CARSON CITY -- An attorney for a prison inmate told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Parole Board is subject to the state open meeting law, just as a panel of three justices said in a previous 2006 order in favor of his client John Witherow.

Attorney Donald York Evans said that the Parole Board was never exempted from the law requiring government agencies to conduct their business in public and that the practice of the Parole Board of not allowing all witnesses to testify in each parole hearing is a violation of the law, he said.

"The Parole Board is a public agency conducting the state's business," he said.

But Joe Ward, a chief deputy attorney general, told the Supreme Court that the Parole Board is a judicial agency that is exempt from the open meeting law. Also, state law is clear that parole is an "act of grace" and that no inmate has the authority to bring legal actions against the Parole Board, he said.

The entire seven-member court heard the appeal over whether the Parole Board is subject to the law. The issue was decided by a panel of the court in October, when three justices said the agency was subject to the open meeting law. That decision was delayed to let the entire court consider the issue.

Two of the justices in the October ruling against the Parole Board, Ron Parraguirre and Michael Douglas, heard the arguments Tuesday.

The three-judge panel in October ruled on several claims made by Witherow in five separate actions. Buried within the ruling was a statement by the court that said the Parole Board was subject to the open meeting law. That decision was based on a previous Supreme Court panel ruling involving psychological panels used to consider the release of sex offenders.

The psychological panel decision, released in April, was based on a complaint by inmate Robert Stockmeier.

But Chief Justice Bill Maupin asked whether the panel in the Stockmeier ruling came to the proper conclusion about the application of the open meeting law.

The court will rule later in the case.

Parole Board Chairwoman Dorla Salling said after the oral arguments that following all of the specifics of the law would cost millions of dollars and slow down the parole hearing process.

And the holding of hearings without visiting the inmates, such as is now done for those serving at rural conservation camps, would have to change, Salling said.

The Gibbons administration is preparing a bill draft for consideration by the Legislature to clarify that the agency is exempt, she said.

Evans said Witherow is not challenging the denial of his parole. He is serving a life term as a habitual criminal after having his parole revoked in 1997. But if the open meeting law had been applied properly at his hearing, Witherow's sister and mother could have spoken on his behalf, Evans said.

Ward cited the language used by the Legislature in creating the parole system. It said the possibility of release does not create any basis for a cause of action against the state.

Salling said public notice is given for parole hearings, and people are allowed to attend. Parole decisions are made public after a vote by the board.

"It's not like we're hiding anything," she said.

But the board, which holds as many as 25 hearings a day, would be "hopelessly backlogged" if every witness was allowed to testify, Salling said. Anyone can submit information in writing, she said.

If the Supreme Court does decide that the board has to follow the open meeting law, additional Parole Board staff will cost $3 million, Salling said.

"It will just clog the system," she said.

But if that is the decision, the board will comply, Salling said.

Evans said he is optimistic the court will rule in Witherow's favor.

"The Parole Board wants special dispensation, and they don't want to be held to the same standard that every other public agency is held to," he said.