of

[1:36:45] comparing this particular

[1:36:47] process to a regular standard

[1:36:49] audit that you know the audit

[1:36:52] division usually conduct would

[1:36:54] you say that the current

[1:36:56] requirements of this particular

[1:36:59] statue versus the standard audit

[1:37:02] process right? it's this kind

[1:37:03] of like a two part out of the

[1:37:04] usual10 parts

[1:37:06] this is even scratching the

[1:37:08] surface or you know we're

[1:37:10] nowhere near it because I guess

[1:37:11] where I'm going with that is

[1:37:13] that if we meant if someone one

[1:37:16] of us is gonna pick this up and

[1:37:18] not giving you more work but

[1:37:21] expand the scope of what this

[1:37:24] group is already doing how many

[1:37:26] are we further from it are we

[1:37:28] close to it or like you know

[1:37:30] where where we're going in terms

[1:37:31] of giving the

[1:37:33] expert

[1:37:38] giving the expertise so that

[1:37:39] we can do some good

[1:37:44] revision to the process so that

[1:37:47] we may reduce these numbers and

[1:37:48] hopefully eliminate them from

[1:37:49] happening in the future

[1:37:53] todd Peterson for the record

[1:37:56] assembly memberwynn as far as

[1:37:58] comparing this to a a standard

[1:38:01] audit they're vastly

[1:38:04] different in the in the

[1:38:05] requirements and the

[1:38:09] documentation that we're that we

[1:38:10] maintain in the level of

[1:38:13] evidence that we gather with

[1:38:15] that said I don't want a

[1:38:17] discount in any way our two

[1:38:19] child welfare specialists who

[1:38:20] who now review

[1:38:24] these cases and and they have

[1:38:27] extensive history in in child

[1:38:28] welfare services they've

[1:38:31] actually been caseworkers and

[1:38:33] perform this work in prior

[1:38:36] years so the level of expertise

[1:38:37] that they bring to reviewing

[1:38:40] these cases is exceptional in my

[1:38:41] opinion and so we we

[1:38:46] we have the expertise they do a

[1:38:48] a wonderful job reviewing the

[1:38:50] cases coming to the

[1:38:54] conclusions that we make and

[1:38:55] then the child willlfare

[1:38:56] agencies

[1:39:01] respond well I I think it

[1:39:02] would be important to ask for

[1:39:05] some of the or to ask questions

[1:39:06] of the child welfare agencies I

[1:39:08] know they experience going back

[1:39:11] to comments made earlier

[1:39:14] about staffing the it's a

[1:39:17] difficult job and they can speak

[1:39:19] more to maybe turnover in

[1:39:22] their staff and and what is

[1:39:24] required at the agency and the

[1:39:26] amount of training that they

[1:39:27] have to do on a continual

[1:39:30] basis because of turnover but

[1:39:33] that I think that's why we see

[1:39:36] some of the repeat findings

[1:39:41] so as as far as what what our

[1:39:43] office would need to do the job

[1:39:46] better right I'm at a loss of

[1:39:48] words I think we we have the

[1:39:50] resources we don't make

[1:39:53] recommendations but in our work

[1:39:55] with the child welfare agencies

[1:39:56] they are receptive

[1:40:00] to the issues that we bring

[1:40:03] up and they strive to resolve

[1:40:03] them and and do better

[1:40:08] thank you thank you for your

[1:40:11] answers and I appreciate you and

[1:40:13] the committee's work on this

[1:40:14] as I know that this is a

[1:40:16] difficult topic that requires a

[1:40:19] lot of expertise and a lot of

[1:40:23] knowledge so I I really

[1:40:24] appreciate your work. thank you

[1:40:25] chair for the indulgence

[1:40:28] thank you do we have any

[1:40:29] additional questions?

[1:40:32] and I do know that we have some

[1:40:33] folks here that will be joining

[1:40:34] us thank you again for joining

[1:40:37] us in carson cityity and next

[1:40:38] we'll move over to the folklin

[1:40:39] division of child and

[1:40:40] familymiervices department of

[1:40:42] humanmanervices and the

[1:40:43] representative of the department

[1:40:44] of Familyervices for our county.

[1:40:47] good afternoon and welcome thank

[1:40:48] you for joining us.

