77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| SB74 | ||
| - | ||
| For | May-23-2013 | |
| For | May-23-2013 | |
| For | May-20-2013 | |
| For | This is a good bill which will not only promote transparency but require honest dealings by public officials and bureaucrats. | May-16-2013 |
| For | "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Don't know who said that, but there's unfortunate wisdom in it. As amended it's a watered-down version of an already watered-down bill, but if you've ever actually tried to gain access to public records showing what our purportedly-public agencies are up to (my current large, dull, rust axe to grind is the Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Agency (SAPTA), which has done all it can to do nothing at all about providing services to pregnant women who abuse alcohol and other drugs), this bill is a very large step in the right direction of citizens being able to find out just what is going on in their name. FYI, the going price for SAPTA putting its regulations in sufficient order for a citizen to find out what the regulatory requirements are for SAPTA-certified (and thus generally a taxpayer-funded) substance abuse program is $200.00. I don't know about you, but I don't have the 200.00, yet I'd like to know just what kind of programs my tax monies are paying for. | May-04-2013 |
| For | Apr-28-2013 | |
| For | Apr-06-2013 | |
| Against | If the person requesting a copy does not pay for it, who does? Oh yes! the taxpayer. | Apr-03-2013 |
| For | Apr-02-2013 | |
| For | Apr-02-2013 | |
| For | Apr-02-2013 | |
| For | These are the peoples records and the people should have access without the burden of extraordinary costs as is currently happening. | Apr-02-2013 |
| For | I have had problems with City of Fernley refusing public records, imposing excessive fees and taking weeks to get the info and/or refusing | Apr-02-2013 |
| For | Mar-26-2013 | |
| For | The person who says they don't know of any agency that would make documents so expensive that the public couldn't access them obviously has never dealt with the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Agency, who wanted $200 just to put their regulatory rules in order so I could look at them. | Mar-22-2013 |
| For | Mar-12-2013 | |
| For | Mar-04-2013 | |
| For | Unfortunately this Bill is necessary. We have Agency's quoting ridicules dollar amounts to fulfill simple requests. Political subdivisions (Boulder City)Stating they can not produce records as they do not keep them in a manner that is readily available for public consumption. The abuse has been rampant save Chris Perry in DPS, who has been forthcoming. METRO Simply ignores NRS 239, despite the Legislative attention in the last couple sessions. | Feb-22-2013 |
| Against | This bill does not account for the costs many agencies incur in man-hours trying to secure the exact records desired by requestors. Copies of clear, bound or electronic records are one thing, but often individuals request copies of copies of handwritten forms and it often takes hours to locate and produce a CLEAR copy of the requested records. Also, many times, finding obscure records takes hours in research time. Placing such fee limitations into LEGISLATION is a bad idea. NO AGENCY I know of would deliberately make records so expensive that they would not be asked for. The agencies I work with only charge what recuperates their costs of doing business. This is especially important when those who must locate and prepare copies have main duties other than records. | Feb-21-2013 |
| For | Voters LOVE transparency | Feb-20-2013 |
| Against | Feb-16-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-13-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-11-2013 | |
| Against | Feb-10-2013 | |
| Against | This bill is an extremely bad idea. Impose these restrictions on document preparers and the costs for assistance and services will be out of reach to poor people - the people that cannot afford attorneys. Who asked for this bill? The attorney general's office or the lawyers? Wasn't this tried in 1997 - and found to be unworkable, with administrative costs far exceeding revenues? DO NOT PASS THIS BILL. | Feb-09-2013 |
 Session Info | NELIS | Interim Info | Law Library | General Info | Counsel Bureau | Research Library | Assembly | Senate | FAQs View Scheduled Meetings | Publications | Proposals | Career Opportunities | Gift Shop | Site Map | Contact Us © 2013 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau |
|