Regents' phone discussion violated meeting law, court told

      CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court was told Monday that the Board of Regents violated the open meeting law by discussing over the telephone whether to issue a press release criticizing fellow Regent Nancy Price.
      "We just want to stop the board, as a board, from conducting individual telephone polling," Deputy Attorney General Robert Auer said.
      But Don Klasic, counsel for the Board of Regents, said the query by telephone in 1995 did not violate the law.
      "It's not every meeting that is a violation of the open meeting law," he said.
      Chief Justice Miriam Shearing asked Klasic whether it was the business being discussed or the use of the telephone that kept the discussion from qualifying as a meeting.
      Klasic said both applied to the situation. No public decision was made by the board, and even if one had been, the decision was not covered by the law, he said.
      "You're saying they can do anything they want by fax, basically?" Shearing asked.
      Klasic said that such a scenario is a possibility. But he said the court could uphold a District Court ruling that said the individual polling of seven members of the board over a 12-hour period did not constitute a meeting.
      The dispute arose when then-regent Chairman Jim Eardley had a "media advisory" drafted criticizing Price for comments that were "unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing" in early 1995.
      The advisory, written primarily by university system spokeswoman Constance Howard, was faxed to and reviewed by at least seven regents before a decision was made not to release it.
      Price filed a complaint with the attorney general's office.
      The attorney general then sued the board and alleged a violation of the open meeting law.
      Auer asked the court to overturn the decision by District Judge Janet Berry of Reno, who sided with the Board of Regents in a decision in May 1996.
      Auer said Nevada law prohibits public boards from using electronic communication to circumvent the open meeting law.
      "It is a prohibiting statute," he said. "It prohibits telephone polling. It prohibits exactly what the regents did in this case."
      Justice Charles Springer questioned Auer on his position and said it appeared as if regents were acting independently and not as a board in the matter.
      "The board wasn't making any decision as far as I can see," he said.
      But Auer said that the advisory clearly indicated it was going to be a statement of the board and that a majority of board members were contacted for their thoughts on the matter.
      A bill requested by the attorney general's office to amend the open meeting law to make it clear that boards must meet in public to reach consensus on issues has yet to be introduced in the Legislature.
      Auer said that the measure was supposed to be introduced in the Senate Government Affairs Committee but that no action has yet been taken by the committee.