[1:40:52] and feel free to jump in

[1:40:53] wherever you would like in the

[1:40:54] conversation whether it's

[1:40:56] prepared remarks or if there's

[1:40:57] specific questions that have

[1:40:58] been brought up that you'd love

[1:40:59] to address however

[1:41:05] good afternoon chair vicechair

[1:41:06] and members of the committee my

[1:41:09] name iskimberly Abbott A B B Ot

[1:41:11] T and I serve as the

[1:41:12] administrator of the division of

[1:41:15] child and Familyervices along

[1:41:17] with me I have our child welfare

[1:41:20] director here in Clark County

[1:41:22] Stacy Dastrop also up in

[1:41:24] carson cityity I believe we have

[1:41:26] Ryangustafson the assistant

[1:41:28] county manager in Washoe as well

[1:41:30] as Pamela Mann their

[1:41:31] director of of child welfare in

[1:41:32] Washoe

[1:41:35] so I will start and and then

[1:41:37] defer to my colleagues to add

[1:41:40] as well if that's OK. first

[1:41:41] of all we appreciate the work of

[1:41:43] the audit committee continuous

[1:41:45] quality improvement is a

[1:41:47] critical component of the work

[1:41:49] that we do always striving to

[1:41:50] improve the services we provide

[1:41:53] to children and families. We

[1:41:54] take the concerns and the

[1:41:56] recommendations of the audit

[1:41:58] committee very seriously and

[1:41:59] they provide us additional

[1:42:01] opportunities to review our work

[1:42:01] and make necessary ad

[1:42:03] ju s t ment s

[1:42:07] this is never more critical or

[1:42:09] crucial than in response to such

[1:42:11] devastating outcomes as the ones

[1:42:12] that are reviewed in this audit

[1:42:16] Upon receipt of the

[1:42:18] committee's letter to each of

[1:42:21] the agencies we then respond

[1:42:22] and

[1:42:26] while I understand the concern

[1:42:28] and the discussion about the

[1:42:30] fact that the audit committee

[1:42:32] may not have the ability to put

[1:42:34] us on corrective action plans

[1:42:36] I would suggest to you we treat

[1:42:38] it as if we're being put on

[1:42:40] corrective action plans we

[1:42:42] respond to each of the

[1:42:44] concerns and we write back to

[1:42:46] explain what actions we are

[1:42:48] taking to address those and

[1:42:52] so specifically in the

[1:42:53] letter thatdcFs

[1:42:55] received and we received that on

[1:42:57] behalf of the rural region

[1:42:59] which we operate there were a

[1:43:00] number of concerns our

[1:43:02] leadership team gathered and

[1:43:03] thoroughly reviewed that case

[1:43:05] file in our instance it was one

[1:43:07] case in the rurals we reviewed

[1:43:10] that case file and candidly

[1:43:12] we agreed with the concerns of

[1:43:13] the auditors that there were

[1:43:14] concerns about policies being

[1:43:17] followed to fidelity and

[1:43:18] that was the response that we

[1:43:20] provided to the audit

[1:43:22] committee and in response to

[1:43:23] that in the letter

[1:43:27] we identified the different

[1:43:28] steps we would be taking to

[1:43:31] ensure it really often comes

[1:43:33] down to ensuring staff is fully

[1:43:35] complying with the policies that

[1:43:37] are in place and and

[1:43:38] occasionally they're being

[1:43:39] concerns that there are missteps

[1:43:41] or things that that weren't

[1:43:42] followed through on infidelity

[1:43:46] to policy and so

[1:43:48] specifically on the uhdcFs side

[1:43:50] and the particular case that was

[1:43:51] addressed there were concerns

[1:43:53] about

[1:44:01] how we're gathering sufficient

[1:44:02] information during our

[1:44:04] investigation and whether

[1:44:06] that is thorough enough in

[1:44:07] response to the concerns that

[1:44:10] were raised we did a memo that

[1:44:12] was distributed in July to all

[1:44:13] of our staff working in this

[1:44:16] area outlining expectations we

[1:44:18] have continued since that time

[1:44:20] to have ongoing conversations

[1:44:22] and coaching to reinforce those

[1:44:25] expectations and there was

[1:44:27] also concerns raised about

[1:44:27] response

[1:44:30] times, appropriate response

[1:44:32] times we have been and will

[1:44:34] continue to monitor response

[1:44:36] times, making adjustments as

[1:44:37] necessary those are reviewed

[1:44:40] by our familygras office as well

[1:44:43] as our internal quality

[1:44:45] and assurance team we have

[1:44:47] continued to see upward trends

[1:44:49] improving in our compliance

[1:44:50] with those response times since

[1:44:52] we began this extensive

[1:44:53] monitoring and we will continue

[1:44:54] to do so

[1:44:58] we also finalized an updated

[1:45:01] procedure specifically in how

[1:45:03] we respond to substantiations

[1:45:04] when it comes to substance

[1:45:07] exposed infants those cases

[1:45:09] can be quite challenging because

[1:45:11] there is federal law saying we

[1:45:13] can't substantiate simply on the

[1:45:15] basis of the substance exposure

[1:45:16] we have to do further

[1:45:19] evaluations to look at the nexus

[1:45:22] to any abuse or neglect and so

[1:45:24] we have fol finalized some

[1:45:25] procedures internally and are

[1:45:25] working

[1:45:27] to make sure they're

[1:45:30] how we implement those is

[1:45:32] aligned with with expectations

[1:45:36] so we in sum we we believe

[1:45:37] that we have responded to the

[1:45:38] audit committee's concerns and

[1:45:40] we will continue to monitor

[1:45:43] compliance and reinforce those

[1:45:45] expectations I know our

[1:45:47] county child welfare agencies

[1:45:48] have undertaken similar

[1:45:51] improvement activities and in

[1:45:52] response you know in response to

[1:45:54] the concerns that they received

[1:45:56] so I will turn it over to them

[1:45:57] in just a minute I think the

[1:45:58] only other thing I would

[1:46:00] highlight in light of the

[1:46:02] discussion that was that was

[1:46:04] occurring with the audit

[1:46:06] committee members about them

[1:46:09] not having the full audit

[1:46:11] requirements as they do in other

[1:46:13] instances. I will just point out

[1:46:14] that there is an entire

[1:46:18] statutory scheme in432b for

[1:46:20] reviewing child death cases

[1:46:22] there are local

[1:46:24] multidisciplinary teams that

[1:46:26] review these cases and then they

[1:46:27] report up through a statewide

[1:46:28] executive

[1:46:30] committee on child death review

[1:46:36] so Nrs for432B.403 through.4095

[1:46:37] outlines that very detailed

[1:46:40] process so when when we have

[1:46:42] these most horrific outcomes in

[1:46:44] some of these cases there is

[1:46:46] an entire statutory process in

[1:46:49] place to review those situations

[1:46:50] specifically to look at things

[1:46:52] that we could have done better

[1:46:54] and to make recommendations on

[1:46:56] future policy changes and

[1:46:57] that executive committee has the

[1:47:00] ability to make recommendations

[1:47:02] to other bodies, write letters

[1:47:04] to other community partners do

[1:47:07] other things to help change

[1:47:09] outcomes in the future. so

[1:47:10] I did want to point out that

[1:47:13] that exists and why I will not

[1:47:15] pretend to know why the

[1:47:17] legislature made past decisions

[1:47:19] that made my I suspect the fact

[1:47:21] that there already was this

[1:47:23] whole statutory me mechanism in

[1:47:25] place might have something to do

[1:47:27] with sort of the level of

[1:47:27] capacity of the the audit that's

[1:47:30] that's required pursuant to the

[1:47:32] statute so with that I will

[1:47:34] turn it over to my community

[1:47:35] partners and all

[1:47:42] good afternoon chair and

[1:47:44] committee members I just want

[1:47:45] to start and say that we do

[1:47:47] appreciate that the legislative

[1:47:49] auditor bringing these cases and

[1:47:50] concerns to us we do take them

[1:47:54] seriously and I I would echo

[1:47:56] a lot that Miss Abbott said so I

[1:47:57] will touch on some of the

[1:47:59] questions that you had about

[1:48:00] specifically about our own

[1:48:02] internal reviews so we have

[1:48:05] acQI team that will review any

[1:48:06] of these cases that come to us

[1:48:08] and then we also have a contract

[1:48:09] with a specialist that reviews

[1:48:10] the cases as

[1:48:13] well and thendcFs also reviews

[1:48:15] the cases so we really do have a

[1:48:16] lot of people reviewing the

[1:48:19] cases and we too found this the

[1:48:20] same issues with the cases that

[1:48:22] were reviewed so even before we

[1:48:24] received the letter from the

[1:48:26] auditors we had put things in

[1:48:28] place we had said put in an

[1:48:30] extensive training for our

[1:48:32] supervisors so this year every

[1:48:34] supervisor had to take 2 weeks

[1:48:36] of training to reinforce our

[1:48:39] safety model that we use and

[1:48:39] which includes the coaching

[1:48:42] and then

[1:48:45] assessment and in critical

[1:48:46] decision making on these cases

[1:48:48] that we do come to every day.

[1:48:52] you know and we don't want our

[1:48:54] our training to be just a 11

[1:48:56] practice we want it to make sure

[1:48:58] that it is involved in everyday

[1:49:00] work and so we also had our

[1:49:02] staff doing refreshers as well

[1:49:03] on on the training model and

[1:49:05] that was that was mandatory too

[1:49:06] so we so we do take this

[1:49:08] seriously and we do appreciate

[1:49:10] their review and we'll continue

[1:49:11] to use the findings to

[1:49:12] strengthen our practice.

[1:49:22] Good afternoonchefflores. this

[1:49:24] is Pamela mann for the record P

[1:49:27] Am El A M A N N. I am the

[1:49:28] director of the washoe County

[1:49:30] Humanservicesaggency. thank you

[1:49:32] for your opportunity to speak

[1:49:35] today. we here in was we echo

[1:49:36] many of the comments that

[1:49:38] administrator Abbott made and

[1:49:41] also want to acknowledge that

[1:49:41] every child fatality is

[1:49:44] is a tragedy or near fatality

[1:49:46] is a tragedy and each carries

[1:49:48] with it a responsibility to

[1:49:50] examine our work and learn from

[1:49:51] what occurred and then use what

[1:49:52] we learned to make meaningful

[1:49:54] changes. We appreciate the

[1:49:56] committee's continued attention

[1:49:57] to the safety and wellbeing of

[1:49:59] Nevada's children and as well as

[1:50:00] the legislative auditor's

[1:50:02] thorough review and the

[1:50:04] collaborative manner manner in

[1:50:06] which we work together. The

[1:50:08] process gives all of us an

[1:50:10] important opportunity to learn

[1:50:11] and improve and strengthen the

[1:50:11] systems that

[1:50:12] serve our children and families

[1:50:16] Washoenny also has many of the

[1:50:19] extensive trainings mentioned by

[1:50:22] my colleagues today and we use

[1:50:23] these review processes to

[1:50:25] provide valuable feedback that

[1:50:27] strengthens our practice and

[1:50:28] focuses our training and

[1:50:30] supervisory efforts. we've

[1:50:31] also used this information to

[1:50:33] reinforce comprehensive

[1:50:34] information gathering and safety

[1:50:37] assessment procedures to

[1:50:38] strengthen our documentation and

[1:50:41] supervisory reviews and to help

[1:50:42] develop practical tools that

[1:50:43] allow

[1:50:47] staff to consistently understand

[1:50:48] and apply statewide policies

[1:50:52] in addition we have used a great

[1:50:54] deal of this feedback to help us

[1:50:55] invest in the prevention and

[1:50:56] intervention of services

[1:50:58] designed to better support

[1:50:59] children and families before

[1:50:59] circumstances escalate.

[1:51:02] we appreciate your leadership

[1:51:04] and partnership in these

[1:51:06] difficult conversations and

[1:51:07] remain available to answer

[1:51:07] questions as well.

[1:51:12] and thank you all three of you

[1:51:13] for joining us today and along

[1:51:14] with the other folk that I

[1:51:16] know you represent and are all

[1:51:18] working very diligently we'll

[1:51:20] start off with senator neal

[1:51:26] Thank you chairir. so in terms

[1:51:27] of the training that you're

[1:51:29] doing so I was looking at where

[1:51:29] the footnotes were

[1:51:33] so there was a footnote for

[1:51:38] allegation decision that did not

[1:51:40] adequately reflect the

[1:51:42] significant evidence discovered

[1:51:45] so the footnote indicates a

[1:51:47] similar concerns were noted in

[1:51:49] the review case files from

[1:51:51] January to December 2024.

[1:51:55] so what kind of training are you

[1:51:58] doing with staff in order for

[1:52:01] them to recognize the kind of

[1:52:04] evidence that they should put in

[1:52:06] the case file or that they

[1:52:07] should review and take seriously

[1:52:14] kimberly Abbottt for the record

[1:52:17] I can thank you for the

[1:52:18] question. I can tell you

[1:52:21] thatdcFS maintains an ongoing

[1:52:23] con contract with national

[1:52:26] Safety experts action for

[1:52:27] childrenldrentection, action for

[1:52:29] childldtection I apologize.

[1:52:30] there are a couple of different

[1:52:31] safety models that are used

[1:52:32] throughout the nation and those

[1:52:35] safety models have expert

[1:52:37] trainers that come and put on

[1:52:40] those trainings so they do

[1:52:41] continuous training in these

[1:52:41] safety models

[1:52:44] and and also consultative

[1:52:48] supervision this work is

[1:52:50] intended to enhance the skills

[1:52:51] that our staff have in gathering

[1:52:53] sufficient information accu

[1:52:55] accurately identifying caregiver

[1:52:57] protective capacities impending

[1:52:59] dangers and determining child

[1:53:02] safety. so we are committed to

[1:53:03] continuing to enhance staff's

[1:53:07] expertise in this model and

[1:53:10] you know it does take some time

[1:53:11] for staff to reach proficiency

[1:53:11] in this

[1:53:14] model and the turnover that

[1:53:16] was mentioned can be

[1:53:18] problematic as as we work to

[1:53:20] ensure that our staff have

[1:53:21] that adequate level of training

[1:53:24] but we continue to work with

[1:53:26] the national experts who are

[1:53:27] available to do this training

[1:53:28] for our staff and I don't know

[1:53:30] if any of my colleagues have

[1:53:31] anything else to add.

[1:53:43] please follow it

[1:53:43] please follow us

[1:53:45] it was it was just open silence

[1:53:46] so

[1:53:48] with the ha I mean

[1:53:51] so how long does it take for

[1:53:54] them to be proficient? Is there

[1:53:55] something that the legislature

[1:53:56] can do when you talk about high

[1:53:59] turnover of staff in this

[1:53:59] particular area

[1:54:04] what is it that is creating the

[1:54:05] high turnover

[1:54:12] Stacy Dastrip for the record

[1:54:15] the the job is hard it's hard to

[1:54:17] to deal with with families on

[1:54:18] the worst day of their life and

[1:54:20] make that determination if kids

[1:54:22] are safe or unsafe. it's a

[1:54:23] difficult there's a lot of

[1:54:26] compassion fatigue we have

[1:54:28] been we hold about four

[1:54:29] academies a year and the

[1:54:32] academies are1 to12 weeks long

[1:54:33] and

[1:54:36] to become proficient in the

[1:54:38] model probably takes about three

[1:54:40] years to have a complete

[1:54:42] understanding and be completely

[1:54:43] comfortable with it but right

[1:54:44] now at clark County

[1:54:47] Familyervices we don't have very

[1:54:49] many senior staff anymore we're

[1:54:50] probably right around that

[1:54:52] threeyear mark if we were to

[1:54:53] average how long people have

[1:54:54] been here. it's just it's a very

[1:54:57] hard job and to do it everyday

[1:54:58] and

[1:55:01] you know just dealing with

[1:55:02] people on the on the lowest time

[1:55:03] of their life

[1:55:08] so do we have anything in place

[1:55:09] at the clark countunty level? I

[1:55:11] mean I know we we've had this

[1:55:12] discussion in this committee on

[1:55:14] government affairs where we've

[1:55:15] talked about you know peer to

[1:55:17] peer support within the

[1:55:19] responder community what is the

[1:55:23] peer to peer support for this

[1:55:25] particular role, how how do we

[1:55:27] deal with the mental health

[1:55:29] issues? how do we deal with the

[1:55:30] compassion fatigue? what is it

[1:55:33] that's in place so you know I

[1:55:34] could see you know constantly

[1:55:35] having to

[1:55:39] you know deal with a a certain

[1:55:40] level of imagery or you know

[1:55:43] being inundated emotionally but

[1:55:47] what's the backstop? what do we

[1:55:48] have in place or has there never

[1:55:49] been anything in

[1:55:54] Stacydastrip for the record

[1:55:56] thank you for that question.

[1:55:58] within our county we do have

[1:56:00] different resources that they

[1:56:02] can use that the staff have

[1:56:04] access to and we also have

[1:56:06] what we call a stat team that is

[1:56:09] a committee of our own own

[1:56:11] employees that the staff have

[1:56:13] access to with they understand

[1:56:14] because not everybody

[1:56:16] understands what goes on and so

[1:56:18] and sometimes makes it a little

[1:56:21] bit easier if you can talk to

[1:56:21] somebody that knows what you

[1:56:24] ' re going through and then we

[1:56:26] do try to to build morale we'll

[1:56:28] do different you know

[1:56:29] different events you know

[1:56:32] highlight people different kudos

[1:56:34] try to give incentive hours

[1:56:36] we just we try to do as much as

[1:56:37] we can to keep the people that

[1:56:38] we can

[1:56:47] m emb ers any additional

[1:56:47] questions

[1:56:51] somely remember one

[1:56:58] thank you chair and thank you

[1:56:59] again for all your work. I know

[1:57:02] you have said the word that

[1:57:04] kind of stay with me is that

[1:57:05] compassion fatigue right? I

[1:57:07] think in that line of work

[1:57:09] there's so much anxiety.

