Editorial: Regents need new attitude of openness

Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2004 | 9:06 a.m.

How much easier it would have been if the attorney for the Board of Regents had just faxed to a Las Vegas Sun reporter the same public information he had earlier provided the board members. The reporter asked for the routine information -- a draft of the university system's contract with incoming Chancellor Jim Rogers -- on May 3. Had he received it, the information would have been included in an interesting but noncontroversial news story and there it would have rested. Instead, the board's attorney, Tom Ray, refused the reporter's request. Today, three months later, the issue is still alive -- much to the continuing disrepute of the board when it comes to openness.

The Sun filed a written complaint with the Nevada attorney general's office, which ruled July 26 that Ray had violated the state open-meeting law in refusing the reporter's request. The law is clear. "Supporting materials" for items on the meeting agenda of a public board, such as the Board of Regents, must be provided to the public upon request. Rogers' proposed contract was on the agenda of a special board meeting set for May 7. And the draft contract had been sent to all members of the board.

Ray, however, is not conceding these points. Asked by Regent Bret Whipple to explain why he rejected the Sun's request, Ray responded July 30 with a lengthy memo justifying his actions. Among the reasons he cited was attorney-client privilege, which doesn't apply when the client is a public board and the information is clearly public. He also said the Sun reporter failed to specifically mention he was seeking the document under the provisions of the open-meeting law. Our view, and the attorney general's view, is that if a document is public, it should be released on request, without having to cite chapter and verse of the law making it public.

In our view, Ray is intending to contravene the open-meeting law and the regents should rein him in before their reputations become even worse. In ruling on the Sun's case, the attorney general's office said, accurately, that the Board of Regents is a "serial violator" of the open-meeting law.

On a positive note, many board members and Chancellor Rogers are expressing frustration over the board's penchant for violating the law and are calling for a policy of openness. This is encouraging. All the time and energy expended to justify secretiveness would be better spent serving students and the public at large.