[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-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",[32,76,88,100],{"_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",6625406,"mediaKeyId","2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51","parentId",2757699,"title","Senate hears SB 2 96 on confidentiality agreements; counties and cities seek clarifications","audioSeconds",1615,"startMs",9554000,"endMs",11169000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51&start=9554&end=11169","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51/thumbnail_9554000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6625406/Nevada/Senate-hears-SB-2-96-on-confidentiality-agreements-counties-and-cities-seek-clarifications","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625406-60edd5981201bcbc78c025ea99ec4eae/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168394&Signature=ArDod0wX-CO7-7oZyej0cMB8SDVacwbp1bo-r37R7ScgLdiJ2EcvrKYq54C-2ck7HTqcXX2ZanHgCjDJ89KwYV85L-7pFDgX3wcFTsaDvfwVeG3TihriDPpk1osBCV3ddYM0HY56TApgJSMyT0QqAveXTGWp91FijaPQKJSvKKi-DfKHW8Nshk33l30wE1dhOm7Ck3I6DvSoCbOCe8IsPf8uyDXr72DQHtlri7GykEHRGU09iL2MEpdeEv377cSD2zfkpF3O~WzN3m12LpQNLLyFX48lc~tEYNMp9Z8D4kh-4c~IkKVp9u6-uBbLy1IXe1Glqj2QgqMgzhx7no-UQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada State Legislature","date","2025-03-25T01:41:49.623Z","article","Senator James Orangehall introduced Senate Bill 2 96 as a measure to increase transparency in communications between governmental entities and private parties. Under the sponsor’s amendment, the bill would prohibit governmental entities from entering into nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements unless the information covered is already confidential under state or federal law, and would declare such unlawful NDAs void.

The original draft included a second section that would have made predecisional or deliberative records involving private individuals public; stakeholders pushed back and the sponsor removed that section and worked with the Nevada Open Government Coalition on redrafting. The amendment before the committee at the hearing therefore focused on limiting the use of confidentiality agreements to circumstances where other law already makes the information nonpublic.

Opponents and cautious stakeholders argued the bill needs further refinement. Representatives of the Urban Consortium, the Nevada Association of Counties, Washoe County, Lyon County and the City of Henderson voiced concerns that the measure could interfere with economic-development negotiations, personnel settlement agreements and standard litigation protective orders. Warren Hardy of the Urban Consortium said his members appreciated that section 2 had been struck but asked for further dialogue so the bill would not “create additional problems” for competitive negotiations.

Washoe County counsel Cadence Matejevich asked for express exceptions for stipulated protective orders used in litigation discovery and for non-monetary personnel settlement agreements arising under collective-bargaining or disciplinary processes, noting that those records are often legitimately kept confidential for a time. Lyon County and the City of Henderson made similar points about the role of NDAs in early-stage economic-development discussions, where confidentiality for short periods can be necessary to secure property or investment commitments.

Sponsor Orangehall and counsel for supporters said the aim was to prevent misuse of confidentiality agreements to exclude stakeholders or avoid public process; Michael DeLee (counsel) said the strike of section 2 was intended to address stakeholder concerns and that the revised approach is narrower, focused on NDAs that conceal records that would otherwise be public. Committee counsel noted that courts also apply balancing tests to public records requests where statutes do not explicitly make information confidential, and suggested that if the committee intends to protect records that are confidential by case law, that intent should be clarified in the bill language.

