Nevada’s occupational licensing boards spent at least $380,000 on contracts with lobbying firms during the 2025 legislative session, as many of them fought against efforts by Gov. Joe Lombardo’s administration to merge many of the boards.

These contracts, required to be disclosed under state law every six months, reveal to what extent many of the state’s most prominent licensing boards rely on lobbyists to navigate the legislative process and influence public policy. A bill that passed during this year’s legislative session removed these biannual reporting requirements.

Still, total spending on lobbyists decreased from the first half of the last legislative session in 2023, and some of the money given to the firms focused on efforts outside of lobbying, such as public relations. 

Officials with the Department of Business and Industry (B&I), the state agency that oversees the boards, have criticized board use of lobbyists and argued it stymied communication between agency and board leaders. 

However, several board leaders and contracted lobbyists say outsourcing lobbying is a cost-effective way to stay involved in the legislative process, given that boards’ staff often don’t have the bandwidth to lobby on top of their existing responsibilities.

The boards — about three dozen of which represent tens of thousands of licensed employees in Nevada — occupy a unique space in Nevada’s government. They are housed within a state agency, have budgets that are fee-based and have governor-appointed members, but have also been willing to buck legislative priorities from state leaders who oversee their operations.

Use of outside lobbyists was a particularly contentious topic during this year’s legislative session. B&I put forward a major report and ultimately failed proposal (SB78) that would have eliminated and consolidated many of the boards, which agency leaders said was necessary to address board malfeasance and ensure compliance with state laws. Boards and their lobbyists stridently opposed the measure, though many of the boards were also involved in other bills.

Still, lobbyist expenses during the first half of this year represent a decrease from 2023, when total contract payouts were nearly $450,000. During the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers passed a bill reorganizing the boards under the department of business.

One board lobbyist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about their work, noted that their firm charges boards less than other clients because of the boards’ limited finances.

In an interview, B&I Director Kris Sanchez reiterated that his interactions with the boards were challenging.

“My issue has been with the idea that, as an agency administrator, I have to go through the lobbyists to have a policy conversation,” he said.

He also noted that conversations with boards differed — larger boards likely had a greater understanding of the legislative process, while some boards had less legislative knowledge that led to more challenges during the session — but he said that he understood the importance of lobbyists.

“Lobbyists do play a role, and my issue has never been with the lobbyists as a profession or their relevance in this, in the legislative process,” he said.

Agata Gawronski, the executive director of the Nevada State Board of Examiners for Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Counselors, said in an interview that she has only hired a lobbyist two times during her 14 years in her role because of proposed bills that could potentially affect her licensees.

Under this year’s consolidation bill, Gawronski’s board would have been merged with four others.

“I felt that I needed a stronger representation at the legislative session that I myself working full-time would be unable to do, and the time and attention that it needed to make sure that we are represented in session,” she said.

She also disagreed with Sanchez’s claims that the presence of lobbyists imperiled communication with the boards, arguing it was the only way boards could have a say in the legislative process.

Gawronski’s board, which paid $20,000 for lobbying in the first half of this year per reports provided at an August legislative meeting, has faced scrutiny from the state for failing to obtain a required audit last year because of what she described as financial constraints after their regular auditor retired at the last minute. Gawronski said the lobbying expenses were “necessary” because of the mergers proposed this year and that she is retroactively completing an audit that was missed last year.

Some boards’ lobbying expenses also went beyond the consolidation bill.

The Nevada State Board of Nursing, among the largest boards in the state, had the second-highest lobbying contract in the first half of 2025. And while it would not have been affected by this year’s consolidation bill, it still relied on lobbying for other pieces of legislation, particularly its failed attempt to enact a nurse licensure compact in Nevada.

“We have 80-plus thousand nurses and nursing assistance that we regulate … every legislative session, and there is something that's going to come up that's going to involve nursing,” said Executive Director Cathy Dinauer. “Having a consistent lobbyist who understands us, understands nursing is really able to help facilitate and navigate the conversations that are often needed with legislators.”

Moving forward, Sanchez said he hopes that boards will tap into resources available through his department, such as in-house counsel, which he said could decrease the boards’ overhead costs.

“Being part of Business and Industry will add capacity. It expands their resources,” he said. “It may not negate hiring a lobbyist, but it certainly will help them probably mitigate the size of the contract, and certainly can help them focus the attention of that lobbyist on issues very specific to their industry.”

Updated on 9/11/25 at 9:18 a.m. to include the occupational therapy board’s lobbyist spending and a 2025 bill that removed lobbying reporting requirements.