Monday, May 5, 2003 | 9:04 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Attorney General Brian Sandoval said a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court strengthens the state's open-meeting law by prohibiting officials from straying from the posted agenda of a meeting.
But Regent Douglas Hill of the University and Community College System of Nevada said the court's decision is "chilling to free speech of public officials in this state."
The court, in a ruling involving the regents, said public officials may talk about any subject they want as long as the topic is on the agenda.
The court said "requiring the regents to comply with Nevada's open-meeting law does not infringe on their First Amendment rights."
The regents intend to discuss the decision when they meet Thursday and Friday at the Henderson campus of Community College of Southern Nevada.
The Supreme Court said an agenda must provide "clear and complete statements" of the topics on an agenda.
Regents held a meeting in September 2000 of the Campus Environment Committee in Las Vegas at which some members were highly critical of UNLV campus police in their raid of student housing to find drugs.
Hill complained that some of the UNLV police officers acted like "Keystone Kops" and he added that "on occasion they were acting like a bunch of cowboys." Hill did not identify any of the police officers and he recommended a copy of the report deleting the names of police officers be disclosed to the public.
Hill said the raid involved 10 to 12 police officers and that officers kicked in two doors and handcuffed six students and the dorm advisor. A minor amount of illegal drugs was found.
The issue was discussed the following day at a meeting of the full Board of Regents.
The Supreme Court, in overturning the decision of District Judge Bill Maddox of Carson City, said that in both cases the regents violated the open-meeting law because the issue was not properly posted on the agenda.
"In this instance, the Nevada Division of Investigations report was a matter of substantial public interest, yet the agendas for the committee and board meetings did not state that the report would be discussed," the Nevada Supreme Court decision said.
Maddox had ruled that any discussion that is germane to an agenda topic does not violate the open-meeting law.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled, the "clear and complete" statement was not on the agendas and the law was violated, the court said.
Hill said he talked about stories in the newspapers and did not discuss the details in the report of the division of investigations. He said he wanted to make the investigation public.
Hill said he never strayed from the agenda. He said no action or vote was taken. He said the court's decision means that "words that came out of my mouth constitute a violation of law as a public official." He said this gives "inordinate power to the attorney general" to bring legal action any time a discussion strays from the topic.
"I can promise that if this is a violation of the law -- the words coming out of my mouth -- it (the law) is going to be violated again," mostly likely unintentionally, Hill said.
The court noted that university counsel Tom Ray had warned regents about getting too far off the subject, but the members moved forward to discuss the issue.
In praising the decision, Sandoval said: "It is vital that citizens be afforded every opportunity to participate in their government. If an agenda fails to reflect accurately what is up for consideration, that's a missed opportunity for public input and an abject failure on the part of public officials to perform their duty."
The court sent the case back to Maddox to decide whether an injunction should be issued.
archive
