An agenda item the school board's attorney describes as "housekeeping," another woman is calling a violation of the open-meeting law.
Anne Bednarski, who was defeated in a run for the Carson City School Board in November's election, filed an open-meeting law complaint with the Nevada Attorney General's office Monday alleging an agenda item was too vague.
As part of the regular list of items covered at the first meeting of the year, the board was asked to approve the "adoption of policies and bylaws" at its Jan. 9 meeting.
Despite objections from newly elected trustee Joe Enge, the board passed the item 5 to 1. Enge dissented, and newly elected President John McKenna was absent.
During the meeting, board attorney Mike Pavlakis said it was a "housekeeping procedure" and didn't need further explanation.
"We're reviewing it, and we're going to respond to the AG," he said Tuesday. "We don't believe a violation occurred."
In the complaint, Bednarski wrote that the item was "too broad, vague and lacking specificity. What policies and bylaws are to be considered. ... How is the public to determine if it is a matter in which they have an interest?"
McKenna, who has served 15 years on the school board and serving his third term as president, said the wording has been the same for as long as he can remember.
"Nobody's ever mentioned it before," he said. "We're going to do whatever's right."
In a letter to the school board, Enge requested an opinion from legal counsel before the Jan. 9 meeting.
"The public has a right to know," he wrote. "In that spirit, we should go beyond the minimum to include publishing on the district Web site board meeting minutes and include all nonconfidential supplementary materials the board receives."
The Nevada Open Meeting Law was enacted in 1960 to ensure that the actions and deliberations of public bodies be conducted openly.
The attorney general will determine whether the law was violated.
• Contact reporter Teri Vance at tvance@nevadaappeal.com or 881-1272.
Definition of 'open meeting'
The compliance checklist in the open-meeting law manual includes:
• Has a clear and complete agenda of all topics to be considered been prepared?
• Does the agenda list all topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting?
• Have all the topics been clearly described in the agenda in order to give the public adequate notice?
• Does the agenda include a designated period for public comments? Does the agenda state that action may not be taken on the matters considered during this period until specifically included on an agenda as an action item?
• Does the agenda describe the items on which action may be taken and clearly denote that action may be taken on those items?
• Has each closed session been denoted including the name of the person being considered in the closed session, and if action is to be taken in an open session after the closed session, was it indicated on the agenda?