Monday, Dec. 11, 2006 | 7:32 a.m.
Attempting to understand the reasoning behind the Nevada Tax Commission's insistence on keeping its meetings secret has been a frustratingly futile effort.
On Monday a commission panel met and recommended that the commission continue to keep its deliberations and many of the issues surrounding taxpayer appeals secret. State Taxation Director Dino DiCianno pointed out that the law requires the commission to keep secret a business' proprietary information that could give a competitor an advantage. And by law any business or person who appeals has a right to a closed-door hearing. By using a logic we're not familiar with, the panel took those two things and came up with a proposal that would keep secret the name of the company or person who seeks a closed hearing and the amount of any rebate received.
A company's name is proprietary information?
Apparently the panel believes if you know the company's name and the amount of the tax refund you might be able to figure out a way to gain a competitive advantage, but we're not sure how. Numerology, perhaps?
The full Tax Commission will vote on the regulation next month, and judging from its prior actions, such as its prolonged effort to keep secret its $40 million rebate to Southern California Edison, it may pass, unfortunately. The proposal gives a few feeble nods toward open government: It would require the commission to make a public statement about its actions, including a public polling of the members' votes, and it would require a summary of each decision. But the public statement and summary would be void of specifics, such as the company's name and the amount of the refund.
In other words, this change would do nothing to build the public's trust in the Tax Commission. Without specifics, who's to know whether someone gained an unfair advantage or won a concession that others should have as well? Shouldn't the public know that?
It should. That would only be logical.
archive
