77th (2013) Session
Opinions
View all submitted comments for each bill by the most recent, by votes for, or by votes against.
| AB31 | ||
| - | ||
| Against | May-08-2013 | |
| Against | This bill is a ripoff for people who own property. Those who don't own property get paid by those who do own of property. Please defeat. | Apr-08-2013 |
| Against | Apr-05-2013 | |
| Against | See Karen Gray's testimony on this bill. I agree with her comments. | Mar-29-2013 |
| Against | Making confidential information public is not smart. | Mar-20-2013 |
| Against | You need to compile the list of documents/records specifically allowed by law to be viewed as well as those specifically denied. This willl ensure that the local government cannot withhold information specifically allowed by law. | Feb-25-2013 |
| Against | Any attempt to prevent the citizen from information must be considered. I held a top secret/++ clearance. I knew and know that many classified documents were/are not really classifiable. Please do not let the Executive Branch of Nevada possess powers they have no right to have. Openness is most important to the well being of the citizens. AB 31 is massive. Listen to the 4th Estate. | Feb-13-2013 |
| For | Sec.3 should include information privileged under the Nev. State & U.S. Constitutions, federal law and information privileged under NRS 49.015-49.405 as excepted from disclosure under NRS 239.010. For local agencies who have to hire/budget an attorney to serve as advisor on public records dissemination, there is a fiscal impact. A non-attorney acting in such a capacity is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. | Feb-12-2013 |
| Against | 32 "A governmental entity may withhold a public book or 33 record of the governmental entity if, on the facts of the particular 34 case, the public interest served by nondisclosure of the public book 35 or record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure 36 of the public book or record." Who the heck thought this up? Sorry, this is plain silly and doesn't deserve to be in the bill. Government interest has no relevance to public interest. It is not the government's right to hide things because they may upset people who have a right to be upset at government failures. The only requirement of a "[citation to the specific statute or other legal authority]" is critical. Executive government must act according to written law which is granted by the people and its legislature. If citation cannot be made, there is no legal basis to prevent release. If the document disclosure is a problem, the legislature should make certain documents and filings confidential and not subject to release. It isn't up to some executive employee of the State to make decisions like this. If the legislature wants to make a way to deny requests, then they should explicitly make a clearly defined statute documenting how a document request denial should proceed and under what conditions it can occur. It should never be a balancing act between "government's interest" and "public interest." | Feb-09-2013 |
| Against | Power grab: transfers authority to apply the balance test from the courts to the agency that denied the record request in the first place... | Feb-08-2013 |
| For | In any medium access to public records seems just | Feb-05-2013 |
| Against | I think taking a look at how and what public records are considered is a good thing but also may work against citizens if revising could go other way. More transparency should be the objective. | Jan-22-2013 |
| For | Transparency in government is best for all. This bill helps keep the balanced safeguards Imperfect people need to govern others. Good law...thank you | Jan-17-2013 |
 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 |
|