Regents say meeting defense is an excuse

Tuesday, Aug. 3, 2004 | 11:03 a.m.

Some university regents are calling the system's defense of itself in an open-meeting law complaint nothing but excuses.

"It's just protectionism," Regent Mark Alden said Monday.

The university system has been accused of breaking the open-meeting law by not releasing a draft contract proposed for the interim chancellor, Jim Rogers, when requested by the Las Vegas Sun.

A confidential attorney-client memo, first reported by Sun columnist Jon Ralston on Monday in his e-mail newsletter, details point-by-point why attorney Tom Ray believes he did not violate the state's open-meeting law. The memo is in sharp disagreement with the opinion the Nevada attorney general issued last week that the law required Ray to release the document.

Regent Bret Whipple, who requested the explanation from Ray, said the memo that needed to be changed showed an inherent hesitancy to release public information that needed to be changed.

"I think the general consensus of that memo was that they (the press) didn't have to have it, therefore I don't have to give it to them," Whipple said. "I think it needs to be the opposite.

"... The fact of the matter is that if there is not a law against it, it should be released," he said.

Whipple said Ray's arguments were legally correct, but not politically correct, and that the entire University and Community College System of Nevada needed to "err on the side of openness."

Whipple's sentiments are backed by several of the regents as well as Rogers, who is meeting with Attorney General Brian Sandoval on Wednesday in an attempt to resolve the current violation outside of court.

The attorney general's opinion came in response to a complaint by the Sun.

Rogers said it does not matter whether Ray is right or wrong.

"The issue is how we stop these either actual violations or alleged violations," Rogers said. "Whether we win, lose, or draw, the point is that you cannot allow these to continue."

The current allegation stems from Ray's refusal to release a draft of Rogers' proposed employment contract prior to his May 7 appointment.

Ray, who hasn't returned numerous phone calls for comment in the past week, claims he did not have to release the contract for several reasons: 1) The contract was a draft that was mailed to regents only to let them know the matter was being negotiated, 2) the communication with regents was protected from the open-meeting law through attorney-client privilege, 3) the reporter from the Las Vegas Sun cited the public records act when asking for the contract, and did not specifically site the open-meeting law or ask for it as supporting materials to the agenda item.

Ray also writes in the memo that the attorney general's office cannot sue the entire Board of Regents for the actions of one of its employees.

But Neil Rombardo, the deputy attorney general in charge of the case, thinks Ray is just "splitting hairs" in his memo. Rombardo reiterated the attorney general's stand that because the contract and Rogers' appointment was scheduled to be discussed at an upcoming public meeting, the contract became part of the back-up materials when Ray sent it to regents.

Rombardo also said that anyone seeking the contract should simply have to ask for it, and that they do not have to cite the right law to receive it, as Ray appears to argue in his memo.

"This entity has the largest budget for the entire state, and if a reporter calls up looking for an employment contract, it should be given to them," Rombardo said. "To me it is absurd to argue that the reporter's intent is not to invoke the open-meeting law and receive items for an upcoming agenda item."

And because back-up materials for all public meetings are usually drafted and supplied by staff members, Rombardo said it's well-within the law to cite the whole board for violating the law if one of its staff members refuses to release information.

Public boards are, after all, responsible for their staff, Rombardo said, and that kind of loophole would allow public boards to "constantly avoid the open-meeting law by having their staffs do stuff in secret that should be done in the open."