Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: He gets Mike’s opinion

Friday, Dec. 15, 2000 | 9:48 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

I RECEIVED A LETTER from attorney J. Michael Schaefer, who is upset because we haven't given proper coverage to the Nevada Supreme Court decision ordered against him. Not only does he want proper coverage, but he also wants my opinion. He writes, "Your editorial could praise, or damn, the decision."

I read the court decision signed by Justices Bill Maupin, Cliff Young and Nancy Becker. Schaefer's was "an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing appellant's complaint for declaratory relief."

"Appellant John Michael Schaefer sought a judicial declaration that the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) general requirement that all driver's license and vehicle registration applicants reveal their residential addresses violates his constitutional rights of privacy. On Aug. 28, 1998, the district court granted the DMV's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed."

After reading this and the reasoning of the justices, I went to the guts of the decision, which concluded:

"We conclude that the state, in the case at hand, has a compelling interest in obtaining and maintaining accurate and reliable residence information from its driver's license and vehicle registration applicants. This interest outweighs the slight chance than an individual's residence address will be improperly released. Furthermore, NRS 481.063 limits the unwarranted disclosure of an applicant's personal information. Therefore, the statutory limits of NRS 481.063 further minimize the likelihood of the improper release of an applicant's personal information.

"NRS 483.290 and NRS 482.215 require the disclosure of an applicant's residence address, which is necessary for the state to maintain accurate and reliable information on its driver's license and vehicle registration applicants. This information is gathered not just for the purpose of mailing notices to individuals. Law enforcement agencies, for example, utilize the information to contact next of kin."

OK, Mike, I read your reasoning and the reasoning of the three justices and agree with their conclusion. You have every right to challenge government rules, regulations and laws. There are some times they must be challenged and it takes a person like you to take up these issues. Believe me, there are times I disagree with the ruling of our courts, but this isn't one of them.

I'm not praising or damning the court's decision but merely agree that it meets my rule of common sense.

You wanted my opinion, and this is what you got.

The January-February 2001 edition of Fly Rod and Reel has an article by sportsman and writer Ted Williams about the Jarbidge bull trout. The opening paragraph didn't do much for the reputation of Nevada's Elko County.

Williams teed off with this opening shot:

"Consider Elko County, in northeastern Nevada, a land of breathtaking panoramas, ancient upheavals and pristine wilderness. Here the county government -- in league with and indistinguishable from a rabble of anti-U.N., anti-environmental, property-rights, local-control, New-World-Order-conspiracy theorists -- is attempting to teach the federal government a lesson by sacrificing the world's southernmost population of bull trout."

Williams is a good writer, but his article contains little information about the Elko County road-and-stream conflict with the U.S. Forest Service that hasn't appeared in this column. The problems of former Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor Gloria Flora were also covered in this column and she received my support.

The author could have spent a little more research time before taking a cheap shot at Nevada's U.S. attorney, Kathryn Landreth. He did too much listening to a whining Forest Service investigator who should have put in more time properly preparing cases than writing memos about his lack of success.

Overall it's an interesting piece of writing that is presented by a sportsman dedicated to the protection of the bull trout and other threatened species. He refers to the bull trout as a "genetic treasure -- ugly to the locals perhaps, but beautiful to anyone who looks at them with clear vision and a refined taste in natural objects."