[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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",6565840,"mediaKeyId","3212922-23b07fd313433285e1c99fcee99f957c","parentId",3212922,"title","Panel hears SB273 to extend confidentiality protections to civilian law‑enforcement staff and firefighters","audioSeconds",899,"startMs",169340,"endMs",1068910,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3212922-23b07fd313433285e1c99fcee99f957c&start=169&end=1068","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3212922-23b07fd313433285e1c99fcee99f957c/thumbnail_169340.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6565840/Nevada/Panel-hears-SB273-to-extend-confidentiality-protections-to-civilian-lawenforcement-staff-and-firefighters","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565840-f4b25bd9ce05a06b6544a1f49a9756c9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770599410&Signature=UB-HMQCq~PnZu9OaQ1c78nptWYD4LhMmXNJ7LwPv5RI1B2WU--ebF1elkOQbUKNQdYt7lEu-ERME2jYqZA9s2hW-vAlS3SNjVuxLM0-ldmerxydFPrgu0iz4DNxHW3Bf-GG5inuGKeinlQwAziUofE4lj6Ddc8wL2xGdomB1Ggr1wzkRgqVszD~bwDPP2a7pqYd9vsAjzQYZIqeR5V7GoW2J~vgh5aaVDsdP8LDyA4YGSHqIxpzKWKd7GgMUsWGYOG~mEpWJPV6X5o~MaaL-kjdJtz3Wm~nNeszZvoWMJKjw1vnKHLooGhqiK5GOVMtpKptoXUDlNMZJXzo999oxdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-05-08T03:57:43Z","article","The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on Wednesday heard testimony on Senate Bill 273, which would add certain civilian law‑enforcement employees and firefighters to state confidentiality protections that let some public‑safety personnel remove personal information — such as home addresses and phone numbers — from county and state public records, supporters said.

Proponents told the committee the change would extend existing safeguards to civilian employees who support law enforcement — including crime scene investigators, dispatchers, abuse and neglect specialists and cold‑case investigators — and to current and retired firefighters, who they said can face threats tied to their public roles. “This bill will provide firefighters the option to have personal information removed from such, information and keep that information confidential,” said Todd Inglesey, president of the Professional Firefighters of Nevada.

The bill would amend the sets of records maintained by county recorders, county assessors, the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Motor Vehicles to allow those newly listed classifications to seek removal or redaction of specified personal information under the statutes cited by proponents. Rick McCann, who presented the measure for several labor and law‑enforcement associations, said the measure mirrors language the Legislature approved last session but that an administrative error prevented the governor from signing an amended version into law.

Why it matters: Current Nevada law already allows a list of public servants — including judges, current and retired law‑enforcement officers, prosecutors, public defenders and child welfare workers — to seek confidentiality for their personal information. Proponents said modern online county and state databases make it easy to locate home addresses and family contact information with a single click, exposing employees and their families to risk. Supporters argued SB273 merely extends existing protections to additional categories of personnel who routinely interact with the public.

Testimony and concerns: The Recorders Association of Nevada testified neutral through Douglas County Recorder Shawwnyn Garren, who noted that Assembly Bill 225 from the prior session established an avenue for “all the others” — meaning persons not specifically listed in the statute — to petition a court for confidentiality protections. Garren described that existing process and its administrative requirements, saying that petitions granted under that avenue include a five‑year expiration that counties must monitor and notify petitioners about in advance. She said recorders will implement court orders but expressed concern about continually expanding the list of protected classifications and effectively creating a special class of citizens not available to everyday residents.

Several labor and law‑enforcement organizations testified in support, including the Nevada State AFL‑CIO, the Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association, and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association (civilian employees). No callers on the phone registered opposition.

Procedure and next steps: The committee took testimony and closed the hearing on SB273 with no immediate vote recorded. Committee members did not pose extensive technical questions during the public hearing; proponents noted the bill is similar to earlier measures considered by the Legislature. The bill will remain before the committee for any further action or amendment.