Local-government representatives said current law provides remedies under the public-records statute (NRS Chapter 239) for disputes and urged the sponsor and committee to work with counties and cities to craft exceptions for personnel and litigation contexts. The committee closed the hearing with an invitation for additional stakeholder negotiations and amendments; no vote was taken at the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/24/2025 - Senate Committee on Government Affairs","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 2 96 would bar governmental nondisclosure agreements that seek to conceal records unless the information is already confidential under state or federal law; sponsor James Orangehall withdrew a broader draft section after stakeholder concerns and sought a narrower approach focused on NDAs.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6625412,"Senate panel hears SB 3 80: autism training for officers and temporary RBT registration draw strong support and board opposition",4489,2447000,6936000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51&start=2447&end=6936","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51/thumbnail_2447000.jpg","/articles/6625412/Nevada/Senate-panel-hears-SB-3-80-autism-training-for-officers-and-temporary-RBT-registration-draw-strong-support-and-board-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625412-8b971d5fde12848672803804050443ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168394&Signature=ZM3DkbezBQm984gQudHkPqB60Fc2ZRBZ9XO-qquTbVuMFii4yLFKrRNLT1OIPU5s5yau3sIRE-VKwRGRpx7i4mzsV7heR2Xl79AIjek5WQ6QIqC55KvfvwVRj7qGZGSkRBTQamC2nSPuB7~9VHsP6yue-xY7BQMbfUrxwWx0-xgt3hEq~u7H3veKjYjhZ2I1Oi7zYJ8Z1oz6-c7LQmC6d6GomffGBX7DH9nGUFlngL-I-Hvt0QuAkJowjgI81abQvbWxyFtBz~~IjWxLsDjCfMBByu0pwWUqgemo8OBb0~i~BN5AZ26aFuOxlBUL2C33JAPPhxBxgtH3BifNDBomxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator James Oranchall, sponsor of Senate Bill 3 80 and the senator for District 21, said the bill “revises provisions relating to Autism Spectrum Disorder” by requiring certain peace officer training on autism and permitting applicants certified as registered behavior technicians to practice under direct supervision of a licensed behavior analyst while their state registration is pending.

Proponents — including family members, providers, local law enforcement and disability advocates — described two separate but related aims: (1) required training for law enforcement and first responders to improve recognition and de-escalation when interacting with people on the autism spectrum; and (2) a change to the state registration timeline for registered behavior technicians (RBTs) that would allow nationally certified RBTs who have submitted required Nevada paperwork and fees to begin billable work under a licensed behavior analyst while their Nevada registration is pending.

Corey Ward, a special education teacher and commission member who said he is the parent of adult children on the spectrum, testified: “This bill helps build the registered behavior technician workforce.” Jan Crandy, a former chair of the Nevada Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorders, explained the registration problem in detail. She said the national RBT certification requires background checks and that Nevada’s separate state registration can take weeks to months; “The intent of SB 3 80 is to allow a certified registered RBT who has submitted all the required documentation and fees to the Nevada Board of Applied Behavior Analysis and is pending state registration to practice billable applied behavior analysis under the supervision of a Nevada licensed behavior analyst while waiting for the state to complete their process.”

Multiple provider organizations and families testified that the delay between national certification and Nevada registration has led some newly trained RBTs to abandon the field or accept other work while they wait. Jan Crandy and other witnesses supplied workforce figures they attributed to state sources: 2,324 RBTs currently registered in Nevada and 1,051 RBTs who did not renew for the 2026 cycle; national certification data cited 3,057 RBTs who became inactive or expired in Nevada over the past five years.

Advocates also described law enforcement training needs. Michelle Scott Lewing of the Autism Coalition of Nevada said ACON had provided multiple law enforcement trainings over the past decade and offered to partner with law enforcement to provide low-cost, ongoing training, including involvement of people with autism in trainings. Family members and providers offered examples where better training might prevent traumatic outcomes during police interactions.

The Nevada Board of Applied Behavior Analysis mounted formal opposition to section 4(2) of the bill, which would allow temporarily practicing RBTs during the state registration pendency. Dr. Bridal Franopo, chair of the board, said the provision “proposes the allowance of these entry level individuals to work with a highly vulnerable population even for a short time without the state required criminal history review resulting in unnecessary risk to the consumer.” The board’s executive director and chair said the delays are caused by understaffing at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and urged fixing DPS turnaround times rather than creating a temporary registration category. Board representatives also warned of a fiscal impact because a new temporary registration category would increase the board’s administrative workload.

The bill’s supporters proposed guardrails: many witnesses and a caller recommended time limits on any provisional status (60–90 days was suggested by one caller) and continued direct supervision requirements (the licensed BCBA would remain professionally and legally responsible). Several witnesses cited examples from other licensing areas where temporary practice was allowed during background-check processing (e.g., pandemic-era nursing licensing) as precedents for temporary flexibility.

Committee members asked about the nature of the background checks and the duplication between the national certification and Nevada’s registration. Jan Crandy and board witnesses explained that national certification includes background/abuse-registry checks; Nevada’s process performs a separate criminal-history check (including fingerprint submission to the central repository). The board and its executive director emphasized that Nevada’s additional background checks were deliberately required when the statutes were adopted.

