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

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.