Magic words aren’t necessary to fulfill the law

You’d have to search the state with fairly sensitive instruments to find a more ardent supporter of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law than I am. But I don’t see any merit in the allegations that a violation of the law occurred that should keep a school district property tax measure from the ballot.

The conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute says it will appeal District Court Judge Valorie Vega’s ruling that the Clark County Debt Management Commission complied with the Open Meeting Law when it approved the school district’s bond plan back in June. And while I’m always reluctant to predict what the Nevada Supreme Court will do, there are entirely reasonable grounds for justices to uphold Vega’s order.

Some background: The Clark County School District wants to sell bonds to raise $120 million per year for six years to repair old schools, build new schools and buy equipment. After the school board approved the bonds, the matter went before the Debt Management Commission, which is required to sign off on all public debts.

As the Review-Journal’s Trevon Milliard reports, only one member of the public attended the June 7 meeting, which was noticed and posted in compliance with the law.

That person was NPRI researcher Karen Gray.

Before the vote to approve the bonds was cast, commission Chairwoman Susan Brager (also chairwoman of the Clark County Commission) turned to Gray and said, “Do you have any other questions? We don’t want anyone to be stifled.”

Gray did not. The vote was cast.

And 57 days later – three days before the deadline to file a complaint, but after the July 16 deadline to place items on the November ballot – NPRI’s legal arm filed a complaint. (Thus, if a judge ruled against the commission, there would be no way to take a second vote and still make the November ballot.)

NPRI contends in its lawsuit that Brager failed to ask for “public comment.” Without those specific words, the panel violated the Open Meeting Law’s requirement that the public be allowed to speak before any vote, contended Jacob Hafter, NPRI’s lawyer.

Vega disagreed, and rightly so. Brager’s invitation to Gray represents substantial compliance with the law, if not actual compliance. Gray – or any other member of the public at the meeting – hearing Brager’s invitation would have felt free to ask questions or to voice her remarks, which is what the Open Meeting Law requires. And while it would have been better for Brager to use those “magic words,” her failure to do so shouldn’t be held to void the vote and frustrate a legitimate operation of government. That’s especially true in this case because an effort to comply with the law was made, and there’s no evidence of any intent to skirt the law by not allowing public comment.

The Open Meeting Law was passed, and later amended, to afford the public an opportunity to observe and participate in the operations of government. It’s designed to thwart secret meetings, closed-door deliberations outside the view of the public, and to let people give their elected leaders a piece of their mind. In fact, the requirement to allow comments at the beginning of each meeting, or, alternatively, before each vote, was added specifically because some government agencies put public comment exclusively at the end of their agendas, rendering any remarks moot, no matter how astute or persuasive.

That simply wasn’t the case here, where comments were allowed and the law was followed. As Brager said, no one was stifled. Vega ruled correctly on this one.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.