After roughly 73 minutes of testimony and questioning, the committee closed the hearing and asked the sponsor and stakeholders to continue discussions offline on specifics including limits on provisional practice, supervisory requirements and the DPS background-check delays.","Senate Bill 3 80 would require autism-specific training for peace officers and allow nationally certified registered behavior technicians to begin supervised, billable work while awaiting Nevada registration; providers and families urged passage to alleviate workforce shortages, while the Nevada Board of Applied Behavior Analysis opposed allowing any temporary practice without completion of Nevada criminal-history checks.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6625414,"Senator Taylor’s bill would require government units to accept multiple payment types from businesses",950,1342000,2292000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51&start=1342&end=2292","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51/thumbnail_1342000.jpg","/articles/6625414/Nevada/Senator-Taylors-bill-would-require-government-units-to-accept-multiple-payment-types-from-businesses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625414-589bd659cfdfa635ef4a96f18573afc6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168394&Signature=WmWFuowtrzRkh9YuytuGj-OkXqz3uWd4Wi1VZ9ECX7N7x8mFURZ~h5GSfbUzV1Qe0nfRp-09fGOONoCi7QWvMGd7m3qFk~tJr7jdBPTC4QBGKLZOOXKpXKeQRdDjrRory44YDfmrZKUUm6bq3uExHqKTt~DiQ8KosqDjdgdHExu9U-WRzzv1~yzj3myWM1GBU2uHHCYiVNQU4TytZXeAINquqM38SMkpwDJp0nnc0bkS3PgA3Lm3MZsRfQcx2KB5noggHqy8p1rq39xuk8dDGM74gLigg8QdnVIhKWkwv5tnMcs7RwQOsS4~gtbuwAQE7-CgBNeAlYcCQCSaUnWm0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator Angie Taylor, sponsor of Senate Bill 3 58 and the senator for District 15 in Washoe County, told a Senate Government Affairs subcommittee the bill “requires certain units of government of this state to accept certain forms of payment.”

The bill would mandate that governmental units accept a range of payment methods from business entities — including debit cards, credit cards, checks, money orders, electronic transfers and, where the bill’s conceptual amendment allows, cash — for fees, taxes or debts owed to government. Taylor said the measure is intended to “make it much friendlier for small business owners” and to streamline interactions between businesses and government agencies.

Supporters framed the bill as modernization and customer service for businesses. Paul Merakkin of the Las Vegas Chamber said the chamber appreciated the sponsor’s work and that the measure “clarifies and standardizes the types of payments that would be accepted by Nevada’s governmental entities from business entities.” Local business groups including the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce, NFIB and the Retail Association of Nevada testified in support, saying expanded electronic payment options improve convenience, security and cash flow for both businesses and government.

Local governments that testified in support said the bill would reduce friction in licensing and other transactions. Nick Ciccone of the City of Reno told the committee the city “fully intends to comply” and prefers citizens use online payments where possible. Joanna Jacob of Clark County described a friendly amendment requested by her clerk’s office to reflect the operational realities in offices that operate 24/7 and use remote services for tasks such as marriage licenses.

State agencies raised technical questions. Palmer Reichert, speaking for staff working with the sponsor, and Adam Plain of the Nevada Division of Insurance both urged clarifications about whether the bill would require agencies to accept specific payment types for all transaction types — including large transactions such as examination fees that currently require wire transfers. Plain said some transaction types today require wires because the agency fronts funds to contract examiners and recoups those costs; forcing different payment methods without accounting for processing fees and enterprise-fund budgeting could affect agency operations.

Senator Tony Daley asked whether merchant or processing fees would be allowed to be passed to the business payer. Taylor said the intent is not for the state to absorb fees and that “people at this point are pretty accustomed to the fee being passed on as you pay it.” Reichert confirmed the bill is not intended to disrupt existing fee practices and that local governments had asked for clarity on handling processing costs.

Heidi Clarkson of the Legislative Counsel Bureau advised a technical amendment to clarify whether the bill’s definition of a governmental unit includes local governments or political subdivisions; Taylor agreed to work with counsel and stakeholders on that point. The committee closed the hearing for SB 3 58 after members signaled they had sufficient information to continue offline work on the proposed language.

The hearing generated multiple friendly amendments and stakeholder questions but no formal committee vote on the measure during this session.

