Open meeting law bill draws objections

CARSON CITY — Local government lobbyists and legislators objected Tuesday to a bill that would allow the attorney general’s office to fine members of public bodies as much as $500 for violating the open meeting law.

But some of them didn’t object to the fine as much as they objected to a “drafting error” that failed to include that before the fine could be levied it must be proved the violation was “willful.”

When most people testified, they were not even aware that the wording in the bill about the fines was incorrect.

As now written, Assembly Bill 59, which Assembly Government Chairwoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick said will be fixed, would have allowed fines even if officials were unaware that they violated the law or if they did not know the law was being violated by the actions of other members of their public body.

The open meeting law mandates that public bodies meet in the public, notify the public about upcoming meetings, and prepare and stick to meeting agendas.

“These are tough economic times, and we have boards and commissions with people who serve without compensation,” said Assemblyman Lynn Stewart, R-Henderson. “Now we are putting an additional burden on them.”

Stewart objected to any fine being levied against open meeting law violators.

Assemblyman Ed Goedhart, R-Amargosa Valley, said he served on a town board where the chairwoman would not let people, including himself, speak if they disagreed with her opinions. He said if the bill had been in effect then, he could have been fined for a violation, although he might have protested the board’s actions.

Their comments were echoed by several lobbyists, including those for the American Civil Liberties Union, during an Assembly Government Affairs Committee hearing.

Two witnesses testified in support of the bill.

One was Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, who testified that the best way to strengthen the open meeting law was by “strengthening the attorney general’s ability to enforce it.” Smith served on the task force that developed the recommendations.

Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, said “many amendments” will be necessary before AB59 clears her committee. But she said she fully supports the open meeting law.

“I am all for transparency,” she said.

The bill was proposed by Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto based on recommendations from a task force she appointed. Her office is charged with enforcing the open meeting law. She did not attend the hearing.

Besides the potential fines, AB59 would require public bodies to announce at their next meeting that the attorney general’s office has found them guilty of violating the open meeting law.

It would require professional licensing boards, such as the Real Estate Commission, to conduct open meetings when they consider disciplining members of their professions.

And the measure would require advisory boards, such as the Education Blue Ribbon Task Force approved last year by Gov. Jim Gibbons, to follow the open meeting law. That task force initially balked at following the law but changed after complaints from members of the press.

In 2009, the attorney general’s office found 17 violations of the open meeting law out of 49 complaints. In 2010, 17 of 61 complaints resulted in violations.

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.