AG sides with city over Open Meeting Law violation complaints

Two recent Open Meeting Law complaints filed against the Carson City Board of Supervisors have been determined to be unfounded, according to the state Attorney General's Office.

A complaint filed by Ande Engleman alleged that supervisors had used electronic communications to circumvent the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.

The complaint alleged specifically that City Manager Larry Werner told the Assembly Government Affairs Committee in February that Carson City supported Assembly Bill 122.

AB122, sponsored by Assemblyman Pete Livermore, addressed revisions to provisions concerning wind energy systems.

But the Attorney General's June 6 determination, prepared by Senior Deputy Attorney General George Taylor, said that "based on our factual investigation, nothing improper occurred among a quorum of the board of supervisors implicating the OML."

The office said in the determination that the Carson City District Attorney's Office provided an affidavit from each board member, including the mayor, and the city manager. The District Attorney's office also provided copies of two emails from supervisors, each of which was a response to an email from Werner asking about their thoughts on the bill. Mayor Bob Crowell also responded by email.

As part of its investigation, the state reviewed the minutes and audio recording of the legislative committee hearing and "found no improper communications among the board of supervisors regarding Mr. Werner's representation of the city to the legislative committee regarding AB122."

The report cited a Nevada Supreme Court decision stating that "the OML is violated only where a quorum of a public body uses serial electronic communication to deliberate toward a decision or to make a decision on any matter under its control, jurisdiction, supervision or advisory power. In the absence of a quorum, members may privately discuss public issues or even lobby for votes."

The office concluded that the board of supervisors had not gathered electronically to make a decision or commitment regarding AB122.

"These three email trains provided by the Office of the District Attorney did not represent a quorum of the board, nor did the two supervisors and the mayor deliberate toward a decision; therefore the OML is not implicated.

"Clearly a quorum of the board had not gathered electronically to make a decision regarding AB122; consequently no violation of the OML occurred," the decision stated.

Engleman said this week that her concern was that the board wasn't discussing legislative policy decisions in an open meeting so that the taxpayers of Carson City could have a say.

The only two bills the board discussed openly were Assembly Bill 263, having to do with the use of Quality of Life funds, and Senate Bill 271, regarding Nevada's move to pull out of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, she said.

"From my reading of this, Larry Werner has absolute power - without the consent of the board of supervisors - to go to the Legislature and support or oppose legislation," Engleman said. "He's doing it in our names without us knowing about it and no public discussion - and he doesn't even live here."

She said she is concerned that the public doesn't know where the line is which divides the authority of the board and that of the city manager, and added that Reno brings to public meetings what may turn out to be its positions on bills.

"There should be a differentiation, and certainly when it comes to legislation," she said.

Werner said Thursday that he has a clear mandate.

"I look at (each issue) as to whether it is operational or policy, and I let the board know what I'm doing. Our charter says that I have the responsibility as chief of operations for the city, so I can represent the city, but not the board," he said.

"City managers Jeff Page from Lyon County, Michael Brown from Douglas, and Pat Whitten from Storey - the four of us - spoke out on most of the same things, and philosophically, they use the same process," he said.

"The thing I want the public to understand is that we take the Open Meeting Law very seriously, and I wouldn't put the board in a bad position," Werner said.

A second OML complaint filed by Ronald Orbas alleged that the board of supervisors held a meeting on the City Center Project in February at 2 p.m., a time "inconvenient for working taxpayers (who are expected to pay for it) to attend for discussion or input."

The AG's office responded that, "The OML does not set a particular time for public bodies to meet. The Open Meeting Law only requires public meetings to be open and public and it must allow all persons to attend. The board of supervisors' meetings are open and public to anyone wishing to attend."