Dispute between state agencies expensive, unnecessary

The legal arguments in the dispute between the Nevada Tax Commission and the state's attorney general are complicated, but it leads to one simple, inescapable conclusion: Taxpayers are footing a hefty and unnecessary bill for attorney fees because one state agency is suing another.

At issue is the commission's policy of keeping deliberations private when companies appeal tax bills, something that Attorney General George Chanos has challenged as a violation of the state's open meeting law.

That challenge led the commission to hire attorneys at a cost that was supposed to cap out at $150,000. That's ballooned to $450,000 and could rise still higher if the loser in the court battle appeals.

Our question is why?

Why was there no talking going on? Why was there no urgency to reach an out-of-court compromise?

Both sides have compelling arguments. The attorney general seeks to enforce the state's open meeting law in the vital interest of open government; the commission wants to ensure that companies' proprietary information isn't made public, which could put them at a disadvantage with competitors.

Yet it seems logical that proprietary details of the dealings of companies could be withheld while the results of deliberations and votes are made public.

But instead of compromise, there have been bitter accusations tossed back and forth by Chanos and Tax Commission Chairman Tom Sheets.

In the middle of this drama, which would be comical if it were not so expensive, is Gov. Kenny Guinn and the Board of Examiners.

They had no real choice but to approve the payment for the legal fees that had already been incurred, but it leads one to wonder where Guinn was at the outset of this conflict.

A forceful demand that it be resolved outside the courts might have saved that money for a more urgent need.

And, as he well knows, Nevada has many of those.