Diluting state’s public records law
A pair of bills submitted by Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to the Legislature are touted as "increasing government transparency," but they could do just the opposite.
Currently, government records and documents in Nevada are presumed to be open to the press and public unless they fall into certain limited categories specified by law. The law states, "All public books and public records of a governmental entity, the contents of which are not otherwise declared by law to be confidential, must be open at all times during office hours to inspection by any person "
But bureaucrats love secrecy. Asked for arrest reports that already have been aired in open court, Metropolitan Police Department clerks routinely demand, "Are you an attorney? Why do you need that?"
The Clark County School District already has delivered to the state last summer's graduation rates for its most troubled high schools. But after eight months, the district still won't deliver that public information to newspapers that have requested it.
But while the current law remains far from perfect, it does at least - given some persistence - require foot-draggers to cite a specific exemption from the presumption that the public's business is public.
Unfortunately, Ms. Masto's proposed change would remove the crucial clause "the contents of which are not otherwise declared by law to be confidential." Instead, each agency would assign an employee as public records manager, and each agency would then take it on itself to balance the public's interest in disclosure against the government's interest in nondisclosure. That balancing test - intended to be used by courts in prying loose a rare document that might otherwise be held confidential - was created by the 1990 Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Donrey v. Bradshaw, a decision that declared an overriding interest in openness. In the hands of a bureaucrat, however, it's easy to foresee the balancing test being tilted in favor of secrecy.
Testifying before the Assembly Government Affairs Committee last week, Karen Gray, a reporter for the Nevada Policy Research Institute's Nevada Journal, said if Assembly Bill 31 passed, it would turn transparency on its head. The proposed change would "allow government entities rather than citizens themselves to deduce what's in the public's interest," she told committee members.
The second bill, Assembly Bill 65, pertains to the existing open meeting law and was drafted largely in response to complaints the attorney general's office regularly receives about open meeting violations, said Assistant Attorney General Keith Munro.
But Assemblyman Pete Livermore, R-Carson City, says the proposal needs to be modified, because the section about external communication fails to address social media and electronic communication.
No action was taken last week. Mr. Munro of the attorney general's office said changes would be offered to address the concerns raised by media representatives.
Good. Because granting bureaucrats new opportunities and powers to keep the public's business secret sure doesn't sound like a step forward.