[1:57:10] there's so many different

[1:57:12] variables that play with it and

[1:57:13] of course then you gotta

[1:57:15] audit committee on top of it

[1:57:17] trying to find out what's going

[1:57:18] on and he had to like repeat

[1:57:19] yourself right so I think the

[1:57:23] the work is very very exhausting

[1:57:24] and I I I wanna make sure I

[1:57:26] press you know you and your

[1:57:28] colleagues work statewide in

[1:57:29] terms of making sure that our

[1:57:31] children are protected. Now you

[1:57:34] mentioned in your statement

[1:57:35] that you know there are

[1:57:36] framework that exists already

[1:57:41] such as43b or'm sorry32B and

[1:57:42] I know that the432B

[1:57:46] only focuses on the child death

[1:57:48] reviews team right? so they only

[1:57:50] focus when there's already a

[1:57:53] fatality is there a framework

[1:57:55] to review the and and and I

[1:57:58] forgot to ask earlier on when

[1:58:00] the audit group was here

[1:58:02] whether the number of fatality

[1:58:04] versus the near fatality you

[1:58:05] know

[1:58:08] differ too much and even though

[1:58:11] yes we have a child death review

[1:58:13] team that are assessing over the

[1:58:14] situation but I think there's

[1:58:15] still a lot of

[1:58:18] work to be done on that near

[1:58:20] fatality right so that we can

[1:58:22] reduce that number

[1:58:24] do you think the current

[1:58:26] process that is already in place

[1:58:31] is strong enough for your

[1:58:32] statutory framework

[1:58:37] and bring more attention to

[1:58:37] the topic

[1:58:40] or should we make some

[1:58:42] improvement in terms of looking

[1:58:45] at cases that are still you know

[1:58:48] salvageable and be able to

[1:58:49] provide some support around that

[1:58:56] ki m ber ly Abbott for the

[1:58:58] record I think quality

[1:59:00] continuous quality improvement

[1:59:02] is a federal requirement that

[1:59:04] we're all as agencies required

[1:59:06] to engage in as part of the work

[1:59:08] that we do so we do have quality

[1:59:10] assurance teams within our

[1:59:14] agencies that are looking at all

[1:59:15] kinds of different outcomes

[1:59:16] there are a variety of different

[1:59:18] outcomes we have to have to

[1:59:19] report for the federal

[1:59:20] government as we're sitting here

[1:59:23] today the federal Children's

[1:59:23] bureau is sitting with our

[1:59:24] colleagues and probably

[1:59:26] looking for the four of us as

[1:59:28] they're giving us some responses

[1:59:30] back as they did a4e audit on

[1:59:32] the financial side of some

[1:59:34] things so there are a number of

[1:59:35] things in place on the federal

[1:59:37] level with our reporting as well

[1:59:38] as under the the federal and

[1:59:40] state requirements for our

[1:59:42] continuous quality improvement

[1:59:44] we're constantly looking at

[1:59:46] how we can improve that as well

[1:59:50] in fact at umdcFs across

[1:59:51] our division we've made some

[1:59:52] changes in the reporting

[1:59:53] structure of our quality

[1:59:53] assurance teams so they

[1:59:56] ' re reporting up through a

[1:59:58] separate entity not through the

[2:00:00] the program director who who is

[2:00:02] their boss essentially right

[2:00:04] when they're trying to to

[2:00:05] answer questions about

[2:00:06] accountability and how we're

[2:00:09] doing in our programming and

[2:00:10] I know we just made a shift

[2:00:12] moving some of our child death

[2:00:14] review work under our policy

[2:00:16] and evaluation unit so it has

[2:00:18] a different reporting structure

[2:00:19] and a little bit of a

[2:00:20] different approach than we've

[2:00:23] taken before so I don't have any

[2:00:23] specific suggestions at the

[2:00:24] moment

[2:00:26] as far as needing additional

[2:00:28] statutory support but

[2:00:30] certainly I would defer if my

[2:00:31] colleagues have anything.

[2:00:37] I don't think anyone else is a

[2:00:40] going to respond so quick follow

[2:00:42] up chair so to the other point

[2:00:44] that you also made earlier about

[2:00:46] the framework having three years

[2:00:49] to completely master it and then

[2:00:49] you also mentioned something

[2:00:50] that I kind of

[2:00:53] alarmed a little bit that there

[2:00:56] is a lack of seniority in terms

[2:00:59] of thecFS makeup is that

[2:01:01] happening statewide or is that

[2:01:01] just specific to clark county

[2:01:06] this is Ryangustafson R Y A N G

[2:01:07] U S T A F S O N.

[2:01:09] I am the

[2:01:12] assistant county manager in

[2:01:14] washoe County and was previously

[2:01:16] the director of the human

[2:01:19] services agency I I can't say

[2:01:22] that that is an ongoing issue I

[2:01:24] I believe statewide I think our

[2:01:27] vacancy rates probably vary from

[2:01:30] from year to year we do also

[2:01:33] face the the gap in the long

[2:01:34] term institutional knowledge

[2:01:36] that tends to sit with our

[2:01:38] supervisor's coordinators higher

[2:01:39] level positions as they move up

[2:01:42] into the agency with their

[2:01:44] experience I I do think though

[2:01:45] that when you are at the

[2:01:48] caseworker level we certainly

[2:01:50] see a a more limited

[2:01:52] experience level with those

[2:01:54] folks they're there are tools in

[2:01:56] place even with our job

[2:01:57] classification system that works

[2:02:00] towards acknowledging

[2:02:01] rewarding those staff and that

[2:02:03] we have three different levels

[2:02:04] of caseworkers where you can

[2:02:06] auto progress into through

[2:02:08] that series which comes with

[2:02:09] additional responsibilities

[2:02:09] but also additional

[2:02:12] pay and other perks that come

[2:02:15] with that but I would say

[2:02:20] that I having caseworkers

[2:02:21] with more than five years'

[2:02:22] experience is pretty rare

[2:02:24] because usually at that time

[2:02:25] they're shifting into

[2:02:28] supervisory roles as staff

[2:02:29] pushed through the agency over

[2:02:30] the years.

[2:02:35] ki m ber ly Abbott for the

[2:02:38] record I would agree we

[2:02:40] have a lot of newer caseworkers

[2:02:42] across the state we have some

[2:02:44] with seniority but but many

[2:02:46] newer workers and I think in our

[2:02:48] 15 rural counties these issues

[2:02:51] are even compounded by the

[2:02:53] challenges with just the

[2:02:55] availability of workforce and

[2:02:56] some of our smaller communities

[2:02:59] and I think as Missasstrip said

[2:03:00] this is incredibly hard work.

[2:03:02] it's incredibly hardworking

[2:03:03] Clark when the chances of

[2:03:03] knowing the

[2:03:06] persons whose home you're

[2:03:08] responding to is slim it happens

[2:03:10] from time to time I think in our

[2:03:12] rural communities it is their

[2:03:13] friends, their neighbors, people

[2:03:14] from their schools their

[2:03:16] congregations that they're

[2:03:17] responding to their homes right

[2:03:19] when they're because they are

[2:03:20] such small communities and

[2:03:23] and everyone knows everyone.

[2:03:24] I think that adds an an added

[2:03:26] toll for some of our workers

[2:03:29] and making this challenging

[2:03:29] work even more challenging

[2:03:36] thank you chair. so I I think

[2:03:37] this is just more of a comment

[2:03:38] but I I do

[2:03:41] realize that there are always

[2:03:44] staffing issues up and down

[2:03:45] the state not just your agencies

[2:03:47] but you know across some of our

[2:03:49] other agencies and I know that

[2:03:50] the vicechair said earlier that

[2:03:53] you know the number of case load

[2:03:55] per staff you know that could be

[2:03:57] one of the reasons that you know

[2:03:58] trigger some of these

[2:04:01] turnover or lack of seniority

[2:04:02] just because the amount of work

[2:04:04] and the amount of volume that

[2:04:06] you all have to deal with on top

[2:04:07] of fulfilling all the

[2:04:08] requirements it is taxing

[2:04:11] on everyone that's involved and

[2:04:12] and I do want to recognize that

[2:04:14] and don't wanna appreciate all

[2:04:15] the work that you all do

[2:04:17] everyday to help the children of

[2:04:18] our state so thank you thank you

[2:04:19] chair.

[2:04:23] and thank you members any

[2:04:23] additional questions

[2:04:30] seeing none and I don't believe

[2:04:32] we we have anything from senator

[2:04:33] Krasner who's also joining us

[2:04:34] via webexx.

[2:04:38] now thank you thank you all

[2:04:39] again for for joining us today

[2:04:40] thank you for your time

[2:04:41] appreciate you

[2:04:43] and with that we'll go ahead and

[2:04:44] close out that item and we

[2:04:46] move on to the next item on the

[2:04:47] agenda which is item number6

[2:04:50] where you are very close members

[2:04:53] to public comment I'd like to

[2:04:55] hand it over to our policy

[2:04:58] analyst Mryonsinizbec who can

[2:05:00] walk us through the work

[2:05:01] session item.

[2:05:09] thank you chair for the record

[2:05:11] youngnespek with the research

[2:05:12] vision of the letter of

[2:05:14] councilorro as nonpartisan staff

[2:05:17] I can advocate for nor against a

[2:05:17] measure that comes performance

[2:05:18] committee

[2:05:20] with that at the direction of

[2:05:22] the chairman to walk me briefly

[2:05:23] through the work session

[2:05:24] document which you should

[2:05:25] have in front of you which is

[2:05:26] uploaded to the website as well

[2:05:31] one important not is that

[2:05:35] pursuant tonrs to18D.160 the

[2:05:36] committee is limited to 10 as

[2:05:39] their measures total any

[2:05:41] recommended legislation proposed

[2:05:42] by the committee must be

[2:05:44] approved by a majority of the

[2:05:45] senate members and the majority

[2:05:46] of the assembly members serving

[2:05:47] on the committee for for

[2:05:51] subsection three of Nrs218E.325

[2:05:52] and

[2:05:56] the chair selection when we

[2:05:57] walked through the first

[2:05:58] recommendation that's

[2:05:59] recommendation A one

[2:06:02] which is to request the

[2:06:04] drafting of the bill to expand

[2:06:06] the trail connector distance

[2:06:10] described in interest490.090 for

[2:06:13] Rhyway vehicles from 2 to5

[2:06:15] miles. This was at the

[2:06:17] request of of the chair thank

[2:06:17] you

[2:06:22] thank you for thatembers I

[2:06:24] have brought forth conversations

[2:06:26] around offhighway vehicles and

[2:06:29] access to trails what we are

[2:06:31] hoping to achieve here is make

[2:06:32] it easier presently

[2:06:35] there's a huge market out

[2:06:38] there and Nevada is perfect

[2:06:40] for the offhighway vehicle

[2:06:41] environment just because we have

[2:06:43] so much such a vast amount of

[2:06:45] land that is federal so it's

[2:06:47] very friendly for for people to

[2:06:49] be able to participate in that

[2:06:51] type of activity. we just want

[2:06:52] to make it easier for folks to

[2:06:54] access those trails avoid them

[2:06:56] having to put everything on a

[2:06:59] trailer and then move to a

[2:07:01] location leave all their stuff

[2:07:02] unsecured go enjoy the trails

[2:07:06] come back a few hours later and

[2:07:07] having left their truck there

[2:07:09] their trailer there so we're

[2:07:10] just trying to make it easier so

[2:07:11] that people can access those

[2:07:13] trails maybe leave all that

[2:07:14] stuff at home and can just jump

[2:07:16] on their off highway vehicles

[2:07:18] access the trail comeback.

