The governor’s e-mail

Up in Reno, the daily Gazette-Journal believes that if reporters could get a look at e-mails Gov. Jim Gibbons has sent and received on his tax-paid e-mail account, they and their readers could gain a clearer insight into what's been going on in the governor's office.

But the governor has declined to give them up. The Gibbons administration "in essence told the RGJ 'take our word for it' " that the e-mails were privileged, the newspaper reports.

So the Gazette-Journal sued, asking that the administration be required either to release copies of e-mails transmitted between Gov. Gibbons and 10 individuals from Jan. 1 to June 4 of this year, or to provide a log.

In a brief filed Friday in response, Jim Spencer, chief of staff for Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (who's representing Gov. Gibbons, ex officio), made four separate arguments why Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox should reject the newspaper's lawsuit.

First, Mr. Spencer says that between Jan. 1 and June 4 there weren't any e-mails between Gov. Gibbons and five of the individuals listed in the lawsuit.

OK -- assuming the court is provided some documentation other than "according to client's representations" -- there's not much sense arguing over e-mails that don't exist.

Second, one of the persons named in the lawsuit is Dawn Gibbons, and when it comes to e-mails between the governor and first lady, there's a "husband and wife" privilege in state law that blocks release of such communications unless both agree to the release, Mr. Spencer argues.

Let's not be naive. The newspaper may very well be fishing here, in part, for communications that might prove embarrassing to the governor. The court may be justified in excluding such private, spousal communications.

Third, the state Supreme Court has held that records don't have to be made public if they're part of a "deliberative process" in government or would "unreasonably interfere with an agency's governmental function." And some of the e-mails between Gov. Gibbons and his assistants fall into that category, Mr. Spencer argues.

Maybe.

But Mr. Spencer's fourth ground for keeping all the e-mails secret verges on the hilarious.

State officials are provided tax-funded cell phone and e-mail accounts to make it easier for them to conduct the public's business. Communications that have nothing to do with the state business should be handled on private accounts and lines, not funded by the taxpayers.

Yet Mr. Spencer seeks to block release of other e-mails because they "do not concern the public business." The governor's attorney thus seeks to protect the governor from the apparently unpleasant prospect of having his e-mail records revealed, by essentially pleading his client guilty to misusing his tax-funded e-mail account!

The state Supreme Court has held that Nevada's broad public records law ensures access to "vital information about governmental activities," Mr. Spencer argues, but materials "that do not concern the public business" aren't in that category.

Precisely how much of each business day does the governor's attorney want to argue the governor spends doing things "that do not concern the public business"? Wouldn't that, by itself, be a matter of significance to the taxpayers?

Judge Maddox has been offered the opportunity to privately review the e-mail on the governor's state account. He should do so. He should then err on the side of disclosure, ordering the release of anything of remotely public importance.

Many, these days, have learned the hard way after wrongly assuming confidentiality when sending an e-mail or posting something on the Internet. It's regrettable the governor may be embarrassed, if he has made the same mistake.

But tax-funded e-mail accounts should be used for public business only. And the governor's office should set a stringent example.