Closing note: Supporters emphasized personnel safety and continuity of public service; county recorders urged caution about expanding statutory categories and highlighted administrative responsibilities tied to court‑ordered confidentiality.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/7/2025 - Assembly Committee on Government Affairs","oneSentenceSummary","The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on Wednesday heard testimony on Senate Bill 273, which would add certain civilian law‑enforcement employees and firefighters to state confidentiality protections that let some public‑safety personnel remove personal information — such as home addresses and phone numbers — from county and state public records, supporters said.","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},6565837,"Committee hears SB410 to add dependent health coverage to mandatory bargaining topics for school districts",1236,1098890,2335350,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3212922-23b07fd313433285e1c99fcee99f957c&start=1098&end=2335","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3212922-23b07fd313433285e1c99fcee99f957c/thumbnail_1098890.jpg","/articles/6565837/Nevada/Committee-hears-SB410-to-add-dependent-health-coverage-to-mandatory-bargaining-topics-for-school-districts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565837-e51e290e4495b90ced20fd0b6a6520ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770599410&Signature=TPYWTOY0ji~TstIydDjU6VkXIYwjTPsh-mmfmEuFFiw-H3wTsbabYj575XLY49zmbzSbeOnEtAgeQsHnOYiUMkzylXBlUztmFXQ6RuH-C8Nh4u9kvt0cFmz4pbm~rlkQF7TcvOPpkXz~OT03QiYEkS9v9KX7dv7-MueJaGGK-DmD7EKUOAmF3P8mNiO2YwwUXZX~0a7aDO4dygp1h5f0ChF~MX2POCjmY41De4gqO1yZyVnJ9rLuV6hSEr1A~qK-hkoraPO1B4Vk9~XS8LgqajijYXfqJ2bg~MwVf6g2dxK0Gs5HGRwsugy-agXuTfqKZ3Mr-8QG3-ooSNmYiafILA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on Wednesday heard Senate Bill 410, which would add dependent health coverage to the list of mandatory subjects in collective bargaining between school districts and employee bargaining units, proponents and opponents said.

Proponents described the bill as a tool to address high dependent health‑insurance costs that they say are driving turnover and hampering recruitment, particularly in rural and underserved districts. “We currently serve 17,800 educators and about 16,700 dependents with a total membership of 34,000,” said Tom Zumptebel, CEO of the Teachers Health Trust, citing the trust’s membership data. Zumptebel said dependent coverage can consume a large share of some educators’ pay: “A single educator who is covering dependents pays $800 a month for that coverage. It consumes up to 17% of their gross pay and almost 22% of their net take home pay.”

What the bill would do: Daniel Stewart, speaking for the Clark County Education Association, said SB410 would not appropriate new money or change the state’s education funding pool. Instead, it would add dependent insurance benefits to the mandatory bargaining subjects (the list of topics that must be negotiated), allowing districts and bargaining units to discuss tradeoffs — for example, exchanging salary increases for employer contributions to dependent premiums. “If you look at the bill… all it does is it adds one new section of things that must be mandatorily bargained for during the collective bargaining process,” Stewart said.

Support and opposition: The Clark County Education Association and the Teachers Health Trust urged approval. Marie Neises, president of the Clark County Education Association, told the committee SB410 is “critical for the well‑being of our educators” and cited the demographic profile of teachers, noting that 74% are women and many are caregivers.

Opponents included the Nevada Association of School Boards and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, which said districts lack the resources to absorb the likely cost impact. Tom Clark, representing the school boards, said many districts face deficits and that adding the matter as mandatory bargaining will impose costs; Susan Keema, executive director of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, said a survey of districts found 16 of 17 considered it cost‑prohibitive and that only one district — Eureka — had an existing policy that covered a portion of dependent premiums.

Procedure and questions: Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether the Teachers Health Trust is self‑funded (Zumptebel said it is self‑funded) and about the bill’s effective date. Daniel Stewart said the bill’s effective date of Oct. 1 was chosen to align with contract cycles and to ensure the subject is included in upcoming negotiations without disrupting current agreements. Stewart reiterated the sponsors’ contention that the bill “doesn’t change the pool of money that the districts will receive. It just allows them to bargain to spend it in different ways.”

Closing note: The committee closed the hearing on SB410 with no vote recorded that day. The bill will return to committee action if members pursue amendments or a vote.","Supporters said making dependent coverage a mandatory subject of bargaining would let employees and districts negotiate tradeoffs to address high dependent insurance costs that contribute to educator turnover; school board and superintendent groups warned the proposal is cost‑prohibitive for many districts","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel hears SB273 to extend confidentiality protections to civilian law‑enforcement staff and firefighters

Committee hears SB410 to add dependent health coverage to mandatory bargaining topics for school districts