Monday, April 13, 1998 | 10:01 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- A ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court involving the Board of Regents is being hailed as a "substantial vote for the open meeting law" by the executive director of the Nevada Press Association.
Kent Lauer says the ruling Friday is a substantial defeat for secrecy in government.
"I'm not surprised the Supreme Court found the Regents violated the law," he said.
Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa said this was "a very important precedent now that we are in the age of the fax machine and e-mail."
The court held the 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 Jus-tice 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.
Price in 1995 was critical of 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 and he directed a response be drafted. It was faxed to all members except Price.
The Regents replied either by telephone or fax and the statement was never issued. Del Papa filed suit claiming this violated the open meeting law since there was no notice published there would be 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 about the open meeting but correct in refusing to issue an injunction.
Lauer said the law was clear that electronic devices such as fax machines and telephone can't be used to make secret decisions.
"I'm surprised the Regents' attorney (former counsel Don Klasic) fought this case so aggressively because he didn't have the facts or the law on his side."
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 a quorum participated in the decision not to release the proposed statement criticizing Price. But he said the court agrees an injunction against the Regents is not necessary at this time.
"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 ..."
archive
