a @ | E pugs RCieER RECEIVED SEP 08 205 ‘monte PROTEIN ‘September 4, 2015 Jennifer cart Chie, Bureau of Sfe Drinking Water SSE 901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 ECEIVE f} Carson Cry, NV 89701, SEP 0g 2015 engranmerial Prajecto elena Re: Drinking Water Operator Certification Io # OP00037 Investigation into Allegations Related to NAC ASA 646 Dear Ms. Carr, ‘This etter is submitted on behalf of Jerome Breland In response to your letter dated August 24,2025. fist want to state that Mr. Breland categorically denies any volation of NAC 445A.646. The folowing Jetter wil address all nine elements inthe regulations, along with exhibits, to show that Mr. Breland, ‘who has been an exemplary employee for 23 years forthe City of North Las Vegas, has not violated any ‘element ofthe regulations wth the exception of one late fling, which he disclosed. He also paid the ‘extra charge forthe late fling. Element 1: “In applying fr or obtaining a certificate, has submitted to the Division any application, {document record, report, oF affidavit or ay information in support thereo, whichis false oF fraudulent” Jerome Breland’ application was honest and truthful. Mr. Breland maintains that when he submited his application that he had no doubt or concern that anything he was submitting was untruthful. Mf. land was unaware when completing the aplication that anything in NAC 445A.646 applied to his misdemeanor conviction. Element 2:_“Is grossly negligent, incompetent or has committed misconduct inthe performance of his duties as an operator ofa publl water system” "Nothing in Jerome Brelane’s work history indicates that he ever committed any misconduct, has ever been negligent or incompetent. In fact the pposite s true. Jerome Breland has been an exemplary ‘employee. With numerous cations, awards and congratulations he has always been, since he fist ‘started working forthe Cty of North Las Vegas an outstanding employee.eo ®@ o He has worked forthe City of North Las Vegassince 1982. He has been promoted many times and has had many outstanding employee evaluations. Your office subpoenaed the work history and records of Mr. Breland. You can see from them what anoutstanding employee he has been, “When this incident happened in 1999, his supervisor supported him and noted what a valuable ‘employee he was. He was not terminated in 1999 due to his convition because of his outstanding work etic. In February 2014, Mr. Bretand was selected tobe the recipient ofthe Exemplary Operations Supervisor ‘Award from the American Water Works Assolation. This ward recognizes special Operator performance working ina supervisory position by dedication toward compliance with public heath standards, plant maintenance, development of new ideas, taining, and outstanding achievement beyond normal operating responsibltes.(Eshibit 3) Element 3: "Has demonstrated dlsregard forthe health and safety of the publi.” Merriam Webster's definition of "The Publi’ is: 1. of relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of @ country, state, ect. 2. accessible to or shared by al members ofthe community; Jerome Breland isan outstanding member ofthe community. In his fe of service and exemplary work he made one mistake and paid a huge price. He has been judged for one Impulsive mistake n defense cofhis child. When he reallzed what he had done he felt horible and devastated. But his erminal act was not against “the puble.” It was against a bully that had harassed, assaulted, bused, stole from, and caused boully harm trough physical violence against his son. The bully took his. sone water botle from him, as he had done before, and drank it, then passed it around to other boys, ‘taunting his son and even though his son warned the boys not to drink they did anyway. Mr. Breland’ life other than the few minuteshe made a terible decison has been one of high regard ‘and service tothe publl. He Isa member ofthe Lion's Club, a service organization that hes the public in many ways, On January 14,2004 he was awarded one ofthe highest honors from our community: “The Helen Keller Award. This was for his tireless work forthe Southern Nevada Lion Sight Conservation ‘Committee and Charitable Foundation. (Exhibit 2) ‘Another accolade Jerome Breland received was from Advanced Technologies Academy thanking him for bis support ofthe A-Tech Career Fair and postvely affecting the lives ofthe students. They state that “without people like you who care about ou nation’s future, today’s youth would not have the ability to succeed. (Exhibit 3 and 4) ‘Another example of his commitment to helping the community was the way Mr. Breland asisted the United States Department ofthe Interior with helping keep Hegal dumping at bay and forthe years ‘working withthe Desert Clean Up program. (Exhibit 5)® @ ‘As you shouldbe able to clearly see by now Jerome Breland is an asst to our community. He has more ‘once