Bill would open top officials’ evaluations

Kirsten Searer

Thursday, May 19, 2005 | 9:40 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Evaluations of top public officials such as school superintendents and county managers would be open under bills passed Wednesday by an Assembly committee.

Some members of the Assembly Government Affairs Committee expressed worries that opening evaluations and job searches would discourage people from applying for the top jobs.

The bills approved Wednesday are the ones that remain from an effort in the Senate to re-examine the open meeting law. Some legislators were concerned that Board of Regents attorneys found ways around the open meeting laws.

The remaining bills mostly strengthen and clarify the current laws. Other bills to allow the attorney general to subpoena people involved in potential violations and to fine officials who repeatedly violate the law already died in the Senate.

Senate Bill 267 would open closed meetings on public officials who serve at the discretion of public boards, such as superintendents, university presidents, and city and county managers.

Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce, D-Las Vegas, said she worried that because the officials weren't elected, they shouldn't be open to the same kind of scrutiny as elected officials.

"I'm not quite comfortable with this," Pierce said. "I think people who are appointed, I know it's high profile, but I think there's a difference between people who decide to go for elected office and those who don't."

The Washoe County School District submitted a letter complaining about the provision, saying there could be unintended consequences of opening the meetings. For example, according to the letter from lobbyist Anne Loring, school board members might avoid open discussions because they don't want to portray conflict with the superintendent.

Other superintendent candidates might be reluctant to apply in Washoe County if they know their employers will find out, the letter said.

"Candid, frank, and open discussion about a superintendent's performance that take place in closed sessions and can lead to improved performance are unlikely to happen in open meetings," the letter from Loring said.

But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, said top officials don't have an expectation of privacy, except for issues relating to medical care.

"The only test I think is a meeting should only be closed when public disclosure is going to produce public harm," Care said.

Documents relating to the personnel meeting would also be made available to the public under the bill.

"I actually have a feeling that the elected bodies are going to end up OK with this," he said. "It's not going to cause a crisis or a drain," Care said.

Assemblyman Scott Sibley, R-Las Vegas, compared public boards to businesses.

"I view the school district and these people as employees of the taxpayers," he said. "I think we have the right to know."

Sometimes, news media finds out only snippets of what happens in closed sessions from disgruntled board members, said Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas. She said the bill would give taxpayers a more complete view of what is happening in a public board.

For those who are not high-ranking officials, closed personnel meetings would be posted, with information on the topic of the meeting. The subject of the meeting would be able to waive the closed meeting or attend it themselves in person.

That's also the intent of Senate Bill 83, which was also passed Wednesday. It would allow people to attend closed meetings that relate to them, and to have their attorneys present.

The committee still has to consider Senate Bill 421, which would require public boards to record and transcribe their meetings.