Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Notice Website topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require Nevada public-notice website to show three days of scheduled meetings to improve transparency
Summary
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.
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.