[2:07:19] that's the intent and I just

[2:07:20] wanted to put that on

[2:07:21] everybody's radar

[2:07:22] specifically as to what we were

[2:07:23] doing there at this time I'd

[2:07:24] like to entertain

[2:07:25] a motion

[2:07:33] make the motions thank you at

[2:07:35] this time vice vicechair has

[2:07:37] made the motion to request a

[2:07:38] drafting of the bill to expand

[2:07:40] the trail connector distance

[2:07:42] described in NrS490 for

[2:07:43] offhighway vehicles from 2 miles

[2:07:44] to5 miles to have a second

[2:07:48] assembly member Flanagan has

[2:07:49] second that members any

[2:07:50] discussion

[2:07:54] seeing none all those in favor

[2:07:55] please signify by saying i

[2:07:55] those against the

[2:07:59] motion carries unanimously thank

[2:08:00] you

[2:08:01] Mr Stinbeck please

[2:08:06] ja in s pe with research

[2:08:08] division of thelCB the second

[2:08:09] item on the work session

[2:08:12] document is B2 which is

[2:08:13] the to request the drafting of a

[2:08:15] bill to provides provisions

[2:08:16] governing the public hearing

[2:08:19] process of the pucCN and to

[2:08:20] improve public access was based

[2:08:22] on recommendations submitted by

[2:08:24] the Nevadavironmental justice

[2:08:27] coalition and suggested

[2:08:28] recommendations are attached to

[2:08:29] work session document as well

[2:08:30] thank you chairir.

[2:08:34] thank you Mr Stin is back.

[2:08:37] I I do wanna preface it preface

[2:08:39] this particular item by saying

[2:08:42] thank you to both the PucC and

[2:08:44] to miss Jackie Spicer with

[2:08:45] the Nevadanvironmental justice

[2:08:47] coalition who have had an

[2:08:48] opportunity to discuss a

[2:08:50] specifically the recommendations

[2:08:53] on here for clarity we wanted

[2:08:55] to just let the committee

[2:08:55] know

[2:08:58] that specifically in the

[2:08:58] language attached

[2:09:01] there is a reference to

[2:09:05] when there is consumer sessions

[2:09:07] that those comments solicited

[2:09:10] she'll be considered to have to

[2:09:14] be an evidentiary the that is

[2:09:15] misleading. it it is not that

[2:09:17] they they will have any type of

[2:09:20] evidentiary probative value the

[2:09:22] intent of the folk who have

[2:09:24] worked on this language was for

[2:09:26] them to ensure that that that

[2:09:27] every time we're asking for

[2:09:29] input from the community they

[2:09:30] want to make sure that that that

[2:09:31] is being memorialized that

[2:09:31] somehow it has become part of

[2:09:34] some record. So rather than

[2:09:36] utilizing that language and

[2:09:37] cause confusion

[2:09:40] along with some of the other

[2:09:41] recommendations included on here

[2:09:44] we wanted to instead of doing

[2:09:46] that providing some broader

[2:09:48] language that will allow both

[2:09:49] the pucCN and the

[2:09:51] nevadanvironmental justice

[2:09:53] coalition folk led by Miss

[2:09:54] Spicer in this particular

[2:09:55] subject matter that they

[2:09:55] continue to meet

[2:09:59] and find neutral ground on

[2:10:01] things that we can do together

[2:10:04] to improve accessibility

[2:10:05] PucCN has been more than

[2:10:06] clear that that is their intent

[2:10:08] that they've always wanted to

[2:10:09] ensure transparency,

[2:10:12] accessibility and that they

[2:10:14] believe that they they try to

[2:10:16] abide and do that at all times

[2:10:18] and that we understand also that

[2:10:19] the community has expressed a

[2:10:20] tremendous amount of frustration

[2:10:23] not not always understanding how

[2:10:24] the process works which is why

[2:10:25] we're trying to help here

[2:10:29] and both things can be true. it

[2:10:30] could be it is true that maybe

[2:10:31] the process can be very

[2:10:33] complicated and that the general

[2:10:34] public doesn't always know how

[2:10:35] to participate

[2:10:38] and it is also true that the

[2:10:40] pECN can be trying their best

[2:10:41] and and that we think we can

[2:10:43] work together on achieving those

[2:10:45] objectives together so rather

[2:10:47] than going off of this language

[2:10:50] and to give everybody comfort

[2:10:51] we would prefer to have more

[2:10:52] broader language

[2:10:56] as it reads specifically in the

[2:10:58] recommendation so rather than

[2:11:00] deferring to the language that

[2:11:03] was recommended that we

[2:11:04] request for the drafting of the

[2:11:05] bill to revise provisions

[2:11:07] governing public hearing process

[2:11:10] of the PucCN to improve public

[2:11:12] access. I think that is a very

[2:11:14] broad bucket it allows everybody

[2:11:15] to work towards that objective

[2:11:16] and it doesn't

[2:11:20] provide specific language that

[2:11:22] will cause alarm today and

[2:11:24] instead will allow us to work

[2:11:25] together so we want to do that

[2:11:26] so that we show that

[2:11:27] everybody's working in good

[2:11:29] faith. I do want to say thank

[2:11:31] you to Miss Jackie Spicer

[2:11:32] because I know that when there

[2:11:34] is an incident there was a a

[2:11:36] hearing where there was a lot of

[2:11:37] frustration. I know my flo ble

[2:11:39] blew up like many of the other

[2:11:41] members here had numerous text

[2:11:44] messages, emails, phone calls

[2:11:45] there was a lot of frustration

[2:11:45] from the community and we do not

[2:11:46] want to undermine

[2:11:49] that work and we do thank you

[2:11:51] for for bringing it forth. So

[2:11:51] with that said of members

[2:11:55] this is an opportunity for them

[2:11:57] to continue to work forward and

[2:11:58] I'd like to entertain emotions

[2:12:00] to request the bill draft to

[2:12:01] ris provision governing

[2:12:04] the public hearing process of

[2:12:06] the PucCN to improve public

[2:12:08] access and then we they will

[2:12:09] continue to work in good faith

[2:12:11] and then come back together with

[2:12:11] some language. Do I have

[2:12:12] emotion?

[2:12:16] motion to request a drafted bill

[2:12:19] thank you vicechair has made the

[2:12:20] motion. Do I have a second?

[2:12:23] Senator Neal has seconded that

[2:12:23] motion members any discussion

[2:12:25] assembly member call please

[2:12:30] thank you chair. I very much

[2:12:31] appreciate the clarification on

[2:12:33] the public comment piece I

[2:12:35] just wanted to know that I I

[2:12:36] kind of think that we're trying

[2:12:38] to fit a square peg into a round

[2:12:40] hole on this if the real goal

[2:12:42] is making sure ratepayer

[2:12:44] concerns carry real weight which

[2:12:46] we should. uhnevada already has

[2:12:48] a body built for that it's the

[2:12:50] bureau of Consumer Protection

[2:12:51] which is in the attorney

[2:12:53] general's office the BcP is

[2:12:54] authorized to represent utility

[2:12:56] customers as a real party and

[2:12:57] interest in pucCN proceedings

[2:13:00] it's funded for that purpose

[2:13:01] through the utility assessment

[2:13:03] and it exists to represent the

[2:13:04] broader public interest in

[2:13:06] Nevada residents. I think we

[2:13:07] need to ensure that all of our

[2:13:09] constituents know about this

[2:13:09] office and make sure there is a

[2:13:11] clear pathway for them to

[2:13:13] provide comments to them and

[2:13:14] I think that will actually

[2:13:15] address a lot of the concerns

[2:13:16] that we've heard from consumers

[2:13:17] because you're right we have

[2:13:19] heard a lot the officeice of

[2:13:21] attorney general is a really

[2:13:22] powerful office that could be

[2:13:24] doing more to provide meaningful

[2:13:25] representation of our

[2:13:27] citizenships our citizens if

[2:13:27] rate pair's voices

[2:13:29] aren't landing with enough

[2:13:30] weight the fixes to strengthen

[2:13:32] the office that already has

[2:13:33] standing in a formal seat

[2:13:37] thank you for thatembers any

[2:13:38] additional comments

[2:13:40] senator Neal please

[2:13:44] thank you chair

[2:13:47] so I recognize you know what's

[2:13:50] happening in in regards to the

[2:13:52] community and the PucC and

[2:13:54] I'm hoping that the parties

[2:13:55] continue to work to try to find

[2:14:00] the best policy as they move

[2:14:02] forward and so I'm grateful that

[2:14:03] you guys were able to have a

[2:14:05] meeting before this work session

[2:14:06] so you could kind of you know

[2:14:08] talk some more and that you will

[2:14:10] continue to have conversation

[2:14:12] I won't add the rest

[2:14:20] thank you chair you members

[2:14:21] any additional comments seeing

[2:14:22] none all those in favor

[2:14:24] oh yes please somebodyer

[2:14:25] flanigan.

[2:14:28] thank you Mr chairir maybe

[2:14:30] the ditto a little bit of

[2:14:31] senator neal's comments

[2:14:36] and just to say thank you to you

[2:14:37] because I did receive some phone

[2:14:39] calls about that language so I'm

[2:14:40] happy to hear that they'll be

[2:14:42] continuing to work together and

[2:14:43] I think that any time we have

[2:14:45] concerns that raise the eyebrows

[2:14:47] of the public in general where

[2:14:48] those discussions are had is

[2:14:51] where citizens should be able to

[2:14:53] offer their concerns and have

[2:14:55] their concerns heard and

[2:14:57] responded to so I hope that we

[2:14:59] do find some way forward that

[2:15:01] doesn't place their comments in

[2:15:03] a box or limit how they're

[2:15:06] heard but make sure they're

[2:15:09] present in real time and

[2:15:10] responded to with some some

[2:15:11] sensitivities. thank you.

