Rogers, Sandoval to talk about regents’ violations

Thursday, July 29, 2004 | 11:05 a.m.

Interim Chancellor Jim Rogers says he is going to do everything possible to resolve the attorney general's latest allegation that the university Board of Regents violated the state's open-meeting law and to prevent future violations from happening.

"I'm going to do everything we can to settle this once and for all and get on with our lives," Rogers said Wednesday morning.

Rogers said he set up a meeting with Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval for Wednesday to try to "work out a mechanism so that these problems don't arise again."

The chancellor said there were "inherent flaws" in the language of the open-meeting law that left it up to interpretation, but that under his administration, he and the Board of Regents would err on the side of openness.

"I think if there is a question, you go with making the information public," said Rogers, who is a lawyer and television station mogul.

Most regents said they supported Rogers' efforts and would give him a chance to resolve the issue, but many of them also grumbled over the attorney general's proposed settlement agreement, the ambiguity of the open-meeting law, and whether there is anything more they can do to prevent future violations.

Several regents expressed frustration over the latest allegation of wrong-doing because their attorney committed the supposed violation without the board's knowledge, yet the entire board was accused of being "serial violators."

In response to a complaint filed by the Las Vegas Sun, Sandoval's office issued an opinion Monday that the University and Community College System of Nevada Board of Regents violated the open-meeting law again when system attorney Tom Ray refused to release a copy of Rogers' proposed employment contract prior to his May 7 appointment.

Because Ray had already sent out a copy of the contract to regents, and because the contract was on the agenda for discussion, Deputy Attorney General Neil Lombardo said the contract became part of the agenda supporting materials and should have been made available upon request.

Ray told the attorney general's office he sent the notice out only to let regents know it was under negotiation, and that the proposed contract was only a draft. Ray has not returned repeated calls for comment.

In the opinion, Lombardo threatens to sue the Board of Regents if the regents do not sign a settlement agreement by Aug. 13, admitting the violation and agreeing to take action to make sure it never happens again.

But the agreement, if signed as it currently stands, also asks the board to accept notice that the attorney general's office considers the Board of Regents serial violators.

With the exception of those board members who repeatedly criticize their own board for allegedly violating the open-meeting law, regents took exception to the insinuation that they have ever willingly violated the open-meeting law.

"I don't like to be branded as a serial violator because the implication is there that we knowingly violated the law," Regent Jack Lund Schofield said.

Schofield and the eight other regents who spoke to the Sun Wednesday all agreed that they prefer for things to be out in the open, and that they want to be able to move forward with the real business of higher education.

Rogers agreed, but said he does see a need for change in the way business is currently conducted.

"No one intentionally violates the open-meeting law, it just doesn't happen," Rogers said. "But there is this culture of keeping things private, and we are not a private institution. We are a public institution."

Regents Doug Hill and Bret Whipple, both of whom are lawyers, said they understood why Ray did not release the employment contract. They said releasing an unfinished contract to the public could be seen as violating the attorney-client privilege between the regents and their lawyer.

The regents also said that the draft contract did go through revisions and should not have been released until it was final. Both said they had no problem with releasing finalized copies to the public.

"I don't have any problem with at some point it becomes a public document," Hill said. "I have a problem that the minute it was sent out to the board members it became a public document."

While Whipple said he could also understand the attorney general's argument, Hill said the opinion placed the system on shaky ground.

"You either end up with everything the attorney does with clients becomes public, which is not good, or you end up with the attorney doing stuff without talking to the client, which is not good," Hill said.

Hill said he believed Ray did not violate the open-meeting law and that he would rather take the issue to court than give up the Board of Regents' attorney-client privilege.

Other regents, however, said they were increasingly incensed over Ray's advice repeatedly getting them into trouble with the attorney general.

Regents Howard Rosenberg, Mark Alden, Linda Howard and Steve Sisolak initially wanted to hold an open personnel session at the upcoming Aug. 19 meeting to question Ray's conduct in the alleged violation. The regents agreed to withdraw the agenda item to give Rogers a chance to resolve it.

"It is our hope that events and announcements over the next several weeks will make the discussion and possible actions unneccessary," Rosenberg said.

Rogers said he didn't want to get into what Ray should or shouldn't have done.

"I don't want to publicly damn anyone," Rogers said. "Looking back it's always easy to criticize, but I think things could have been handled a little better."

Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, said the latest violation was all the more reason for the Legislature to force the Board of Regents to rid themselves of their private attorneys and take legal advice from the attorney general's office along with other state agencies.

"Moving this to the attorney general gives us accountability, gives us cost savings, and gives us consistent interpretation of the open meeting law," Townsend said.

He had no doubt that the legislation would pass.

"There 63 people who represent everybody in this state who are fed up," Townsend said. "The goal of the university is to educate students and to do research and what are we doing? We are spending money on something like this."

Townsend plans to bring this issue up at the next meeting of the interim Legislative Commission in late August, but foresees adding the requirement either to the university system's budget approval or as a separate bill draft during the 2005 session.

"If we could do it tomorrow, I certainly would." Townsend said.

Several regents have expressed concern that the attorney general's office would not have the expertise in educational issues to be their only source of legal advice, and others questioned whether it would be a conflict of interest to have the enforcer of the open-meeting law as their adviser on the open-meeting law.