[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