Attorney General: School board violated Open Meeting Law

An open meeting law complaint filed against the Douglas County School Board last year was deemed a violation while a second was considered a “close call,” trustees were told on Tuesday.

The Attorney General’s Office responded to complaints brought on by Lawrence Sidney, Robbe Lehmann and Sheryl McGuffin which occurred during the Feb. 14, 2023, and the July 19, 2023, school board meetings.

Attorney Kendra Jepsen explained the results to trustees and said “no harm” was done as a result.

The February complaint alleged that the agenda did not clearly state that a discussion of a grant funding mostly revolved around critical race theory and whether the district would be able to apply for grants if there was any related requirement.

“While the board did not ultimately adopt language that referenced CRT, the discussion revolved around CRT and it was not included in the agenda description,” said Jepsen. “Therefore, the Attorney General’s Office found that there was an Open Meeting Law complaint because the public wasn’t noticed that CRT would be a portion of the discussion and they were unable to comment on it accordingly.”

School Board Chair David Burns said that specific discussion was brought back during a special meeting and corrected.

Jepsen said that during the special meeting corrective language in the description, again, did not state that CRT would be a portion of the discussion.

“We were just doing what legal counsel told us to do,” said Burns.

During the time in which the violation occurred, Maupin, Cox, and LeGoy were the primary legal counsel for the school board. Joey Gilbert Law was hired during the July 19 board meeting, but did not sit at the table as legal counsel until the Aug. 8, 2023 meeting. 

“The only thing that happens is we have to say ‘yes, the board violated the Open Meeting Law, here’s why, we acknowledge it, and we will move forward attempting to be as clear and concise in our descriptions as possible,” said Jepsen.

The Attorney General did not find any violations in the July complaint but said it was a “close call.”

That complaint alleged the board was in violation for holding a meeting at 10 a.m. on a weekday when many parents could not attend; terminating the public comment period on Item 5 before everyone on the remote technology system were able to speak, Chairwoman Susan Jansen ignoring the other board members who she didn’t agree with; and allowing the chairwoman’s comment to complainant McGuffin during a public meeting.

“Attorney General’s Office found that none of these allegations rose to the level of an Open Meeting Law violation or did not rise to the level of viewpoint based public comment restriction,” said Jepsen.

According to the report, despite it being an inconvenient time for many interested members of the public, the meeting law does not include any prohibitions regarding dates and times for holding public meetings.

In regard to Jansen’s comment to McGuffin, the Attorney General’s Office noted that this was a close call and cautioned the board to be careful in how it treats public commenters during meetings.

The report also stated that the board was not in violation when online public comment was terminated before all speakers could comment on Item 5.

According to the Attorney General, public bodies in Nevada must include periods devoted to the general public comments and is only required to offer remote technology systems where there is no physical location designated where members of the public can attend and participate.

In this case, the meeting was held at Douglas High School and all members of the board were present, therefore the meeting was not conducted via a remote technology system and offering public comment via virtual means was not a requirement under the law.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office reported receiving at least a half-dozen formal open meeting law complaints regarding the Douglas County School Board during 2023.

During final public comment at Tuesday’s meeting Rob Lehmann corrected Jepsen’s “no harm done,” statement.

“You said there was no violation, but you failed to say that the Attorney General said, ‘it was a close call,’ those were his exact words,” said Lehmann. “So, be careful because it was a close call. The second thing is, you explained it all and at the end I guess to appease Mr. Burns, you said ‘no harm done,’ but there actually was harm done, you violated the law, and you kept people from participating in the governmental process. That is harm done. So, I think you need to understand that.”