Monday, March 31, 1997 | 5:49 a.m.
AB289, to be heard April 9 by the Government Affairs Committee, is intended to clarify whether a piece of information collected by the state, a county or city - even a sewer district - is accessible by the public.
"We need a thorough definition of a public record," said Kent Lauer, executive director of the Nevada Press Association. "That's what this bill is intended to do. It will remove the authority of a public agency to determine that. They shouldn't be able to determine whether a piece of information is a public record or not."
The confusion has caused trouble for public agencies as well, he said. A clear definition will help government agencies know for sure whether a document is public.
Confusion in Nevada over what constitutes a public record has occurred for a couple of reasons.
First, the law was adopted in 1911. Public information has changed over the years, but the law hasn't. There were no computer records stored on disks 86 years ago.
Because of the law's antiquity, courts have stepped in to clarify public records questions. The most sweeping result was Donrey vs. Bradshaw, a 1986 Supreme Court ruling resulting from a request by KOLO-TV Channel 8 in Reno to get an investigative report.
The report was a police investigation of a decision by the Reno city attorney's office to dismiss a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor against then-Mustang Ranch brothel owner Joe Conforte.
The court opinion declared the investigative record public after using a balancing test to weigh the public's right to know vs. the individual's rights to privacy.
In cases where public records aren't clearly open or closed, the balancing test is used - but Lauer says it has produced the confusion and public officials sometimes wind up making assessments arbitrarily.
A recent example is the Battle Mountain Bugle's request to get information from Lander County officials about who had concealed weapons permits. In an opinion issued Feb. 11, the attorney general's office, after applying the balancing test, found such records are public.
Bugle editor Bob Bartley said the Lander County sheriff's office had denied the request for the records. The newspaper ultimately got the information, but he said it took several weeks for a decision.
Lauer said AB289 will eliminate the need for the balancing test, and instead substitute a clear definition of a public record, including specifics about what constitutes a public document.
The measure says, for example, that police arrest and incident reports are public documents.
Public access to arrest reports became an issue last year when a policy announced by Las Vegas police said investigative reports would be considered confidential if they involved a pending or anticipated criminal proceeding.
Lauer protested the decision, saying it effectively made all such reports confidential.
Secretary of State Dean Heller, who served on a committee of state officials that developed the latest draft of a public records bill, said an update is desperately needed.
In comments to the Government Affairs Committee earlier this year, Heller said the law needs to eliminate the necessity for a balancing test because the test involves too much guesswork.
While Heller opted for an even more open bill, one that included more information about public employees, the state committee vote was more restrictive.
Lauer said the press association will ask for some changes, particularly in the area of access to public employee records.
The bill would require public agencies to maintain a roster of employees, including names, job titles, job descriptions, pay and benefits. The association wants additional personnel records, such as disciplinary actions, open for public review as well, Lauer said.
archive
