Tax Commission secrets

Looking to avoid a repeat of a dispute over open government between the state attorney general and the Nevada Tax Commission, lawmakers this year passed Assembly Bill 433.

It was designed to prevent the Tax Commission from ignoring the state's open meeting law under the guise of protecting proprietary information.

In 2005, the commission voted behind closed doors to award a $40 million tax refund to Southern California Edison, which operated a now-closed power plant near Laughlin. Board members opted for secrecy even after a deputy attorney general had advised them that the state's open meeting law required them to take action in a public session.

Commissioners argued that they were simply trying to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer information. But how, then, is the public supposed to determine whether the appointed members of this panel are playing politics or serving as competent stewards of the public's assets?

Unfortunately, a District Court judge sided with the commission, though the matter is on appeal to the state Supreme Court.

In the interim, lawmakers entered the fray. AB433 limits when the Tax Commission can meet in closed session and puts the burden on the taxpayer to request and justify a closed hearing.

But in seeking to craft regulations to implement the law, the Tax Commission is back to its old tricks. In addition to allowing appeals to be closed when information such as bank or financial statements, customer lists and trade secrets are on the table, language in the proposed regulation would shut out scrutiny during discussion of "other information which, if disclosed, would put the taxpayer's business at a competitive disadvantage."

That essentially gives the commission carte blanche to revert to its old default setting: secrecy.

Barry Smith, head of the Nevada Press Association, correctly pointed out last week that such broad language would allow the commission to easily circumvent the intent of AB433.

The proposed regulation must be more narrowly crafted. And if the commission thinks it can ignore the Legislature's clear purpose, let's hope the Nevada Supreme Court -- scheduled to hear an appeal of the Southern California Edison issue this week -- forces the panel to err on the side of openness.