[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6661948,"mediaKeyId","2401800-d238aee2831a28e7cbfa4a6779d26b1d","parentId",2401800,"title","Assembly committee hears revisions to Nevada Open Meeting Law, debate focuses on 3-minute public comment and attorney-client exception","audioSeconds",3416,"startMs",1150000,"endMs",4566000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2401800-d238aee2831a28e7cbfa4a6779d26b1d&start=1150&end=4566","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2401800-d238aee2831a28e7cbfa4a6779d26b1d/thumbnail_1150000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6661948/Nevada/Assembly-committee-hears-revisions-to-Nevada-Open-Meeting-Law-debate-focuses-on-3-minute-public-comment-and-attorney-client-exception","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661948-d0adf12893f94d0ec3898c10499342de/orig.mp4?Expires=1776879217&Signature=JnGrFNT~QkRFVsT~SF-dD25j7-Dt3yHsU2ffvzFmy7Y0WLHSnjo79bRdZeE~7awkejtL1bGFMj1XdPedVkGsSJh4FyOj4gl89wB2WtFbi36YtdY1y~dINrwvDYUCyVcHW~zaU0TVC4mYqJt8byn4SjNycWIk-HFS1BbhyFBPpstZ1MMGWa8zJqhym0rJxvkBpuTg-m-VgrHLdJuWi0kQxn0g4gkeBPB-LW6rWOd9NVggC-Fn12TmVygmQm-YpNYvGw04cHiU9BLV7HhKkY5QIaOGdxxJT20Dj~eTC-cCfMR4xCSekYCqzYmmx6o2GWkEh81cbpUdOJtE5~ix52bGMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-02-26T17:52:14.103Z","article","CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony and public comment on Assembly Bill 64 on Wednesday, a measure that would revise parts of Nevada's Open Meeting Law (NRS Chapter 241) on how public bodies handle legal advice, public comment and contested-case hearings.

Supporters and opponents told the committee the bill aims to increase clarity and consistency but raised concerns about how several provisions could affect public participation and due-process protections.

Assemblymember Tanya Flanagan opened the hearing by listing the bills for the day before presenters described AB64. Theresa Benitez Thompson, chief of staff to the attorney general, and Rosalie Bordelove, chief of the Boards and Open Government Division in the Attorney General's Office, led the presentation. Benitez Thompson described the open meeting law as \"all about protecting the public in terms of public benefit, openness, and transparency in government.\" Bordelove said AB64 would revise NRS Chapter 241 and one other chapter to clarify long-standing ambiguities in the statute.

The bill would make several changes:

- Expand the attorney-client exception (section 1) so that closed-door consultations may cover \"all legal advice and deliberations regarding that legal advice,\" not only advice about potential or existing litigation, Bordelove said. She explained the change would make clear when privileged legal advice may be discussed outside a posted agenda and limit the closed deliberations to the legal advice itself.

- Set a statutory minimum of 3 minutes per person for public comment (sections 2 and 3). Bordelove and Benitez Thompson said the change reflects common practice among Nevada public bodies and would give chairs and the Attorney General's Office a clearer standard to evaluate complaints about time limits.

- Allow public bodies to restrict public comment in contested cases as defined in the Nevada Administrative Procedures Act (NRS 233B) to protect parties' due-process rights.

- Clarify virtual-comment requirements (section 4) so that a call-in option must be provided on the agenda and announced during the public comment period when there is no physical meeting location.

- Remove any special statutory privilege for public commenters regarding defamation (section 5), putting statements made during public comment on the same legal footing as statements made elsewhere, Bordelove said.

- Clarify that proceedings that are preliminary investigatory work by licensing boards under Title 54 are not subject to the OML requirements in the same way as full public hearings (section 6).

Committee members asked for clarifications. Assemblymember Da Silva asked what constitutes a \"contested case,\" and Bordelove cited the NRS 233B definition, saying it refers to adjudicative proceedings that trigger due-process rights for licensees. Assemblymember Karas asked how the 3-minute figure was chosen; Bordelove said it is the most common per-person limit across the state and the drafters sought a bright-line minimum to reduce the number of complaints the Attorney General's Office must adjudicate.

Several local-government officials and civic groups supported the bill's stated goal of clarity. Nicholas Voskov, the Henderson city attorney and member of the Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Task Force, said he requested section 1 based on his experience advising public bodies. Janine Hansen, state president of Nevada Families for Freedom, and other callers endorsed the three-minute minimum as offering predictability to speakers.

