Closed meetings on terrorism get cool reception

Kirsten Searer

Tuesday, May 10, 2005 | 9:25 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A bill that would close some public meetings dealing with terrorism could die in an Assembly committee unless it is amended, the committee chairman said. "I don't see that at this point there is a great deal of comfort with what is in the bill," said Assembly Government Affairs chairman David Parks, D-Las Vegas.

Senate Bill 115 would allow local governments to close public meetings to discuss the issue of terrorism if two-thirds of the members of the panel believe that disclosing the information would compromise public safety.

The bill cleared the Senate with some contention, 13-7, but but several members of the Assembly committee complained Monday that the bill is too vague regarding what the local government bodies could discuss.

The bill says local governments could receive a security briefing on terrorism threats, talk about ways to respond to threats and talk about "deficiencies in security."

Opponents of the bill say the language is so broad that it would allow secret meetings on too many topics about which the public has a right and a need to know.

Parks said the bill also needs to specifically say that bodies couldn't vote on the issues in private.

The state's open meeting law allows bodies to go into closed meetings to discuss some personnel issues, but they must vote on the issue in public.

Ted Olivas, a lobbyist for Las Vegas, said the meetings would be posted in public just like any other.

"The public is duly notified of the discussions that are going to be taking place," he said. "I want to make that clear."

Tim McAndrew, Las Vegas' emergency manager, said some government bodies are charged with making terrorism response plans but have no way to discuss them in private.

"That's what we're trying to accomplish," he said.

Nevada Press Association lobbyist Kent Lauer pointed out that while the Nevada Commission on Homeland Security has the power to meet in private, they never have.

"There's a real possibility that this significant exemption to open meetings will be abused," he said, adding that government officials could stray into discussions on purchasing or other issues that they are required to discuss in public.

"I would suggest that if you have any doubts whatsoever that you give the edge to openness and the public's right to know," he said.

Assemblyman Scott Sibley, R-Las Vegas, agreed that the bodies could end up discussing anything behind closed doors.

"As the bill is now, it's too vague and will allow them to hold secretive meetings in cases where they shouldn't be," said Sibley, a member of the Nevada Press Association.

Sibley pointed out that another bill, Assembly Bill 179, grants more exemptions to local fire departments and law enforcement agencies to buy equipment without competitive bidding. It has cleared the Legislature and is waiting for a signature from Gov. Kenny Guinn.

Sibley said he wants to ensure government acts in the open, even when dealing with the sensitive issues of fighting terrorism.