[2:15:13] thank you some remember

[2:15:15] anybody else any additional

[2:15:15] comments I want to make sure I

[2:15:16] don't

[2:15:17] inadvertently skip anybody

[2:15:20] seeing none all those in favor

[2:15:21] please signify by saying ii

[2:15:23] those again say nay

[2:15:27] please let the record reflect

[2:15:28] assembly members in a all other

[2:15:32] members in a motion carries and

[2:15:35] I will echo the the energy of

[2:15:37] s assembly member Flanigan

[2:15:40] andneal that had individuals

[2:15:42] not spoken up and not activated

[2:15:44] not worked together we wouldn't

[2:15:45] be having this conversation

[2:15:46] today so you are being heard and

[2:15:47] I don't want to minimize that

[2:15:48] and

[2:15:51] reemphasize how important it is

[2:15:52] that you recognize that this is

[2:15:53] your space

[2:15:53] and that we do this for you

[2:15:57] with that we will move on to

[2:15:58] the next item Mr Stinisbeck

[2:15:59] please.

[2:16:01] for the record again since bit

[2:16:03] with the research original

[2:16:06] atlCB the next recommendation

[2:16:08] of the work says document is C3

[2:16:10] here's the request drafting a

[2:16:11] bill to divine persons

[2:16:13] experiencing homelessness and to

[2:16:14] clarify protected rights of such

[2:16:16] persons as well as at the

[2:16:17] request of Samuel.

[2:16:21] Senator Neal if you wanted to

[2:16:22] expand just briefly on on some

[2:16:23] of the items that we were

[2:16:24] thinking about working on there

[2:16:30] and here similar to the previous

[2:16:31] item we want to make sure that

[2:16:33] we allow space to continue to

[2:16:36] work towards an objective but

[2:16:37] if we could put some parameters

[2:16:38] and they'll sender and you had

[2:16:39] some ideas of what we can do and

[2:16:42] hopefully help and also just

[2:16:43] for everybody's kind of

[2:16:43] understandingenatorneal in the

[2:16:44] past

[2:16:46] has been involved in trying

[2:16:48] to bring working coalitions

[2:16:50] around this issue and so I

[2:16:52] appreciate her continuing her

[2:16:53] work in this space.

[2:16:57] Thank you chairir. I'm trying to

[2:17:00] pull up. I just want to make

[2:17:01] sure that so the

[2:17:06] housing bill of well if you

[2:17:08] want to talk about protected

[2:17:09] rights of such persons

[2:17:13] I just want to be clear that

[2:17:14] there were recommendations that

[2:17:17] were submitted to the chair and

[2:17:19] there was some review over those

[2:17:21] recommendations not all of those

[2:17:23] recommendations will go forward.

[2:17:27] some of them were really

[2:17:29] extreme we are looking to find

[2:17:30] middle ground where you know you

[2:17:33] have the right to you know

[2:17:36] dignity services but not

[2:17:38] necessarily to the point where

[2:17:39] we're actually creating rights

[2:17:40] for

[2:17:44] true squatters like that is not

[2:17:47] the goal here there was a

[2:17:50] request to try to put some

[2:17:53] oh

[2:17:53] you want to call

[2:17:58] more protections for homeless

[2:18:01] persons but one of the key

[2:18:03] pieces that I know we wanted to

[2:18:06] deal with was we've been

[2:18:07] guess addressing this issue for

[2:18:10] a long time was that when

[2:18:11] children are being put in the

[2:18:11] shelter

[2:18:14] there's been a long standing

[2:18:16] rule to separate children in the

[2:18:18] shelter from their family. Now

[2:18:22] what we had heard from the

[2:18:23] domestic violence groups was

[2:18:25] that if a child is like a male

[2:18:27] child that's you know12 years

[2:18:29] old and and women have been

[2:18:31] traumatized and they don't want

[2:18:34] to see a male in the facility

[2:18:36] that the male child is in

[2:18:38] separated and then put with

[2:18:41] adult males in a homeless

[2:18:41] facility. we want to

[2:18:46] prevent separation of children

[2:18:47] period

[2:18:50] if they're young children when

[2:18:52] they go into a shelter we want

[2:18:54] to make sure that the children

[2:18:56] and that there's a right for the

[2:18:57] family to stay together. we know

[2:18:58] that there is some internal

[2:19:00] policies but sometimes those

[2:19:04] policies are are not met that

[2:19:06] was one of the key areas that we

[2:19:07] know because you know if a child

[2:19:09] is separated it's already trauma

[2:19:10] right if you've lost the home

[2:19:12] there's already trauma if a

[2:19:13] child is then put into a

[2:19:16] homeless shelter and then

[2:19:18] they're now across the way from

[2:19:20] their mother who they feel most

[2:19:22] safe with in their other

[2:19:25] siblings and now the male child

[2:19:26] is also put in danger

[2:19:30] by being hailed with other

[2:19:32] adult males in a homeless

[2:19:33] shelter and so that was one of

[2:19:35] the key things that was not in

[2:19:36] their document that they gave to

[2:19:37] us but was added

[2:19:40] so they're I guess they're

[2:19:41] learning it today that that is

[2:19:44] in addition to their document

[2:19:46] but I just wanted to put that on

[2:19:47] the record to try to help

[2:19:48] because there were there were a

[2:19:50] list of things but that was one

[2:19:51] of the key areas that I know I

[2:19:53] wanted to add without getting

[2:19:53] too you know

[2:19:58] extreme in in in the list of

[2:19:59] rights that were provided to us

[2:20:01] thank you and thank you

[2:20:03] senatorneal just for clarity

[2:20:04] there there is a

[2:20:06] there's a group of folks that

[2:20:09] are working on unhod issues

[2:20:09] outside of of

[2:20:10] this committee's

[2:20:12] conversation

[2:20:17] and in those conversations they

[2:20:18] they had to compile the list of

[2:20:19] things that they were interested

[2:20:22] in the ones that are being

[2:20:24] considered for us without

[2:20:25] specific language but that we

[2:20:28] would move forward in trying to

[2:20:30] find the language with the

[2:20:31] consensus of the stakeholders

[2:20:31] are as follows

[2:20:35] number one it's going to be

[2:20:38] whaten Ne just addressed when

[2:20:39] there's children there's several

[2:20:39] children

[2:20:43] that to the extent possible

[2:20:44] we're not limiting we're not

[2:20:48] separating the families.umber12

[2:20:50] the confidentiality of private

[2:20:52] information person identifiable

[2:20:54] information of individuals that

[2:20:55] were respectful and and to the

[2:20:56] extent possible we're always

[2:20:58] protecting that.umber3 that

[2:20:59] there's always a safe discharge

[2:21:01] plan

[2:21:03] particularly when there's the

[2:21:06] involvement of of minors and

[2:21:08] then number4 that there's always

[2:21:11] a safety of victims of

[2:21:11] crimes planned

[2:21:13] when we're working with

[2:21:15] vulnerable communities including

[2:21:16] our unhoused because there's

[2:21:17] always a concern

[2:21:19] that after they've received some

[2:21:21] services there's no wrapround

[2:21:22] that continues afterwards

[2:21:26] so those are those are the focus

[2:21:28] of of today's conversation and

[2:21:30] that would be what the continued

[2:21:32] working committee and working

[2:21:33] group for the inhouse would

[2:21:34] focus on. so with that I'd like

[2:21:35] to entertain emotion

[2:21:40] ed ri ne has made the motion

[2:21:43] and assembly member has

[2:21:44] second that members any

[2:21:45] discussion

[2:21:48] seeing none all those in favor

[2:21:49] please signify by saying aye

[2:21:52] those again say nay

[2:21:56] and motion carries unanimously

[2:21:58] thank you and next we'll move to

[2:22:01] item number d as in dog Mr

[2:22:01] Stin isbe please.

[2:22:08] you chair Youson'spe with the

[2:22:09] reasons mission of thelCB

[2:22:14] d 4 is to request drafting of a

[2:22:15] bill to implement the

[2:22:16] recommendation of the purple

[2:22:17] ribbon task force relating to

[2:22:20] the wellbeing of firefighter

[2:22:22] and peace officers this is based

[2:22:24] in part information presented by

[2:22:28] the task force on Julyinth and

[2:22:29] we subs subsequent

[2:22:30] recommendations. thank you

[2:22:30] chair.

[2:22:33] thank you Mrinnebec members just

[2:22:35] as you all know there is a a

[2:22:36] purple ribbon task forcece that

[2:22:37] is now meeting it is

[2:22:41] it consists of having mostly

[2:22:43] excuse me consisting of

[2:22:46] having members who are presently

[2:22:48] our first responders who

[2:22:50] are working every day in very

[2:22:53] high stress environments and the

[2:22:55] intention of the creation of

[2:22:57] that particular group was to

[2:22:59] allow professionals from this

[2:23:00] the space to make

[2:23:02] recommendations on how they

[2:23:05] could better deal with just

[2:23:07] their high stressors and what we

[2:23:07] can do to help when it comes to

[2:23:09] mental health and other issues

[2:23:12] etc. We do not sit on that

[2:23:14] committee as legislators but

[2:23:15] we did want to give them an

[2:23:16] opportunity to continue to meet.

[2:23:19] they've already met now

[2:23:20] but we want to we know that

[2:23:22] there is not a recommendation

[2:23:23] from them to us yet

[2:23:24] but we want to have a

[2:23:26] placeholder in case they do come

[2:23:28] up with a recommendation that we

[2:23:30] have the bill draft ready for

[2:23:32] them to utilize should they not

[2:23:34] find anything that they like or

[2:23:36] they don't find consensus or

[2:23:38] they're just not there then we

[2:23:39] just simply won't do anything

[2:23:40] but we are kind of waiting for

[2:23:41] them to give us something but

[2:23:42] they still need more time so

[2:23:44] that's what this would be and

[2:23:45] it'd be a placeholder for that

[2:23:46] particular group who's

[2:23:49] meeting I'd like to entertain

[2:23:49] emotion

[2:23:52] assembly memberwynn has made the

[2:23:53] motion

[2:23:53] to have a second

[2:23:59] assembly member conadine

[2:24:01] vicechair has has seconded that

[2:24:01] members in any discussion

[2:24:04] seeing none all those in favor

[2:24:06] please signify by saying iii

[2:24:07] those again say he

[2:24:11] motion carries unanimously. Next

[2:24:13] is item D5.

[2:24:19] for the record younginspec with

[2:24:21] the research vision of LZB a

[2:24:21] recommendation D5

[2:24:24] is to request the drafting of

[2:24:26] a bill to require law

[2:24:28] enforcement agencies to s sub

[2:24:30] submit standardized reports on

[2:24:31] enforcement activity occurring

[2:24:33] during special events and other

[2:24:35] large scale events including

[2:24:36] public demonstrations and

[2:24:38] protests and to admit that

[2:24:41] that Saraice reports to the the

[2:24:42] malesa nature this was at the

[2:24:43] request of vicechair

[2:24:43] counseling thank you chair.

