State still says regents violated open meeting law

Monday, April 24, 2000 | 10:17 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The state attorney general's office, at least for the time being, isn't backing down on its opinions that the university Board of Regents twice violated the open meeting law.

Thomas J. Ray, general counsel for the regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada, and Deputy Attorney General Victoria Oldenburg exchanged faxed letters of disagreement Friday over whether the law was ignored during separate closed-door hearings about the appointment of Richard Moore as founding president of the proposed state college in Henderson and a later incident involving his behavior.

"In sum, the Board of Regents did not violate the open meeting law in any of the instances which you cite," Ray said in his seven-page letter. "It is for these reasons that I respectfully request that you reconsider the positions you have taken in your correspondence and notify my client that those opinions have been withdrawn."

Oldenburg replied, "Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion as to the application of the letter of the Open Meeting Law, and the spirit and intent of the law. We will review your letter in more detail and specifically address your contentions."

Regent Tom Kirkpatrick complained that the board ignored the law in naming Moore to the new job. Regent Steve Sisolak questioned if the law was violated when the board conducted the closed hearing about comments made by Moore about Sisolak.

Ray said the complaints were pending at the same time and should have been considered as one.

"By separating the two complaints you have increased the degree of negative publicity my clients have suffered and conveyed the mistaken impression the board has ignored your prior 'warning.' "

Oldenburg said, "We chose to treat each as a separate complaint because they involved separate public meetings and distinctly different issues."

She noted that two regents agreed with the recent opinion regarding the second meeting.

"Obviously, there is disagreement among regents as to whether the board violated the letter, spirit and intent of the Nevada Open Meeting Law."

Kirkpatrick complained that the board took action on naming Moore as president of the proposed Henderson college when it was not on the agenda as required. Ray said the regents followed the guidelines set forth in the attorney general's own Open Meeting Law Manual. He said Moore was not appointed at the disputed meeting, but a motion was made to name him president at a subsequent meeting.

The second secret meeting involved a tiff between Moore and Sisolak. The attorney general's office said the item on the agenda should have identified Moore as the topic of discussion, that there should not have been any discussion of the behavior of Sisolak and that there was nothing on the agenda to allow the regents to give a vote of confidence to Moore in the open part of the meeting.

Ray said he was concerned that Oldenburg, in her legal opinion, identified Moore as the subject of the meeting.

"... It disturbs me that you would take so lightly the privacy rights of an individual employee by publicizing who was the subject of and what was discussed during a personnel session," Ray wrote.

He said Oldenburg had the right to review the confidential minutes of the meeting but not to make certain sections public.

But Oldenburg noted a newspaper story disclosed that the closed-door session concerned Moore. She said it was clear from the motion made by Regent Doug Hill during the public meeting that the closed session concerned Moore.

The conflict between Moore and Sisolak arose when the regent questioned whether the university would get funding for a new school when there were pressing needs at other campuses. Moore in public referred to Sisolak as an "enemy" of the Henderson college.

Sisolak asked for the closed meeting to talk about Moore's behavior.

The attorney general's office warned the regents that another violation could mean a lawsuit or an injunction.