Flawed Assembly bill undermines fundamental tenet of good government

Public officials love to present themselves as champions of transparency in government. Then Nevada’s legislative sessions roll around, and inevitably some of them pull a Jekyll-and-hyde on the issue.

This session is no different, with officials offering several bills that would reduce or eliminate public access to government records and meetings.

Among the most problematic is Assembly Bill 39, which would appear to establish two sweeping exemptions to the state’s open records bill. The bill, requested by the Department of Public Service, would allow officials to withhold records created for a public official’s personal use and for records involving “internal predecisional deliberations of a governmental entity.”

These exemptions are vague and overly broad — they would allow public entities to wall off a huge swath of records. We’ll note here that we asked the Department of Public Service for details about the legislation, including what prompted the department to request it and what specific records it would cover, and were told that DPS officials are requesting revisions in the language. We asked why and in what ways the department wanted to change the language, but our follow-up questions weren’t answered.

So we’re left to interpret the language as is, and it’s disturbing.

Regarding the personal-use exemption, readers of the Sun may recall one recent series of stories that would very likely have been affected had that provision been in place. Those stories were based on emails revealing abuses of authority by Kevin Page, a member of the Nevada Board of Regents, for personal gain or toward the interests of family members.

The emails showed that Page had pressured UNLV in 2015 to give preferential treatment to one of his relatives, a student at the Lee Business School at the time, by allowing her to skip a prerequisite class for an advanced-level course. When UNLV officials respectfully objected, explaining to Page that his request could jeopardize the business school’s accreditation, he

Without the opportunity to remain informed about their elected officials, administrators and the policymaking process, the public can’t effectively participate in government, hold leaders accountable and make good decisions at the ballot box.

made an unspecified threat of retaliation if they didn’t knuckle under.

Further emails showed that Page had asked UNLV to waive a fine for a parking violation and had requested tickets to events, free meals and athletic merchandise for himself and a large entourage of family members. Those requests raised eyebrows: The regents generally limit such requests to themselves or a plus-one out of respect for the fact that students and the public are paying for the tickets, meals and items.

Page also acted irresponsibly by sharing confidential official documents, including records on personnel matters, with his brother, who is outside the university system. He later explained that he considered his brother an informal consultant, but Regents Chairman Jason Geddes reacted to the disclosure of the shared emails by instructing the regents not to distribute confidential materials outside of the system.

Now comes AB39, which raises a question about the Page emails: Could the regents have shielded them under the “personal use” exemption?

It certainly appears so, given that each of the matters involved was purely personal for Page.

That’s highly disturbing. The public had every right to know that Page was acting inappropriately — and putting UNLV in harm’s way by doing it. And he’s just one example of a public figure misusing his authority.

Minus AB39, Nevada’s current public records laws allow the public to request and receive documents involving such personal matters. That’s as it should be.

Then there’s AB39’S provision about protecting records involving “internal predecisional deliberations.” Good grief, it’s simply mind-boggling how many records could be walled off under this exemption. It could conceivably give cover to officials to hide any and all documents and communications preceding a vote on an issue. Worse yet, the “predecisional deliberations” provision would also apply to records shared between government entities, including research and memoranda. So not only could an agency withhold documents it kept in-house, but any it shared with other public agencies.

This bill is an affront to the people of Nevada and to our democratic form of government, which relies on transparency. Without the opportunity to remain informed about their elected officials, administrators and the policymaking process, the public can’t effectively participate in government, hold leaders accountable and make good decisions at the ballot box.

Two years ago, lawmakers approved an impressive set of reforms to the state’s public records laws, which gave Nevadans a significantly wider window from which to view the inner workings of governmental bodies.

AB39 would allow public officials to close that window significantly, and maybe turn it into a peephole.

Perhaps the revisions that the DPS is seeking will make a difference. But the department has gone into very shady territory here, so we’ll be watching carefully. The Legislature should too.