High Court rejects open meeting argument in Reno case

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Friday public bodies can legally avoid the public eye by holding back-to-back meetings -- each with less than a quorum of the board or commission in attendance.

The unanimous ruling overturns a decision by Washoe District Judge James Hardesty, who had enjoined the Reno Redevelopment Agency from holding private meetings to discuss controversial issues.

The complaint was filed after the agency met Aug. 31, 1999, to discuss whether to demolish the Mapes Hotel in Reno. Two members of the agency board met in the first private briefing. Three members met in the second briefing to discuss the staff evaluation of six bids to demolish or rehabilitate the old downtown Reno hotel.

The agency board met Sept. 13, 1999, and after a six-hour hearing voted to demolish the Mapes.

Nonprofit groups, historic preservation groups and others sued and won a ruling from Hardesty that the practice used to keep the public out of the briefings violated Nevada's open-meeting law. He ruled the private meetings violated the law because "a constructive quorum was gathered for the purpose of conducting or deliberating the business of the public." He found that the briefings were "serial communications."

The high court agreed the open-meeting law should be liberally construed to promote openness in government.

But the seven-member court unanimously agreed Nevada's open meeting law doesn't apply unless there is a quorum present.

"Here, no quorum was physically present at either briefing," the opinion states.

And it said there is no evidence of serial communications between the two different meetings that would create a violation of the open-meeting law.

"Moreover, substantial evidence supports the district court's funding that the agency members did not meet on Aug. 31, 1999, with the intent of taking action on the Mapes Hotel," the opinion states.

Finally, the justices said there was substantial discussion at the Sept. 13 meeting where the vote was actually taken.

"We conclude substantial evidence does not support a finding that the private briefings of Aug. 31 created a constructive quorum or that a meeting in violation of the open-meeting law occurred," the opinion concludes.