Nevada's public records task force divides after a nearly five-hour meeting, with each side drafting its own recommendations

What happened

Nevada's Public Records Task Force met for nearly five hours Monday and found little common ground, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The group is made up of government representatives and transparency advocates. It is charged with recommending changes to the state's public records laws for the Legislature to review.

By the end of the meeting, members voted to have each faction write its own recommendations for lawmakers. The Review-Journal described the session as occasionally tense, with members questioning the other side's actions and debating what information should go to the Legislature. Some members attended in person in Las Vegas, while others joined by videoconference.

Why the task force exists

Anyone can ask to examine government documents under public records laws. The Review-Journal noted that when agencies delay releasing records, people seeking them can end up in long and costly legal battles. Government representatives have previously raised concerns about requests they see as large, overly burdensome or "vexatious."

Where the two sides split

How clear the law is

Matthew Christian, assistant general counsel for the Metropolitan Police Department, said he does not think the laws are onerous but believes they are unclear. He said the courts or the Legislature could decide whether agencies may charge for public employees to redact records, or whether some records should be withheld entirely. Review-Journal Chief Legal Officer Ben Lipman, a task force member, said the law already tells government to err on the side of transparency and release information when it is unclear whether a document is public.

A survey of agencies

Transparency advocates objected to a survey asking government agencies how they handle records requests. According to the Review-Journal, the government representatives created and released it without input from the other half of the board. A summary of results went to members on a Friday afternoon, along with an analysis the advocates said appeared meant to represent the whole task force.

The government representatives agreed it could be clarified that they distributed the survey and analyzed the responses. Attorney Colleen McCarty, who has represented the Review-Journal and other media organizations in legal cases, questioned why everyone was not consulted. "We have had a process here, and you all have completely disregarded the input on this side of the table," she said.

What agencies told the survey

Posted survey responses did not name the agencies, though some could be inferred, the Review-Journal reported. Metro identified itself in one response and said lawmakers should review whether records such as counterterrorism documents and information on juvenile crime victims should be automatically withheld. Metro also said agencies should be allowed to "appropriately manage vexatious requestors."

One unidentified county entity said using resources to "benefit select individuals" who abuse the laws wastes taxpayer money, and that people who want information should pay the cost. Leslie Nino Piro, general counsel for the Nevada attorney general's office, said she left agency names out because she did not think it would "advance any particular insight into the data." McCarty said she would like to know which agencies took part.

Possible areas of agreement

Mitch Fox, president of the Nevada Broadcasters Association, urged members to keep working on consensus items rather than give up with only one meeting left. "Otherwise, why did we spend all this time?" he said. At the next hearing, members will vote on whether the group can agree on any recommendations, such as creating an ombudsperson to help resolve records disputes or setting standardized fees for requests.

After the meeting, McCarty said she had hoped for a report that acknowledged both perspectives while identifying shared ground. She said she was now unsure where the group would land on consensus items, if any, and called that disappointing. The government representatives who attended in Las Vegas declined to comment, according to the Review-Journal.

What to watch next

• The task force's next hearing, described by Fox as its one remaining meeting, where members will vote on whether any recommendations have consensus.
• Whether ideas such as a public records ombudsperson or standardized request fees win support from both sides.
• The separate recommendations each faction is drafting for the Legislature to review.