Regents cancel meetings to avoid possible illegality

Steve Kanigher and Christina Littlefield

Friday, Jan. 23, 2004 | 9:48 a.m.

The Nevada Board of Regents pulled two closed sessions discussing system employees from next week's agenda Thursday after several "testy" letters between the regent's legal counsel and the attorney general's office warned the regents they were again running afoul of the state's open-meeting law.

One of the closed sessions was to discuss former Community College of Southern Nevada President Ron Remington, whose attorney Kathleen England filed suit Wednesday to pull the item off the agenda.

"(The item) has been pulled, it was illegally noticed," Regent Mark Alden, who opposed the removal of Remington and lobbyist John Cummings.

Chancellor Jane Nichols said regents were informed of the decision that the sessions were pulled Thursday and that the move was precautionary.

"We do not want to be in any way in violation of the attorney general's opinion," Nichols said.

Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval, who last week sued the Board of Regents for alleged violations of the state's open-meeting law, sent a letter Thursday to Thomas Ray, general counsel of the University and Community College System of Nevada, regarding the special regents' meeting Wednesday in Las Vegas and the regular board meeting Thursday and Friday at the Community College of Southern Nevada campus in Henderson.

Sandoval's letter was prompted by a memorandum that Regent Howard Rosenberg of Reno sent to Ray and to the attorney general's office on Wednesday. Rosenberg raised concerns that the board meetings would not comply with Sandoval's Jan. 13 opinion that the regents must abide by the state's open-meeting law.

"Pursuant to Nevada law, this office has primary jurisdiction for investigating potential violations of the Nevada Open Meeting Law," Sandoval wrote to Ray.

"Accordingly, I am requesting that you provide me with a copy of the agenda referenced in Regent Rosenberg's memorandum, and your response as to whether the agenda comports with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law."

Ray then responded in a letter to Senior Deputy Attorney General Victoria Oldenburg, expressing disappointment that she called the board's staff for copies of the agendas without going through him first.

"I do not think this is unreasonable given the fact that you are an attorney and you have a lawsuit pending against my client," Ray wrote.

Ray indicated he would comply with the attorney general's request for copies, while also stating his disagreement with Sandoval's opinion regarding the open-meeting law.

"While I do not agree with your opinion and although it provides little guidance, I have already recommended to my client that no item go forward that is inconsistent with your opinion," Ray wrote.

Sandoval filed the lawsuit Jan. 15 in District Court. He has asked the court to reverse the regents' November demotions of Remington and Cummings. The attorney general contends that the board broke the open-meeting law by deliberating about those demotions behind closed doors.

Sandoval did not return calls seeking comment.

Ray said he plans to file a formal response to the lawsuit well within the 45 days he has to submit his arguments.

"I am disappointed in the approach they are taking," Ray said of the suit. "We don't agree with their opinion and we intend to fight them in court."

Rosenberg, who opposed Remington's demotion, said he wrote the memo to Ray and Sandoval because he was concerned about three closed sessions that were spread out over the three days of meetings. Rosenberg said the agendas revealed that one of those sessions would deal with Remington but gives no information on the individuals to be discussed in the other sessions.

"That bothers me," Rosenberg said. "I have become so completely nervous about everything we do. It would seem to me that based on these agendas we're not conforming to the law.

"If we're going to err, let us err on the side of what the attorney general is recommending."