[2:24:46] and next I'll hand it over to

[2:24:47] vicechair

[2:24:50] thank you chair so this

[2:24:51] request for a draft came out of

[2:24:52] the meeting that we held back in

[2:24:55] April and the the purpose for

[2:24:58] this is to first there's still

[2:24:59] some meetings that need to go on

[2:25:00] there we don't have any final

[2:25:02] language but to determine the

[2:25:04] impact on law enforcement of the

[2:25:08] use of the number the cost of

[2:25:09] the materials that are being

[2:25:12] used for these large events

[2:25:14] scale large scale events and

[2:25:16] public demonstrations and also

[2:25:17] to create

[2:25:19] a plan for transparency of that

[2:25:20] information for the public and

[2:25:21] for the legislature.

[2:25:22] thank you chair

[2:25:30] and some member call please.

[2:25:35] thank you chair and thank you

[2:25:36] vicechair. I think that that

[2:25:37] might have answered my question

[2:25:39] so this is really more about the

[2:25:41] cost that is associated we're

[2:25:44] not gonna include any kind of

[2:25:46] like sensitive information like

[2:25:47] staffing levels staging

[2:25:49] locations resources tactics that

[2:25:50] are used that could pose a

[2:25:51] public safety issue

[2:25:54] thank you for that question.

[2:25:56] there's no intention to pro to

[2:25:57] provide information that would

[2:25:58] cause safety issues it's more

[2:26:00] about understanding the impact

[2:26:02] on the budget on the amount of

[2:26:04] information that we have how

[2:26:08] like a sort of a discussion to

[2:26:09] find out if we as the

[2:26:10] legislature need to be doing

[2:26:11] more to support

[2:26:13] thank you I appreciate that

[2:26:14] you

[2:26:18] m emb ers any additional

[2:26:19] questions

[2:26:21] seen on it at this time I'd like

[2:26:23] to entertain a motion to request

[2:26:23] a drafting of a bill

[2:26:26] as indicated by vicechair

[2:26:27] consonant

[2:26:33] ed er ne has made that motion to

[2:26:34] have a second

[2:26:38] assembly member flanagan has

[2:26:39] seconded that motion members any

[2:26:40] discussion

[2:26:42] seeing none

[2:27:03] this time at like 2 I've taken

[2:27:04] the motion I've seconded it no

[2:27:06] comment all those in favor

[2:27:07] please signify by saying ii

[2:27:08] those against say nay

[2:27:10] motion carries unanimously

[2:27:13] Next we'll move on to agenda

[2:27:14] excuse me item number6.

[2:27:18] photo record againstins but with

[2:27:20] the recent division of thelCB

[2:27:23] item6 D6 is to request a

[2:27:23] draft of a bill provides

[2:27:24] provisions relating to peace

[2:27:27] officers labor organizations

[2:27:27] including topics such as

[2:27:28] collective bargaining,

[2:27:30] disciplinary procedures and

[2:27:32] transparency in certain personal

[2:27:33] that matters was based on

[2:27:34] information presented by the

[2:27:36] public safetyines of Nevada on

[2:27:37] July9th,2026. Thank you chair.

[2:27:42] Members before we continue with

[2:27:44] this particular item I did want

[2:27:45] to provide some further context

[2:27:46] I know earlier during public

[2:27:48] comment we had an opportunity to

[2:27:50] hear from some of our of our

[2:27:51] partners up in northern Nevada.

[2:27:52] I wanted to make it abundantly

[2:27:54] clear that we will not move

[2:27:56] forward with this item should

[2:27:58] there not be a meeting of the

[2:28:00] minds between admin and labor.

[2:28:02] I've had an opportunity to speak

[2:28:03] both with Captain Martinez and

[2:28:05] Mr Adrian Hunt and to make

[2:28:07] that abundantly clear this is

[2:28:08] only to allow them an

[2:28:09] opportunity to continue to meet

[2:28:12] with for example Mr John Abel

[2:28:14] who came and presented some of

[2:28:16] their concerns that they had. it

[2:28:18] is true that at that time we did

[2:28:20] not have an an opposing

[2:28:23] viewpoint from admman or any

[2:28:25] other really agency and law

[2:28:25] enforcement

[2:28:29] there were we considered the

[2:28:30] opportunity of having that

[2:28:32] conversation today but rather

[2:28:33] than having a full blown

[2:28:35] presentation we thought it just

[2:28:36] would make sense that they

[2:28:38] provide something in writing I

[2:28:39] think everybody's had an

[2:28:40] opportunity to review some of

[2:28:42] their concerns and then allow

[2:28:44] them to meet and continue to

[2:28:46] work together. if there's no

[2:28:48] meeting of the minds we simply

[2:28:49] do not move forward. this is not

[2:28:52] intended to force an a

[2:28:54] conversation or force the arm of

[2:28:55] one side or the other if there's

[2:28:56] something we can work together

[2:28:58] on this committee will entertain

[2:29:00] it if we can't get there then we

[2:29:03] simply will not move a bill so I

[2:29:04] just wanted to make that

[2:29:05] publicly clear that that is the

[2:29:07] intent to allow them to continue

[2:29:08] to work together if they get

[2:29:09] their great

[2:29:11] and if they can't which at times

[2:29:13] happens we simply don't continue

[2:29:14] to move forward with that

[2:29:15] recommendation

[2:29:17] with that said at this time

[2:29:20] I'd like to entertain a motion

[2:29:23] to request the drafting of a

[2:29:26] bill item6 in relation to the

[2:29:27] conversations that were brought

[2:29:29] forth by the public Safety

[2:29:30] alliance of Nevada on July92026.

[2:29:36] vicechair has made the motion.

[2:29:37] Do I have a second?

[2:29:44] Senator Neal has seconded that

[2:29:45] motion members any discussion

[2:29:49] seeing none all those in favor

[2:29:50] please signify by saying aye

[2:29:53] those again say nay

[2:29:54] nay

[2:29:58] please let the record reflect

[2:30:00] that senator Senator

[2:30:02] Crassner is an a

[2:30:04] motion carries and senator I

[2:30:06] promise you that if there's no

[2:30:08] consensus you won't even see

[2:30:09] this bill next session, promise.

[2:30:12] next on the item

[2:30:17] is item number7 under D

[2:30:17] please

[2:30:20] but a record againinspek with a

[2:30:24] research vision of thelCB D7

[2:30:25] is requests the drafting of a

[2:30:26] bill to address potential

[2:30:29] liability issues arising from

[2:30:31] memorandum of the standings

[2:30:32] between local law enforcement

[2:30:33] agencies and federal agencies

[2:30:34] relating to immigration

[2:30:36] enforcement this was the request

[2:30:37] from chairir Flores thank

[2:30:38] you.

[2:30:40] members as you may recall at the

[2:30:42] last meeting we had a

[2:30:43] conversation and we had an

[2:30:45] opportunity to hear from the

[2:30:46] officefice of new Americans we

[2:30:48] had the the director present

[2:30:49] and one of the questions that I

[2:30:51] asked during that

[2:30:53] presentation was whether or not

[2:30:55] we were ever shifting liability

[2:30:57] as you recall in that

[2:30:59] specific meeting they indicated

[2:31:00] that they were taking on some

[2:31:03] new responsibilities dealing

[2:31:04] with particular vulnerable

[2:31:05] members of the community

[2:31:07] involving even including

[2:31:11] asyless etc. and younger

[2:31:12] members of the population. One

[2:31:14] of the questions that I asked is

[2:31:15] if in assuming that

[2:31:16] responsibility to the office of

[2:31:18] the new Americans also took on

[2:31:20] liability where it would be

[2:31:21] shifted from the federal

[2:31:22] government to the state they

[2:31:24] indicated no, which I think

[2:31:26] should be the the general

[2:31:28] practice if we're gonna be

[2:31:29] engaging in activity

[2:31:31] where we're gonna take on the

[2:31:32] job of the federal government

[2:31:33] think the federal government

[2:31:34] should continue to hold all

[2:31:36] liability when it's the state

[2:31:37] assisting them in doing their

[2:31:38] job. So based on that

[2:31:41] mimicking what I saw there

[2:31:44] I I requested that we put

[2:31:46] specifically ensure that when we

[2:31:48] are entering into into these

[2:31:50] MOUs and if we're going to be

[2:31:52] cooperating that we're not

[2:31:53] shifting the liability to the

[2:31:55] state. the federal government is

[2:31:56] asking us to help them. they

[2:31:58] need to continue to hold on to

[2:32:00] the liability should anything

[2:32:01] ever happen somebody is hurt,

[2:32:02] there's a lawsuit etc. the

[2:32:03] federal government should be

[2:32:05] taking on that role not the

[2:32:05] state.

[2:32:07] with that I'd like to

[2:32:07] entertain emotion

[2:32:08] for item se

[2:32:14] vicechair conident has made the

[2:32:16] motion to request a drafting

[2:32:17] item7. do have a second?

[2:32:20] Senator Neal has seconded that

[2:32:21] motion members any discussion

[2:32:21] assembly member Co please

[2:32:26] thank you chair so I just

[2:32:28] have a question and I I

[2:32:29] appreciate the the liability

[2:32:31] aspect but is there is there any

[2:32:32] concern that it would

[2:32:34] functionally limit or discourage

[2:32:36] local agencies from entering

[2:32:38] into cooperative agreements with

[2:32:40] with any federal agencies or is

[2:32:41] it just immigration as well?

[2:32:43] so

[2:32:48] this would be any any M we use

[2:32:49] specifically being entered into

[2:32:53] where we are asked we are being

[2:32:54] asked to take on

[2:32:57] the federal the federal

[2:32:57] government

[2:33:00] liability so this is not

[2:33:02] meant in any way to discourage

[2:33:07] states from engaging in an MOU

[2:33:07] because we are saying

[2:33:10] if you want us to do something

[2:33:11] to help you we want to make sure

[2:33:12] that the liabilities is not

[2:33:14] being shifted over to us. so in

[2:33:16] other words we are not

[2:33:18] penalizing the agency for doing

[2:33:20] that we are just making sure

[2:33:21] that we're not taking on the

[2:33:21] liability aspect of it

[2:33:24] a hypothetical would be

[2:33:27] law enforcement enters into an

[2:33:28] MOU

[2:33:30] at the at the state level with

[2:33:32] the federal government engaging

[2:33:34] in that conduct and helping the

[2:33:35] federal government somebody gets

[2:33:38] hurt. that person who's hurt

[2:33:40] sues the state agency. I want to

[2:33:41] make sure that they're suing the

[2:33:42] federal government because we're

[2:33:44] in we're in essence helping them

[2:33:45] doing their job. I think they

[2:33:46] should continue to hold on to

[2:33:47] the liability

[2:33:49] thank you for that clarification

[2:33:52] thank you members any additional

[2:33:53] discussion

[2:33:56] seeing none all those in favor

[2:33:57] please signify by saying i those

[2:33:58] against say nay

[2:34:02] motion carries unanimously. Next

[2:34:05] we'll move on to item E as in

[2:34:08] editor. I use myself

[2:34:11] number8 Mr Stinisbec please

[2:34:17] ajansen has a record E8 request

[2:34:18] to request a drafting of a bill

[2:34:20] to establish standards for the

[2:34:21] use of artificial intelligence

[2:34:22] by state and local government

[2:34:24] entities including requirements

[2:34:26] relating to transparency and

[2:34:27] accountability, protections

[2:34:29] against bias and automated

[2:34:30] decision making as well as at

[2:34:31] the request ofer me thank you

[2:34:31] chair.

