Open-government advocates also await judge’s Mapes decision

Martin Griffith

Monday, Dec. 20, 1999 | 9:24 a.m.

RENO, Nev. - Preservationists aren't the only ones anxiously awaiting a judge's decision on a lawsuit aimed at halting the Jan. 30 demolition of a historic Reno hotel-casino.

Open-government advocates say they're interested to learn how Washoe District Judge James Hardesty rules on a crucial aspect of the Mapes Hotel case: the Nevada Open Meeting Law.

At issue is whether the Reno City Council violated the law by meeting privately with staff in small groups two weeks before its Sept. 13 public vote to tear down the Mapes.

Preservationists contend the vote should be voided because the private meetings improperly tainted the council's decision. They want the council to start over and consider various bids to save the shuttered Mapes.

Hardesty is expected to rule on the lawsuit Monday or Tuesday.

"We're very interested to see how he rules in the case," said Kent Lauer, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, a newspaper trade group that supports open government.

"His decision is going to be very important because it addresses a key concern with the open meeting law. If he does decide in the city's favor, then it's obvious there's a loophole in the law."

During a two-day hearing on the lawsuit last week, Mayor Jeff Griffin and four council members testified they were briefed about the Mapes' status at private back-to-back meetings on Aug. 31.

But they said no quorum was present for either of the meetings and that they were informational only, so they didn't violate the open meeting law.

In all, the council has met 18 times in private with three or fewer members over the last year to be briefed about various issues by staff.

Many states, including California, have prohibited such briefings. But the Nevada Attorney General's Office has ruled twice this year that they don't violate the open meeting law.

The press association has concerns about the practice, Lauer said.

"There has to be some way to prevent a public body from purposely avoiding the open meeting law by splitting into smaller groups because it obviously violates the intent of the law," he said.

"The law says all deliberations must be open in public. Deliberation is gathering information. In many cases the information that goes into a decision is as important as the decision itself. How can you separate the two? You can't."

At last week's hearing, Donna Kristaponis, assistant city manager for development services, defended the city's practice of holding the private meetings.

She testified that the meetings provide a safe environment for council members to ask even less-than-brilliant questions.

"Possible embarrassment in the democratic process is no excuse for secrecy," Lauer said. "As a taxpayer, I want to hear the discussion and information. How else can I assess the performance of my elected officials?"

Hardesty has said that it would not be enough for preservationists to prove that the open meeting law was violated.

They also must show any violation tainted the process and that the errors were not corrected during the public meeting that followed, he said.