Open government advocates fend off attacks at Nevada Legislature

CARSON CITY — Four bills that critics said would hamper public access to government information either failed or were substantially weakened Friday on a Nevada legislative deadline for committee action on measures.

Three measures, one seeking fees for more complicated records searches and two others proposing to close off prison and retirement system records, failed outright.

“Legislators have done a good job of listening to our concerns about vague language and sweeping changes in bills about Nevada’s open-government statutes, although there are still attempts to chip away at the information available to the public,” said Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association. “The supporters of these bills often argue they’re trying to cut costs. But in the long run, it’s public scrutiny that saves money.”

Senate Bill 28, which would have allowed government agencies to start charging fees for public records after a government staffer has worked more than 30 minutes to comply with the request, failed to advance out of the Senate Government Affairs Committee.

Media organizations and open-government advocates said the changes would restrict the public’s access to information about government and the spending of taxpayer dollars.

A Review-Journal editorial called the legislation the “worst bill” of the session.

Senate Bill 356 would have made the pension information of retirees in the Nevada Public Employees’ Retirement System confidential after a Nevada Supreme Court decision deemed it to be public. The bill was refereed to Senate Government Affairs but did not receive a hearing.

Committee Chairman Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka, confirmed both bills are dead.

He said the public records charges bill sought by the League of Cities was too inflexible and would mandate fees that could run into the hundreds of dollars.

“Under existing law they have the ability to waive some of these fees,” Goicoechea said. “If you had to charge 50 cents a page and that was mandated in statute, someone could request a 1,000-page document and it would cost them $500.”

Senate Bill 33, which would have allowed the Clark County Commission and University Medical Center’s governing board to close off more hospital meetings and records from public scrutiny, was amended Friday to substantially narrow what information could be kept confidential.

The bill, heard by the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, originally would have allowed public hospital boards to go into closed-door meetings to talk about strategic plans in an effort to keep competitors in the dark.

The bill now would allow information relating to an expansion or addition of a health care service, or the acquisition or expansion of a health care facility, to be confidential. All other provisions of the bill were deleted. The bill states that closed meetings could not be held to discuss a change of management, change of ownership or the dissolution of the hospital.

County officials are pursuing the bill, saying it’s needed as UMC faces increasing competition and patients have more options through the federal Affordable Care Act. But the opposing argument is that public hospitals also get public tax dollars and should act with transparency.

Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno, said he understands the dilemma faced by UMC but voted no on the amended bill, which now goes to the Senate for a vote.

“Shutting off public inspection of the strategic decision-making behind large sums of public money is not something I’m going to be OK with,” he said.

Smith said that while the bill is vastly improved from its original language he will still oppose the amended version of the measure.

Senate Bill 57, which would have made all Corrections Department records confidential, was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee but went nowhere following recent revelations that an inmate was shot and killed by a state prison guard four months ago.

As written, SB57 would have made offender records and documents maintained by the department confidential and removed them from disclosure under public records requests. Current regulations list the types of department records and information that are confidential.

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Find him on Twitter: @seanw801.