forthe healt and safety of the public than 99% ofthe people that ive io Las Vegas. Element 4: “Has acted outsde the rights and privileges of his classification for which he holds a certificate: ‘This element isnot applicable to Jerome Breland. He has now and has always held the appropriate license for the job he was hited todo by the City of North Las Vegas. ‘Element 5: “ Has been convicted ofa violation of any federal law or aw of any tate relating to water ‘quality, Including, but not limited to, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC. 66 300f et sea,” Jerome Breland’s misdemeanor crime which Involved adding Ipecac syrup toa bottle of ule didnot iolate any federal law or law of any state relating to water quality, including the Safe Drinking Water ‘Ac. inorder to violate any lw relating to water quality or the safe drinking water act, the crime must be upon a public water sytem. Element 6: “Has been convicted ofa felony or other crime involving moral turpitude, dshonesty, oF corruption” “The first part of this question asks there i 2 conviction ofa felony. The answer s that Jerome Breland has had no felony convictions in hs fe. His only criminal conviction I fora misdemeanor. ‘As far as dishonesty or corruption there has never been any question to Mr. Breland honesty. And he certainly has never been accused of being corrupt “The question of moral turpitude fs not defined by statute in Nevada. The Nevada Supreme Courts fo yoddng pus juswdajoau] ANOf JO4 PUBJBIG BUOLDl 101 payuasadd H @ uoywauddy fo quiver » SS fiuappoy aR 9) paouDapy x y _eomnoes So@ Exhibit 5 Exhibit 5@ ® United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ‘Souther Nevada Distt A101 N Torey Pies Dive Las Vegas, NV 89130, ‘np bm einem ‘Dear John Ronis, ‘As ourpost and cable project at Deeatur and Iron Mt. gets clocer to completion, I want to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude forall the help your department and staff, {including Phil Davis and Jerome Berland, has provided. You supported us thru making berms ‘and barricading the area for almost two years, which helped us keep illegal damping at bay until we could get our project moving forward. When we did start building you permitted us to store ‘our supplies a the water facility, which greatly reduced our transportation costs. In addition, your staff has always been eager to answer questions and available to meet us onsite to discuss deus. Jn mi three years of working with the Desert Clean Up program at the BLM I have never ‘had such a responsive and proactive adjacent ROW (Right Of Way) holder. This exemplary interagency collaboration is something that I will tke with me forthe rest of my career. Please ‘pass along the message of what a tue pleasure it has been for me to work with the folks at CNVL. Thope to get the opportunity again someday, keep us in mind for any future projects you ‘may have. Thank you! ‘Melissa Sanders Desert Clean Up Coortiinator 102-515-5034Exhibit 6 Exhibit 6 ¢‘Vice President - Northern Ni John Malone Marty Wier ‘Karen Winkler ichaed Weight Mace Yampolety Presidents Chad David Chemoft Dons Gentle Karen Wicker Richard Wright @ ® NACJ ‘Nevada Attomeys for Criminal Justice February 8, 2011 Re: Senate Bill 19 Hearing: February 11, 2011, 12:30 p.m., Room 2133 ‘Senate Committee on Commerce, Labor and Energy Dear Senator Schneider, My name is Lisa Rasmussen and I am writing this letter on behalf of the Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice. NACJ is an organization of Nevada criminal defense attorneys who joined forces to develop a voice for the Nevada criminal defense bar, o participate in the ‘Nevada legislative process, and to provide a forum for sharing {information and support for those who practice eriminal defense. ‘Senate Bill 19 contains language which creates serious state and federal due process issues under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under the Nevada Constitution’s due process clause. We also anticipate that, based on the issues set forth herein, the proposed language will lead to increased litigation, thus ‘necessarily resulting in increased costs for the State of Nevada. ‘The proposed changes to Senate Bill 19 ask applicants for ‘contractor's licenses or licensees to report their conviction of or plea to 2 “or crime of moral turpitude in this State or any other jurisdiction,” and subjects the party who fails to do so to disciplinary action. See Senate Bill 19, Section 1(1) & (2), and Section 2(11). ‘This language also appears in the current version of NRS 624,3016(2) First, the term “moral turpitude” is arguably so vague as to violate requirements of the state and federal due process clauses in the proposed context. It is not defined in statute, and the Nevada ‘Supreme Court’s definition is quite vague and broad.’ "It appears the only definition for “moral turpitude” ever articulated by the Nevada ‘Supreme Court appears in State ex rel. Conklin v. Buckingham, where it appeared to@ ® Applicants or licensees cannot be expected to divine whether their conviction or plea to a crime actualy falls in the category of “moral turpitude.” The use of this term in a statute {imposing criminal penalties was already deemed unconstitutional by the Nevada Supreme Court? Moreover, NRS 624.750 makes it crime to violate NRS 624.3016(7), which criminalizes the “[mJisrepresentation or the omission of a material fact, or the ‘commission of any other fraudulent or deceitful act, to obtain a license.” A new license applicant's feilure to report this new “moral turpitude” could easily be construed as the type of omission criminalized uader NRS 624.3016(7), thereby increasing the likelihood that the term will be deemed unconstitutionally broad based on the higher standard applied to criminal statutes. Second, this constitutional vagueness is exacerbated by the language, “or any other jurisdiction.” “Moral turpitude” is already vague in the context of Nevada law. “However, subjecting an applicant or licensee to disciplinary proceedings and / or loss of license based on what can only be speculative guesses about another state's definition of “moral turpitude”—which may be quite different from Nevada’s, or which could likely be ‘even more vague—provides no notice to applicants or licensees as to precisely the type of crime that is required to be reported. Third, and most important, the use of the term “moral turpitude” clearly violates the due process rights of applicants and licensees because under Nevada law, whether an act or ‘ime involves “moral tuxpitude” is often @ mixed question of fact and law, aud almost adopt the following definitions: (1) “An act of baseness,vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen or to society in general contrary to the accepted rule of right and duty between man and man”; (2) “Turpitude is defined as inherent basenes: or vileness of principle, words or actions, or shameful wickedness or depravity, wtereas ‘moral’ describes conduct that conforms to the generally accepted rules which society recognizes should govern everyone in his social and commercial relations with others, regardless of whether those rules constitute legal obligations, so that ‘moral turpitude’ implies something in itself whether punishable by law oF not, the word moral serving only to emphasize the nature of the wrong committed”; and (3) “anything contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary tothe accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.” State ex rel. Conklin v. Buckingham, $9 Nev. 36, 41-42, 84 P_2d 49, 50-51 (1938). *Sce Reno v, Second Judicial Dist, Court, 83 Nev. 201, 204-206 (1967). 2@ ® ion} This is apparent inthe Nevada Supreme Court's determination that a finding of moral turpitude requires ¢ determination of intent, independent of the charged crime In ease after case, the Nevada Supreme Court has ‘demonstrated that the determination of ‘moral turpitude” generally requires a judicial or administrative determination independent of the crime of which one is actually convicted. ‘An applicant or licensee cannot reasonably be expected to make such a determination on his own and tobe subject to loss of livelihood, property, or criminal penalties i he fails to “guess” correctly. ‘The use of the identical language, “or crime of moral turpitude in this State or any other Jurisdiction,” also currently appears in NRS 624.3016(2) and is likewise problematic and should be reconsidered, While it concerns a determination by the contractor's board—as ‘opposed to compelling an applicant or licensee to make speculative determinations as to ‘the meaning of “moral turpitude” for himself—it is nevertheless problematic from a due process perspective because of its vagueness, and because it appears to require legal and judicial determinations that are not appropriate for the contractor's board, For these reasons, we suggest that the language “or crime of moral turpitude in this State ‘or any other jurisdiction” be removed from the new language proposed in Senate Bill 19, ‘and further suggest that it be removed from the current version of NRS 624.3016(2). Best Regard ‘As/ Lisa A. Rasmussen Lisa A. Rasmussen, Esq. ‘NACI Legislative Committee Member See, e.g, State Bat v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 213, 756 P.24 464, 528 (Nev. 1988) (“The question of moral turpitude turpitude is one of law, and the determination of that issue is this courts responsibility.” (citing In re Higbie (1972) 6 Cal 3d 562, 569, 99 CaLRptr. 865, 493 P.2d 97); see also In re Reno, 57 Nev. 314, 64 P.2d 1036 (1937). “State ex rel, Conklin v, Buckingham, 59 Nev. 36, 41-42, 84 P.2d 49, 50-51 (Nev. 1938) ("Unintentional wrong, or an improper act done without unlawful or improper intent, does not carry with it the germs of moral turpitude.”) 3