Editorial: Privacy taxes open meetings

Thursday, Oct. 5, 2006 | 7:31 a.m.

D istrict Judge Michael Griffin of Carson City on Tuesday was nice enough to point out that the Nevada attorney general's lawsuit over the Tax Commission's blatant violation of the open meeting law comes at a "considerable expense to the taxpayers of Nevada."

When a state agency sues another, it costs the taxpayers.

But when a judge issues a wrongheaded opinion, as Griffin did, it will cost the taxpayers even more.

Griffin gave the state Tax Commission the authority to dole out tax breaks behind closed doors, as it did when it met, deliberated and voted in private last year to give Southern California Edison a whopping $40 million tax rebate.

Someone has to pay for the rebate, and that someone is the taxpayer. So we'd like to know why the out-of-state utility got the break.

Was it a worthy rebate or a nefarious deal? Who knows?

It's all one big secret, and if Griffin's ruling stands, it will stay that way.

Griffin relied on an exemption to the state's open meeting law that allows the commission to hold "hearings" in private to protect a taxpayer's financial and proprietary information. But Griffin expanded the definition of a "hearing" to include deliberations and votes, and in the process trampled the spirit and intent of the open meeting law.

A democracy requires open and public debate and accountability - public officials must explain and stand by their decisions.

Griffin noted that there were "two very strong competing public policies involved here," the public's right to open government and a taxpayer's right to privacy. He chose one, the wrong one, when he could have balanced the two instead.

City councils and county commissions do it all the time in real estate deals and personnel matters. Those boards routinely hear confidential material in closed-door sessions and then debate and vote in public.

The state Tax Commission can and should do the same thing. The attorney general must appeal this decision and give the state Supreme Court a chance to make it right.