But opposition speakers and some public commenters raised concerns. The ACLU of Nevada testified in opposition to section 3, saying that allowing public bodies to refuse public comment on contested cases until a final decision could impede advocacy and public oversight. Tia Smith, ACLU policy attorney, said the measure \"impacts advocacy work statewide for no particular reason\" and the organization sought amendments. Randy Robinson, representing the city of Las Vegas, said city officials valued transparency but wanted to continue working with the Attorney General's Office on the practical implementation of a statutory minimum, noting that some agendas draw hundreds of speakers and chairs must manage time and fairness.

Watchdog website operator Jeff Church testified he feared the defamation language would chill speech by exposing commenters to lawsuits; Bordelove said the provision does not create a new private cause of action but clarifies that statements made during public comment do not enjoy special immunity beyond existing defamation law.

No formal vote was taken on AB64 during the hearing. The committee received testimony in support, opposition and neutral testimony and the presenters said they would continue to work with stakeholders on potential amendments.

The Attorney General's Office staff and task force members emphasized the bill's intent as clarifying existing practice and statutory ambiguities. Bordelove said the proposed changes drew on practices in other states and aimed primarily to make enforcement and compliance more straightforward for public bodies and the public.

Next steps: the committee will consider the testimony and possible amendments in future proceedings. The committee chair closed the hearing on AB64 at the conclusion of public comment.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2/26/2025 - Assembly Committee on Government Affairs","oneSentenceSummary","The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony on AB64, a bill that would revise Nevada's Open Meeting Law to set a 3-minute minimum for public comment, expand the attorney-client exception for legal advice, clarify virtual comment requirements and align public-comment defamation law with general defamation law.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":46,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6661943,"Bill would require Nevada public-notice website to show three days of scheduled meetings to improve transparency",847,5413000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2401800-d238aee2831a28e7cbfa4a6779d26b1d&start=4566&end=5413","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2401800-d238aee2831a28e7cbfa4a6779d26b1d/thumbnail_4566000.jpg","/articles/6661943/Nevada/Bill-would-require-Nevada-public-notice-website-to-show-three-days-of-scheduled-meetings-to-improve-transparency","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6661943-7d4ce778138ad69abdb26d9c3c4f280f/orig.mp4?Expires=1776879217&Signature=fUMn2wfNKQagXQmaOwsXWMbC-3MThqrSOoT8ipTumI2xHL4ogmTAd7SWrOsMax5f7OEIAMvJaGjFPjyPMfmuuobFEja-Tcuy8WmSOP8h3pnzwNhAgv0v2IW3BQ11~eY-G-NHznbmO6twsYuD~jRhWktfRPdIXq8rciW0Hhz~NywkkTrlVPjrq07ffMG2h0-prY4Kkj1b~mCTNefestS0VQUVF6BFHqcj6URnj2RhVJxFH0ab4LgF~1EXfz-NraeGt2dWkqEawxUwqvfKUC7EWe4oUydVO8PBVRBfpPHYKQfM0S4-fT82dueNVYmYpSaQQv5cjmGhWwpZvsyLq1hgMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony on Assembly Bill 125 on Wednesday, a measure that would modify the state'maintained public-notice website to display three calendar days of scheduled public-body meetings required by Nevada's Open Meeting Law.

Assemblymember Tanya Flanagan, the bill sponsor, said the bill is intended to make the public-notice site more useful for residents and businesses by allowing them to preview meetings beyond a single day. \"This bill would complement AB 445 by requiring the state website to display 3 calendar days of meetings in accordance with the Open Meeting Law,\" Flanagan told the committee.

Proponents said the change would increase transparency and accessibility with little or no fiscal impact. Paul Muratkin of the Las Vegas Chamber told the committee the chamber supports AB125 and described it as a \"good governance bill\" that would increase public awareness of meetings statewide. Several business and government associations voiced support, including the Retail Association of Nevada, the Nevada Restaurant Association, the Nevada Trucking Association, the Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, and multiple municipal representatives.

Witnesses also said the requirements for posting full agendas already exist on the state site. Assemblymember Gallant asked whether the bill would also affect posting of agendas and Flanagan said the Nevada public-notice site already links to full agendas for each meeting.

Speakers told the committee the proposal should impose no fiscal impact or additional full-time employees. Paul Muratkin testified the change would require no new state or local spending.

There was no opposition testimony at the hearing and no neutral witnesses registered with substantive objections; several municipal and business groups expressed support. The bill sponsor urged committee approval.

No committee vote was taken during the hearing; the chair closed the hearing on AB125 after supporters finished presenting their remarks.","Assemblymembers and supporters said AB125 would make it easier for residents and businesses to find upcoming public-body meetings by requiring the state's public-notice site to display three days of meetings instead of a single calendar day.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Assembly committee hears revisions to Nevada Open Meeting Law, debate focuses on 3-minute public comment and attorney-client exception

Bill would require Nevada public-notice website to show three days of scheduled meetings to improve transparency