The committee record shows continued engagement between the bill sponsor, county and city clerks, business groups and state agencies to refine the bill’s language on the scope of covered payers and how agencies would handle large or enterprise transactions.","Senator Angie Taylor introduced SB 3 58 to require Nevada governmental units to accept debit and credit cards, checks, money orders, electronic transfers and, as amended for businesses, cash; supporters said the change would help small businesses and modernize payments, while state agencies asked for technical clarifications about large transactions and processing fees.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6625410,"SB 3 81 would modernize constable and sheriff civil procedures; sponsors say changes are housekeeping",2650,6953000,9603000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51&start=6953&end=9603","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2757699-64b4ea8ab765054357b348b878c5ac51/thumbnail_6953000.jpg","/articles/6625410/Nevada/SB-3-81-would-modernize-constable-and-sheriff-civil-procedures-sponsors-say-changes-are-housekeeping","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625410-0ab1462f5d8c311935681f6720bf5d61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168394&Signature=lZQwRAN1UdBR5iwRJfimMFFXSes7wk56sBP7Rc8SLSTMtIJsFtjIrzCVYX-5dB1reY2iN6rjr1zP6~257vAM-ZlQfQOW0NvDshVNbtBNAu61L7cCyUOSuF-Li5Cv8LUIFNItWyFEunIkgaDIvcYBwDKwijMlCZQe0~GwiCXrqLQzeOmTN7P3waiuKdmbL0QN~C8HK3-fTRkBIYWRZRuwX4DM0~rTtxL4X7hhJhtcc2VXYF-6lAcN3Ky~IBXUj49HP5BPkJjt6xxtSaqCBNyOtURJgckJuXyTi1WweoKjMDoahE1DR9k4~fQuiACpkDCxy4G6j9fUtUm6LbBk~dLRNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator James Orangehall, sponsor of Senate Bill 3 81 (Senate District 21), told the committee the bill “makes various changes related to constables and sheriffs” to update civil procedures and reflect modern operations.

Key provisions described by the sponsor include authorizing sheriffs and constables to appoint civil enforcement officers to perform specific civil duties (service of civil process, execution of writs of garnishment and tenant removal orders) while clarifying those appointees do not possess peace-officer powers; permitting sheriffs and constables to contract with online auction operators to sell real property under execution; revising fee authority; clarifying public-demand procedures when taking property; and revising certification requirements for constables in larger townships.

Jordan Ross, Laughlin constable and chair of the Southern Nevada Rural Constables Alliance, described the bill as largely “housekeeping” and said the changes reflect long-standing field practices and modernization needs. Ross said online auction options were requested by the Clark County sheriff’s civil section to increase sale reach and recovery. He described civil enforcement officers as a common operational tool used in multiple jurisdictions for noncriminal civil duties and said the bill standardizes that practice in statute.

Senators questioned practical issues. Senator Tony Daley asked what civil enforcement officers can do and how online real-property auctions would be conducted, including vetting of bidders and auctioneer arrangements. Ross said most counties would choose whether to use online auctions and that counties would contract with specialized vendors for sale of real or personal property; he said the provision was included at the request of the Clark County sheriff’s civil section. Ross also described the statute cleanup that would allow county boards to appoint sheriffs ex officio as constables and to harmonize certification requirements.

Senator Daley raised concerns about operational detail for online auctions — who pays for the platform, how bidder vetting would work and whether online bidding could invite abusive bidding behavior — and the sponsor said the bill’s language can be coordinated with stakeholders (including a separate bill addressing fee structures).

The committee recessed to allow members to attend floor business and planned to return to continue other bills. The sponsor said he planned further coordination with stakeholders on fee related language; no vote was taken at the subcommittee hearing.

The hearing record shows support for the bill’s modernization aims from constables and civil-operations stakeholders alongside committee questions about operational safeguards and vendor procedures for online property sales.","Sen. James Orangehall presented SB 3 81 to revise constable and sheriff authorities, add civil enforcement officers, permit online auctions of seized property, and tighten certification/weapon rules for constables. Laughlin Constable Jordan Ross and other stakeholders framed the bill as modernization and housekeeping; committee members asked for","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate hears SB 2 96 on confidentiality agreements; counties and cities seek clarifications

Senate panel hears SB 3 80: autism training for officers and temporary RBT registration draw strong support and board opposition

Senator Taylor’s bill would require government units to accept multiple payment types from businesses

SB 3 81 would modernize constable and sheriff civil procedures; sponsors say changes are housekeeping