Improving public participation through better postings

Assembly Bill 445 would create a one-stop government website to potentially list the public meetings of all state agencies and governmental sub-units, all the way down to dog catcher. Based on a recent Oregon initiative, this bill is a boon to the average citizen who isn’t aware of the ever-increasing size and complexity of government or how to plug themselves into the process, aside from voting.

This past Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, briefly stepped away from her committee seat and testified before the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee on behalf of the bill she sponsored. It quickly passed, will be considered by the full Assembly and then hopefully, the state Senate.

The speaker cited how so few people seemed aware of where and when meetings occur and noted how this comprehensive website will be, as all physical postings are required under Nevada’s open meeting law, in a “clear and conspicuous location” manner online.

In October, I penned an op-ed for the Review-Journal headlined “Lack of disclosure makes meetings anything but public,” demonstrating how posting legally required public notices in odd places — such as the inside of a 7-Eleven on the Strip on the front glass window, next to the ice machine; and in the bar, behind the wall, near the bathroom; or another posting in the back warehouse of a store — simply did not meet the state’s legal requirement under the open meeting law. In fact, the obscure postings likely hurt public participation. To be fair, the county disagreed. A few weeks later, the county quietly changed one of the three questionable postings from the corner 7-Eleven to Enterprise Library, less an actual address.

AB 445 is a step in the right direction.

MARTIN DEAN DUPALO

LAS VEGAS

The writer is president of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics.

April fool

To the editor:

I thought it must be April Fool’s Day when I read Tuesday’s story, “Nevada considers increased slot-parlor regulations.” Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, was quoted as saying, “One property may come in and invest a billion plus, and theoretically across the street you could buy a warehouse and stuff it with machines. They haven’t made the same investment, they’re paying less in taxes and, as it has morphed today, they’re competing.”

He went on to say, “The reason you have nonrestricted and restricted gambling licenses is because they’re supposed to be doing different things; they’re not supposed to be competing.”

Really? So, a place with 15 machines and no buffet, bowling alleys, movie theaters, sports books, table games and myriad other amenities is a “threat” to the “big” guys? Then what about the mom and pop who open a small restaurant across the street from a McDonald’s, Burger King or Carl’s Jr.? Chain restaurants invest millions. Shouldn’t they be “protected” from competition, also? How about mom and pop groceries? Should they be barred from competing with Wal-Mart, Albertson’s or Vons because they aren’t mega-opolies?

Mr. Horne’s Assembly Bill 360 and his logic are ludicrous to say the least, and as anti-business as one can get in a state that champions itself as “business-friendly.” Competition is great for the consumer. Not so much for those who have to compete, though.

Mr. Horne’s bill should be deep-sixed with haste!

JERRY FINK

LAS VEGAS

Taxi trouble

To the editor:

There are a few things I don’t understand about the cab companies and their drivers. The Taxi Cab Authority has a budget funded by the cab companies by charging 20 cents per ride. If a cab company has 1,500 drivers averaging 75 rides a week, that comes out to a little more than $1 million a year paid to the authority. Why are the cab companies allowed to mark up the trip charges, sometimes over a dollar a ride? That’s just wrong. That goes right into the owners’ pockets. Very wrong.

RAY McDONALD

LAS VEGAS

Gun tax

To the editor:

In response to the Legislature’s efforts to tax gun and ammunition purchases:

How can anyone believe that a tax on constitutional rights is OK? Is their goal to restrict fixed-income or low-income citizens from enjoying their constitutional right? Do these same people support poll taxes too? Shouldn’t all rights be treated equally, so all citizens have equal opportunity to enjoy them?

JOSEPH M. MLADENIK JR.

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Illegal

To the editor:

In response to Michelle Booth’s April 6 letter, “Style says ‘illegal immigrants’ are no more,” I wonder if she, as a Hispanic citizen, ever had to carry a green card with the word “alien,” as I did when I entered this country as a permanent lawful resident and had to report my whereabouts every year at the post office or face prison and/or deportation, until I became a citizen.

I find it interesting that she’s so glad the phrase “illegal immigrant” has been removed from The Associated Press Stylebook when Hispanics entering this country illegally are taking jobs away from Americans, receiving medical care, food stamps and all the benefits they would never get in their homeland and all courtesy of the U.S. citizens.

Entering a country illegally is an act that has been committed by an illegal Immigrant.

JAN MILLS

LAS VEGAS