Friday, April 10, 1998 | 3:14 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Friday that university regents violated the open meeting law when they conducted fax communications over possible censure of fellow regent Nancy Price of North Las Vegas.
The court, in its 3-1 decision, said voting by telephone or fax to make a public decision, whether the decision is to act or not, violates the state's open meeting law.
Chief Justice Charles Springer, who dissented, wrote the regents did not even come close to disobeying the law and he charged there was "blatant political influence" involved in the majority decision.
In 1995, Price was criticized other regents for the processes used to select presidents of UNLV and Western Nevada Community College and an external auditor for the University and Community College System of Nevada.
Regent Chairman Jim Eardley was approached by several regents who felt the board must reply to Price's allegations. He directed a response be drafted and it was faxed to all members except Price.
The regents replied either by telephone or fax and the statement was never issued. Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa filed suit claiming this violated the open meeting law since no notice was published about a meeting and it was held in secret.
District Judge Janet Berry ruled this fax communication did not violate the law and she refused to grant an injunction sought by Del Papa to stop the regents from taking similar action in the future.
The Supreme Court said Berry was wrong in her decision on the open meeting but correct in refusing to issue an injunction.
Justice Bill Maupin, who wrote the majority opinion, said, "...if a quorum is present, or is gathered by serial electronic communications, the body must deliberate and actually vote on the matter in a public meeting."
In this case, Maupin said it was undisputed that a quorum participated in the decision not to release the statement criticizing Price. But, he said the court agrees an injunction against the regents is not necessary.
"In light of our ruling today, danger of similar violations in the future should be unlikely," Maupin wrote.
Siding with Maupin were Justices Miriam Shearing and Bob Rose. Justice Cliff Young voluntarily excused himself from the case.
Springer said it might be possible for the regents to vote in secret on an official decision. But that didn't happen in this case. "Here the 'guilty' regents did nothing more than ignore the Eardley memorandum or decline to act in their individual capacities ..."
It's clear, Springer said, there was no official business conducted and the individual regents were free to ignore or disagree with the memorandum without suspecting they would be the subject of a civil suit.
He claimed the majority decision will cause "mischief" in the future, particularly for three-member boards. He said the ruling would prohibit any two members of a three member board from talking without following the open meeting law.
Springer used his dissent to rekindle his long-time battle with Justice Rose. He said Rose was the third and swing vote on this decision. And he suggested Rose owed Del Papa because she did not bring criminal charges against him when he allegedly sought to have drug charges dropped against a friend of his in Las Vegas.
Springer said, "Today's ruling is subject to being condemned as a political or pay-back decision..."
But Rose said those same allegations made by Springer four years ago were found by the court to be without merit. And Maupin, in a swipe at Springer, said, "The rhetorical excesses of the dissent obscure the legitimate debate over whether a violation of the open meeting legislation has occurred."
Writing as a footnote to the decision, Maupin said, "The allegations that the decision making processes in this case were corrupted by the desires of a sitting supreme court justice to repay past political debts are flawed in a number of ways." He said it was unfair to the other justices in the case and the Rose issue had been previously resolved.
Maupin also said nobody ever suggested Rose be disqualified when the case was heard.
archive
