Group seeks meeting law change

CARSON CITY -- Nevada county officials have decided an experiment in open government in which top appointed officials undergo performance evaluations in public just doesn't work.

The Nevada Association of Counties has requested a measure for the 2009 Legislature that seeks to allow closed-door evaluations of county managers, fire chiefs and other top at-will employees.

"My board certainly respects and believes in open government," said Jeff Fontaine, executive director of the association. "It's just this particular case with this aspect of the open meeting law.

"While they felt in theory it may be good, in practice it sometimes creates an environment where boards are put in a position they can't be as forthright and honest in their evaluation of their top at-will employees," Fontaine said.

Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association, said the evaluations should continue to be done in public view.

"One of the more important jobs of city and county boards is overseeing their chief administrators," Smith said. "There needs to be frank and honest discussion, and that needs to be in the open. The public gets an opportunity not only to hear how the county administrator is doing but how well the county commissioners are doing their jobs, too."

The Legislature will take up the issue when it convenes starting Feb. 2.

The public evaluation of top county employees and city officials, school superintendents, and university presidents and the chancellor, was required by lawmakers in 2005. Previously, such sessions typically had been conducted in private.

State Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, sought the change, arguing at the time that those who serve at the pleasure of an elected body ought to have their performance reviews conducted in a public forum.

The change to the law, and others giving more rights to those summoned to hearings to discuss their performance, was spawned by allegations of rule violations by the university system's Board of Regents in 2003.

The measure passed with strong support in both the Senate and Assembly and took effect Oct. 1, 2005.

Care said Tuesday he has heard of concerns about the requirement from elected officials but suggested that being uncomfortable with having such a discussion in the open is not a valid reason to change the law.

"It's all for the benefit of the taxpayers and citizens," he said. "My inclination is that the more open the process, the better it is."

Fontaine said the proposed legislation would allow the subject of the review to ask that the review be performed in public.

Also, the legislation would require public reporting of what occurred during any closed personnel session.

"We're not trying to circumvent the open meeting law or hide anything," he said. "The board requested the bill primarily because county commissioners feel like they can't be as forthright as they should be in an open meeting."

Review-Journal Editor Thomas Mitchell sees no need to change the law.

"If county commissioners don't think they can be forthright in front of their employers, the taxpayers and voters, maybe they should seek another line of work," said Mitchell, who is president of the Nevada Freedom of Information Coalition and writes a weekly column about public access to government information.

"Open government is not for the timid."