[2:34:36] thank you and members as you

[2:34:38] all may recall in the past we've

[2:34:39] already engaged in this

[2:34:41] particular conversation. the

[2:34:42] biggest concern that we've taken

[2:34:44] on in the past two years but

[2:34:46] really for more than that is

[2:34:48] anytime that Ai is being

[2:34:51] utilized to make decisions on

[2:34:52] whether to grant you a benefit

[2:34:54] or not deny you a benefit or not

[2:34:58] and those situations we want

[2:34:59] to make sure that there is a

[2:35:01] human that ultimately is making

[2:35:01] these decisions. We've engaged

[2:35:02] in that conversation

[2:35:03] already in the past

[2:35:06] however it's been brought to

[2:35:08] our attention that it appears

[2:35:09] that there's still some

[2:35:11] situations where after there's a

[2:35:14] denial of a benefit or some type

[2:35:16] of service that the appeal

[2:35:19] process does that allow you to

[2:35:21] specifically engage in in in in

[2:35:24] speaking with either the agency

[2:35:25] itself or with an actual person

[2:35:26] it automatically shuts you down.

[2:35:28] we may be able to address those

[2:35:31] issues and it might just be a

[2:35:33] problem with a specific system

[2:35:34] that's being used or things like

[2:35:36] that in addition to that however

[2:35:39] I know there is other

[2:35:41] concerns that were also raised

[2:35:43] by senator Neal and I wanted to

[2:35:44] give her an opportunity to bring

[2:35:46] some of those forward thank you

[2:35:48] chair. so some of the things

[2:35:49] that

[2:35:52] I definitely you know if the end

[2:35:53] result of this bill is

[2:35:55] ultimately an audit on

[2:35:56] government agencies that are

[2:35:58] using AI so we can determine the

[2:36:00] level of hallucinations that are

[2:36:02] happening the failures and the

[2:36:04] automation bias that may be

[2:36:07] occurring how many errors

[2:36:08] where there was a need for

[2:36:12] a human response but the human

[2:36:14] response did not occur and it

[2:36:16] was just a continued automated

[2:36:17] response where a person was not

[2:36:20] able to actually get a problem

[2:36:22] solved there was also a

[2:36:25] recent issue where privacy

[2:36:29] I would say privacy

[2:36:34] request change from the user

[2:36:35] specifically on financial data

[2:36:38] where there was if the if the

[2:36:40] information was being used that

[2:36:43] there was a larger request to

[2:36:45] give complete access to

[2:36:47] financial information that the

[2:36:47] state may have

[2:36:52] which then is actually causing a

[2:36:54] shift where we may have to come

[2:36:56] off of the cloud and then go

[2:36:58] into the original servers that

[2:37:01] we had before this was

[2:37:03] something that came to my

[2:37:05] attention a couple of months ago

[2:37:08] and I think that it's high

[2:37:10] time that although you know

[2:37:12] folks see that there's a benefit

[2:37:14] to make you know work more

[2:37:17] efficient there is also some

[2:37:17] risk that I think we need to eva

[2:37:20] lu ate Majority of the

[2:37:23] government agencies that took on

[2:37:27] an Ai system did so

[2:37:29] without statutory action. they

[2:37:33] did it under a agency

[2:37:36] demonstration and then continue

[2:37:38] to use it after they had their

[2:37:40] demonstration project and

[2:37:42] continued to participate and I

[2:37:44] think it's high time that we

[2:37:46] start to evaluate uses

[2:37:50] public access and exclusion

[2:37:54] risks that may be created if

[2:37:55] there is any kind of public

[2:37:58] sector role displacement or

[2:38:03] groups that might be digitally

[2:38:05] excluded because now they're

[2:38:07] using the AI system within

[2:38:10] government network where

[2:38:11] normally a person could pick up

[2:38:12] the phone and just address your

[2:38:15] problem. so we'll see it'll be

[2:38:15] an interesting BDr

[2:38:17] thank you chair

[2:38:18] with that

[2:38:22] I'd like to entertain a motion

[2:38:23] of to request the drafting of

[2:38:24] the bill

[2:38:25] item8

[2:38:32] assembly memberwyn has made the

[2:38:34] motion assembly member

[2:38:35] Flanagan has second that members

[2:38:36] any discussion

[2:38:37] assembly member called please

[2:38:41] this is my last one I promise.

[2:38:44] and it's really a a question

[2:38:46] so as I understand it there

[2:38:48] was an executive order signed in

[2:38:50] december of 2025 it was

[2:38:55] number14365 it directed the

[2:38:55] department of Commerce to

[2:38:58] identify state AI laws deemed

[2:39:00] quote unquote onerous and

[2:39:03] condition nondeployment bead

[2:39:04] broadband funds in connection to

[2:39:06] those ownerous laws specifically

[2:39:08] citing bias mitigation and

[2:39:09] antidiscrimination mandates

[2:39:11] as an example. So I'm just a

[2:39:13] little concerned that inside of

[2:39:14] the recommendations language

[2:39:16] we've got protections against

[2:39:17] bias in automated decision

[2:39:20] making and and I know

[2:39:22] thatsenator Neal probably knows

[2:39:23] a lot more about the bead

[2:39:25] funding and and how much this is

[2:39:26] then I do but I just want to

[2:39:27] make sure that we're very

[2:39:29] careful in the drafting of this

[2:39:30] that we avoid that

[2:39:35] thank you so

[2:39:38] one of the probably first things

[2:39:39] I did probably when the

[2:39:40] executive orders started

[2:39:42] dropping out is to get a

[2:39:44] determination on how far the

[2:39:47] state needed to usurp its own

[2:39:49] you know position under enth

[2:39:51] Amendment to see how much we

[2:39:53] needed to follow, right? because

[2:39:54] an executive order although

[2:39:58] may state its suggestions might

[2:40:01] not necessarily tie the hand

[2:40:03] specifically of a state also

[2:40:04] within that be funding because

[2:40:06] we had a huge conversation on

[2:40:09] that and finance where it

[2:40:11] turned out that the bee some

[2:40:12] of also some of the bead

[2:40:15] executive direction or rule

[2:40:17] that came out basically told

[2:40:22] state agencies that they no

[2:40:25] longer had to pay attention to

[2:40:27] communities that were being

[2:40:28] affected and go out and actually

[2:40:30] have public comment with tribes

[2:40:33] or any other group that might

[2:40:34] not be

[2:40:37] that could be a part of the

[2:40:39] digital divide or community of

[2:40:41] color. so those particular

[2:40:44] nuanced pieces where they were

[2:40:45] supposed to you know do a wide

[2:40:48] breath and conversation within

[2:40:50] the bead executive order

[2:40:51] because that's a very different

[2:40:53] thing than the AI executive

[2:40:56] order there were very

[2:40:58] distinct changes to the rules

[2:40:59] and how they needed to

[2:41:01] communicate with communities if

[2:41:02] we're specifically talking about

[2:41:04] the bead executive order

[2:41:05] versus

[2:41:07] the AI executive order that came

[2:41:08] down and so at the end of the

[2:41:09] day

[2:41:13] I don't recall a statute being

[2:41:13] created

[2:41:15] that

[2:41:20] set out to allow all agencies to

[2:41:22] completely adapt it started as a

[2:41:24] demonstration and then they

[2:41:26] continued to build in and then

[2:41:29] it became a part of like fordier

[2:41:31] their appeals process for

[2:41:33] other agencies it became part of

[2:41:35] the phone system and so

[2:41:35] if

[2:41:39] I just think it's worth taking a

[2:41:41] look at where we're at what's

[2:41:44] going on as Ai is developing

[2:41:46] very quickly it's also

[2:41:48] developing its own automation

[2:41:51] under what is called agPU system

[2:41:54] which allows for the AI system

[2:41:56] to basically as everyone knows

[2:41:59] learns learn on itself but also

[2:42:01] to the degree where it is

[2:42:03] getting to the point where it no

[2:42:05] longer requires a human being

[2:42:06] necessarily to participate in

[2:42:07] those decision

[2:42:10] s and so like I said if the end

[2:42:12] result of this bill is simply

[2:42:14] auditing the behaviors of the

[2:42:16] government agencies in which we

[2:42:18] fund with taxpayer dollars to

[2:42:19] make sure that number one

[2:42:22] they're giving appropriate

[2:42:24] access that they're also the

[2:42:25] human beings who are expected to

[2:42:28] monitor and pay attention to the

[2:42:30] decisions made by the AI system

[2:42:32] is actually happening with

[2:42:35] fidelity and not and not

[2:42:36] happening in a way where it's

[2:42:37] like what I'm assuming it's

[2:42:39] right because it was programmed

[2:42:41] to be right even though we know

[2:42:42] that it's subject to

[2:42:44] hallucinations and potentially

[2:42:46] making decisions that might not

[2:42:49] actually have been the legal

[2:42:49] decision that the statute

[2:42:54] says it should be and so we

[2:42:55] haven't had a chance to look. I

[2:42:57] think we should look under the

[2:42:59] hood of every government agency

[2:43:02] that is using AI we should also

[2:43:04] make sure that all privacy and

[2:43:06] financial data within the

[2:43:08] government is protected and not

[2:43:10] subject to any kind of privacy

[2:43:12] agreement just because it was

[2:43:14] changed midstream and now we're

[2:43:16] subject to it because we're now

[2:43:18] on their cloud network so these

[2:43:19] are just the things that I'm

[2:43:20] aware of

[2:43:23] but as the bill opens up and the

[2:43:24] government agencies come to

[2:43:26] government affairs to basically

[2:43:28] say yaayy nay I hate this

[2:43:31] billing's fine then ultimately

[2:43:32] when they say everything's fine

[2:43:34] then I'm gonna say there needs

[2:43:35] to be an audit to make sure that

[2:43:36] what you said is fine.

[2:43:37] thank you chair

[2:43:43] Members any additional questions

[2:43:44] comments

[2:43:47] seeing none

[2:43:54] the se I'd like to entertain a

[2:43:55] motion to

[2:43:58] we did take the vote oh thank

[2:43:59] you

[2:44:01] all those in favor please

[2:44:04] signify by saying i

[2:44:08] I'm sorry senatorrazer was that

[2:44:09] an i

[2:44:10] thank you

[2:44:13] all those in favor excuse me all

[2:44:14] those again signify by saying

[2:44:15] nay

[2:44:17] seeing none motion carries

[2:44:17] unanimously thank you

[2:44:20] and last on our work session

[2:44:24] document is item F as in rank 9

[2:44:25] Mr Sinbeck please.

