Committee hears measure to create Office of Public Records Ombudsman; supporters and local governments seek fixes

Assemblymember Selena Torres Fawcett told the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs that Assembly Bill 128 would create an Office of the Public Records Ombudsman within the executive department to receive complaints, offer mediation, investigate disputes and issue determinations on access to public records.

Torres Fawcett, sponsor of AB128, said the proposal grew from interim committee work and public examples of delays and denials under Nevada’s public records law. "This is a piece of legislation that we worked on during the interim and I think still needs some work," she said, adding she has been consulting stakeholders and expects continued revisions to the appointment process, duties and procedures.

As outlined to the committee, the bill would make the ombudsman an independent agency in the executive department, allow the ombudsman to employ staff subject to available funds, require the ombudsman to offer mediation and education, grant investigative authority including subpoenas, and direct that the ombudsman issue a final determination no later than 90 days after initiating an investigation. The bill also provides avenues for judicial review and for a governmental entity to seek district court orders regarding record requests and fees.

Public commenters and organizations supporting the bill said delays in obtaining records are common. Michael Ryan, a Nevada resident and veteran, urged lawmakers to “please vote yes” arguing the ombudsman can mediate complaints and issue decisions that can then be challenged in court. Ellen Gifford described a multi‑month sequence of extensions from the Secretary of State’s office on a records request and said no records had been provided as of the hearing, calling AB128 “direly needed.” The Disability Action Coalition said it supports the bill and urged the office to accommodate disability needs in its processes.

Stakeholders representing local governments, law enforcement, and municipal records officers said they generally support the goal of improving access but opposed AB128 as drafted and asked for amendments. Warren Hardy of the Nevada Urban Consortium (representing the five largest cities) said local governments take transparency seriously but urged lawmakers to protect personal privacy and guard against misuse of records. Las Vegas Metro Police’s counsel said the bill could leave requesters with an incentive to litigate because prevailing plaintiffs currently can recover attorney fees; counsel suggested a court‑annexed arbitration model might better align incentives.

The City of Las Vegas’ records officer opposed the bill, saying it would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy and impose annual costs she estimated between $165,000 and $530,000 for local compliance, training and IT updates. Media and open‑government groups — including the Nevada Open Government Coalition, Nevada Press Association, Nevada Broadcasters Association and the Las Vegas Review‑Journal — praised the bill’s intent but said appointment procedures, independence, and some procedural rules should be revised to avoid undermining transparency or creating perverse litigation incentives.

Torres Fawcett acknowledged the range of concerns and said she had scheduled stakeholder meetings to develop amendments. The committee closed the hearing on AB128 after public testimony and the sponsor’s remarks; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing.