AB 64: Revises provisions relating to public meetings. (BDR 19-445) - Nevada

Reprint 2 → As Enrolled · 5 edits · Jun 5, 2025

MODERATE

This bill updates Nevada's Open Meeting Law to clarify when attorney-client discussions count as public meetings, restricts remote meetings for contested cases and regulatory hearings to ensure public access, and strengthens defamation protections for witnesses and public commenters.

Scope change

The bill narrows the definition of a 'meeting' regarding legal advice and expands restrictions on remote technology use for specific high-stakes proceedings.

DEFINITION

Changed the definition of a 'meeting' to exclude gatherings where public body members receive legal advice and deliberate solely on that advice, whereas previously such deliberations toward a decision were also excluded.

REQUIREMENT

Prohibited public bodies from holding contested cases or regulatory workshops/hearings via remote technology unless a physical location is available for the general public to attend, tightening previous rules that allowed remote use with some exceptions.

Modified the requirement for remote meetings to include clear instructions for public comment; this requirement now applies only if no physical location is designated for public attendance.

ENFORCEMENT

Added a general provision stating that the Open Meeting Law does not affect civil lawsuits for defamation arising from statements made by members of the public during comment periods.

ELIGIBILITY

Clarified that Open Meeting Law notice and openness requirements do not apply to initial disciplinary investigations unless the licensee specifically requests them.

As Introduced → Reprint 1 · 6 edits

MODERATE

This bill amends Nevada's Open Meeting Law to clarify when public meetings are exempt from public scrutiny, specifically regarding attorney-client deliberations on legal advice. It also adjusts rules for public comment times, allows public bodies to reject comments on pending contested cases, and modifies requirements for remote meetings and defamation privileges.

Scope change

The bill narrows the definition of a 'meeting' to exclude specific attorney-client legal deliberations and changes the conditions under which public bodies can hold remote meetings for contested cases.

DEFINITION

Revised the definition of a 'meeting' to explicitly exclude gatherings where public body members receive legal advice from attorneys and deliberate solely on that advice.

Clarified the definition of a 'licensee' in disciplinary proceedings to include those regulated by bodies with authority over occupations or professions.

REQUIREMENT

Changed the requirement for remote technology meetings: instead of always requiring a physical public location, it now only requires one if the meeting involves adjudicating contested cases or holding workshops/hearings on regulations.

Authorized public bodies to refuse public comments that relate to issues of fact or law in a contested case until the case is fully resolved.

Adjusted the rule for reading instructions to the public for remote meetings; this is now required only if no physical location is designated for public attendance.

SCOPE

Updated the scope of Open Meeting Law application for disciplinary proceedings to ensure all provisions apply once disciplinary action begins, unless the licensee requests otherwise during the investigation phase.

Reprint 1 → Reprint 2 · 6 edits

MODERATE

This bill was reprinted with amendments adopted on May 19, 2025, instead of April 17, 2025. The legislative text was updated to reflect these new amendments, including changes to how public meetings are defined and conducted under Nevada's Open Meeting Law. The amendments modify provisions regarding public comment restrictions, remote meeting requirements, and disciplinary proceedings against licensees.

Scope change

The bill's scope remains focused on Nevada's Open Meeting Law, but the amendments refine how certain exceptions apply to public meetings, particularly regarding legal deliberations and remote technology systems.

TIMELINE

The reprint date was updated from April 17, 2025 to May 19, 2025, reflecting later amendments adopted by the legislature.

SCOPE

The summary of the bill was revised to remove language about authorizing public bodies to refuse certain public comment on contested cases, indicating this provision was amended or removed in the later version.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'meeting' was updated to clarify that gatherings to receive legal advice and deliberate on that advice are not considered meetings under the Open Meeting Law.

REQUIREMENT

Requirements for remote technology meetings were adjusted to specify when physical locations must be available for public attendance and participation.

The requirement to read instructions for public comment during remote meetings now only applies when no physical location is designated for public attendance.

ENFORCEMENT

Provisions regarding disciplinary proceedings against licensees were updated to clarify that all Open Meeting Law provisions apply after disciplinary action begins, unless the licensee requests otherwise.

Revises provisions relating to public meetings. (BDR 19-445)

What changed between versions

How they voted

Actions timeline

Sponsors