[2:44:27] thank you chair for the

[2:44:29] recordonsinspe's division of

[2:44:32] thelCB F9 is to request the

[2:44:33] draft of a bill to implement

[2:44:35] recommendations of the public

[2:44:36] records task force relating to

[2:44:38] stration enforcement of the math

[2:44:40] record law. This was based again

[2:44:42] on information presented by the

[2:44:44] task force on July9th and

[2:44:45] subsequent recommendations.

[2:44:45] thank you chair.

[2:44:48] thank you for that

[2:44:51] members before we get further

[2:44:52] into it as you all know we do

[2:44:54] have a a public records task

[2:44:56] force that is meeting regularly

[2:44:58] that includes both government

[2:45:02] private actors and everything

[2:45:05] in between that and they are at

[2:45:07] times on polar opposite sides of

[2:45:09] this conversation I've had an

[2:45:11] opportunity to meet with folk

[2:45:12] from government and media full

[2:45:14] transparency who sit on that

[2:45:17] task force and I've made it

[2:45:18] abundantly clear that we are not

[2:45:22] holding this BDR for any one

[2:45:23] particular individual. we are

[2:45:25] holding it in in hopes that the

[2:45:26] the task force can find middle

[2:45:28] ground and make a recommendation

[2:45:30] that we can all work with

[2:45:31] together. I think we have a

[2:45:33] responsibility to be transparent

[2:45:34] in government and that the

[2:45:36] government excuse me that the

[2:45:37] public have access to what

[2:45:39] government is doing while at the

[2:45:41] same time that we be mindful and

[2:45:42] understand that at times oas can

[2:45:44] be weaponized and they can be

[2:45:46] excessive and and used in

[2:45:48] certain ways against

[2:45:49] different local

[2:45:51] jurisdictions and we've seen it

[2:45:52] happen time and time again. so

[2:45:54] we're trying to be as helpful as

[2:45:56] possible recognizing the

[2:45:58] importance of transparency and

[2:45:59] recognizing the the importance

[2:46:01] of being able to fulfill these

[2:46:03] requests so with that I'd

[2:46:03] like to entertain a motion

[2:46:10] by your confidant has moved

[2:46:11] for the request of a drafting

[2:46:15] item 9 assembly memberwynn has

[2:46:16] second that members any

[2:46:19] discussion or questions seeing

[2:46:20] none all those in favor please

[2:46:22] signify by saying ii those again

[2:46:23] say nay

[2:46:25] motion carries unanimously

[2:46:28] I did say it was the last

[2:46:30] item on the work session

[2:46:32] document however, I wanted to

[2:46:34] remind everybody that we did

[2:46:37] have an opportunity today to

[2:46:39] hear of a presentation by Mr

[2:46:40] Warren Hardy

[2:46:44] who discussed at length

[2:46:47] yet another tool that we can put

[2:46:47] in in

[2:46:50] and in the effort of addressing

[2:46:52] these vehicles that are

[2:46:54] abandoned. I know it's an issue

[2:46:55] in many of our districts

[2:46:58] specifically Mr Warren Hardy

[2:47:00] proposed the following amendment

[2:47:01] the amendment would provide that

[2:47:02] a licensed record may use

[2:47:06] NrS487.105 to acquire and

[2:47:08] process a nontitled vehicle only

[2:47:10] when the additional bond

[2:47:12] required by NrS487105 is in

[2:47:14] place. the vehicles13+ years

[2:47:16] old.ehi has not been registered

[2:47:19] in Nevada for three years.e was

[2:47:20] acquired only for disbantaging

[2:47:23] scrap vehicle must be

[2:47:23] transported by licensed bonded

[2:47:24] racker

[2:47:26] in addition to that

[2:47:30] Mr Warren Hardy also wanted to

[2:47:32] have cleanup language so that we

[2:47:33] could have a definition for end

[2:47:34] of life vehicle which means a

[2:47:35] motor vehicle that has been

[2:47:37] transferred to a licensed

[2:47:38] automobile wrecker or salvage

[2:47:40] pool for dismantling recycling

[2:47:42] crushing tredding or disposal

[2:47:44] disposal and for which the

[2:47:46] vehicle identification number is

[2:47:47] intended to be permanently

[2:47:49] retired so that the vehicle may

[2:47:51] no may not again be titled or

[2:47:53] registered. I do appreciate the

[2:47:54] fact that he worked with law

[2:47:56] enforcement and local

[2:47:57] jurisdictions along with the

[2:47:57] private

[2:48:00] sector to help us with this

[2:48:02] this would be the10th and

[2:48:03] last consideration for this

[2:48:04] committee

[2:48:07] and at this time I would like it

[2:48:07] to entertain

[2:48:10] the the proposal for this BDr

[2:48:18] vicechair has made the motion

[2:48:19] according to the presentation

[2:48:20] and language provided by Mr

[2:48:22] Warren Hardy and as I just

[2:48:23] quickly read through it

[2:48:26] assembly memberwyn has second

[2:48:27] that members and he discussion

[2:48:27] or questions

[2:48:31] senator Neal please thank you

[2:48:35] so it's an interesting policy

[2:48:36] it's some it's one I'm gonna

[2:48:39] watch hopefully you know

[2:48:42] the BDR comes out and it's not

[2:48:44] hijacked for other uses and

[2:48:46] used by local governments in

[2:48:48] order to you know further

[2:48:50] promote nuisance

[2:48:54] law and use it for their own

[2:48:56] benefit which might not be for

[2:48:57] public benefit and so cause

[2:48:58] histor

[2:49:01] ically I've seen those these

[2:49:02] kinds of bills come through the

[2:49:04] building and you know additional

[2:49:07] language gets added that might

[2:49:07] be a problem in the future.

[2:49:10] and so thank you chair for

[2:49:11] the comment.

[2:49:12] thank you

[2:49:16] members in additional questions

[2:49:17] or comments

[2:49:22] seeing none all those in favor

[2:49:23] please signify by saying aye

[2:49:24] those again say nay

[2:49:29] motion carries unanimously and

[2:49:31] again Mr Hardy I look forward to

[2:49:32] you working along with all the

[2:49:34] stakeholders and and finding

[2:49:37] some good good language that we

[2:49:38] can all utilize to continue to

[2:49:40] address this issue that is

[2:49:41] impacting our communities

[2:49:42] senatorneal please

[2:49:46] thank you chair for the

[2:49:48] privilege. I just wanted to put

[2:49:49] information out. I was looking

[2:49:50] for it while I was talking but I

[2:49:52] think this is more of an

[2:49:53] educational point that I'd like

[2:49:54] to have in the minutes for the

[2:50:00] future so on March 223rd 2026 I

[2:50:01] reached out to the legal

[2:50:04] division about executive orders

[2:50:06] on Ai and their response was

[2:50:08] that they had seen the original

[2:50:10] executive order and that they

[2:50:12] were monitoring that and that it

[2:50:13] was looked at as a presidential

[2:50:16] policy suggestion as both the

[2:50:18] executive order and its

[2:50:20] framework had no legal effect

[2:50:24] and and constituted little

[2:50:26] more than the president's wishes

[2:50:28] of what he wanted Congress to

[2:50:32] change in law and there hadn't

[2:50:33] actually been a congressional

[2:50:35] act that could have created a

[2:50:38] substantial impact on state law

[2:50:40] throughout the country that

[2:50:43] would have forced a preempted

[2:50:43] states from

[2:50:46] acting within the scope of

[2:50:48] regulating AI or creating

[2:50:51] statutory policy and so I just

[2:50:53] wanted to put that on the record

[2:50:54] because I have been closely

[2:50:57] watching this issue to determine

[2:51:00] all actions at the federal level

[2:51:02] and whether or not the state was

[2:51:04] being barred because I had had

[2:51:07] bills in 2025 and so I was

[2:51:08] making sure that had a clear

[2:51:12] pathway in order to deal with AI

[2:51:13] in the state and that we were

[2:51:13] not in any

[2:51:18] way impeded as a state

[2:51:21] legislature to perform the act

[2:51:23] of regulating and creating

[2:51:25] policy that would serve our own

[2:51:27] constituency in government and

[2:51:27] so thank you chairir.

[2:51:32] thank you senator Neal and thank

[2:51:34] you to our amazing staffs I'm

[2:51:36] sure we're involved in that

[2:51:40] next I'd like to go to our

[2:51:41] final item which is public

[2:51:42] comment. I'd like to invite

[2:51:45] those in Las Vegas or Carson

[2:51:45] City if you could please come

[2:51:46] forward

[2:51:49] seeing

[2:51:52] no one coming forward we will go

[2:51:53] to the phone lines anybody

[2:51:54] wishing to join us for public

[2:51:55] comment

[2:51:58] here the public line is open and

[2:51:59] working and there are no coers

[2:52:00] for public comment at this time.

[2:52:03] with that members I just want to

[2:52:04] say thank you to all of you we

[2:52:08] have really gone through a very

[2:52:11] wide host of topics ranging from

[2:52:13] abandoned vehicles to artificial

[2:52:15] intelligence and everything in

[2:52:17] between state and federal

[2:52:17] relationships and and

[2:52:21] many many long meetings I

[2:52:24] know the last one went on into

[2:52:25] the late hours of the evening so

[2:52:26] I just wanted to say thank you

[2:52:28] to all of you for the hard work

[2:52:30] and that hopefully the the

[2:52:32] hard work will translate into

[2:52:33] good legislation where we're all

[2:52:35] working together on on the

[2:52:37] common good for the state so I

[2:52:38] just wanted to thank you all I

[2:52:40] wanted to say thank you to our

[2:52:42] incredible staff specifically

[2:52:45] Mronsin isbe who often was

[2:52:47] very frustrated and wanted to

[2:52:48] maybe hurt me because

[2:52:51] I could answer a simple question

[2:52:53] like are we going to do that

[2:52:55] item yes or no because we were

[2:52:56] trying to get all the

[2:52:57] stakeholders on the right page

[2:52:58] but I do appreciate his

[2:53:00] patience and everybody else's

[2:53:02] patience it's not easy always to

[2:53:04] work with us and and I I am just

[2:53:06] incredibly grateful and honored

[2:53:08] to be able to serve alongside of

[2:53:09] them and just have them on our

[2:53:11] site the state would not be what

[2:53:13] it is without them. so with that

[2:53:14] members if we could give our

[2:53:15] amazing staff a quick round of

[2:53:16] applause I would appreciate that

[2:53:20] for all their incredible work

[2:53:21] and patience with that

[2:53:22] members thank you and this

[2:53:23] meeting is adjourned.

[2:53:24] thank you thank you

Joint Interim Standing Committee on Government Affairs

Agenda

Transcript