Senate committee hears bill to expand attorney‑client exception and tighten rules for public comment under Nevada open‑meeting law

Carson City — The Senate Committee on Government Affairs heard Assembly Bill 64 on the record from the Office of the Attorney General on a proposal to change Nevada’s Open Meeting Law (OML), including expanding the attorney‑client exception so public bodies may receive and deliberate on “all legal advice” in closed sessions.

Mike Morton, special assistant attorney general to Attorney General Aaron Ford, told the committee AB 64 revises several parts of the statute that governs public meetings. Morton said the bill would allow a public body to hold closed‑session deliberations not only on potential or existing litigation but on any legal advice that would otherwise be privileged if the client were not a public body. "This change will allow the attorney‑client exception to extend to all legal advice that would otherwise be protected by the attorney‑client privilege," Morton said during the presentation.

The bill also would: clarify the physical‑location requirement and limit mandatory virtual public‑comment options to meetings that have no physical location; remove language that effectively gave a public commenter special protection from defamation claims; and confirm that preliminary investigatory proceedings related to possible disciplinary action under Title 54 of the Nevada Revised Statutes are not subject to all OML provisions.

Why it matters: Nevada’s OML, first enacted in 1960 and codified in chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), is intended to ensure the public’s business is conducted openly. Morton reminded the committee that Nevada courts construe the law in favor of openness and that violations can render official actions void and can carry civil and criminal penalties. He also noted the attorney general’s office handles OML training and daily inquiries.

Committee members pressed for detail on how the broader attorney‑client exception would be applied. Senator James Daley asked how the public or investigators would know whether a closed session exceeded “legal advice” and veered into deliberation or decision making. Morton said whether an OML violation occurred would be "very fact specific," and the attorney general’s open government division investigates complaints and can probe what happened in closed sessions.

Senator Laura Krasner asked about the change addressing public‑comment defamation. AB 64 would remove a special privilege for statements made during public comment and state that defamation, libel and slander causes of action remain available "as otherwise provided by law." The attorney general’s office told the committee the intent is not to create a new cause of action but to clarify that offering comment during a meeting does not confer special immunity from existing defamation law.

Other committee members raised procedural clarifications. Senator Allison (Ellison) noted that closed sessions must be agendized and said that the agenda‑posting requirement (generally the full agenda must be posted no later than 9 a.m. on the third working day before a meeting) prevents items from being moved into private session without notice. The attorney general’s office confirmed closed portions must be agendized as such.

No members of the public testified in person or by phone; the committee briefly announced a modified public‑comment phone line for the hearing. The committee closed the hearing on AB 64 with no vote recorded on the bill during this session.

The presentation and questioning focused on interpretation and enforcement: Morton emphasized the office’s investigatory authority, and senators repeatedly sought clarity about the scope of the attorney‑client exception and the limits on closed‑session deliberations.

Looking ahead: The committee did not take a vote at the hearing. If advanced, the bill would proceed through the normal committee process for further consideration and potential amendment.