MUTH’S TRUTHS

Carson City school board member Joe Enge, who refuses to simply go along to get along with other members of the board, is filing a Open Meeting Law (OML) violation complaint against his own board and board president today.

This isn’t the first time the Carson City school board has been hit with a complaint that it isn’t adhering to the state’s law in the conduct of their meetings. A couple years ago, I, myself filed a complaint after the board erroneously told the public that the OML prevented them from discussing issues with members of the public even when no action was being taken.

The board was wrong. The state’s Attorney General’s office told them so. But little has changed since then.

In fact, Ann Bednarski of Parents for Quality Education felt compelled to file yet another complaint against the board earlier this year…and lo and behold, the AG once again admonished the board for failing to follow the law.

Now comes Enge’s complaint. Don’t be surpised if the board ends up, once again, having its suspenders snapped by the AG’s office which, by now, should be pretty tired of being forced to deal with issues of such relative simplicity.

But here’s the problem. The new school board president this year, John McKenna, is a genuine boob. I suspect the man has trouble finding his own Easter eggs…if you know what I mean, and I think you do. The guy shouldn’t even be on the board, let alone be the board president. John McKenna is, as they say, stuck on stupid.

About the only talent man seems to have is an ability and willingness to sweep things under the carpet. McKenna just wants to rubber stamp whatever the school district says and is completely uninterested in anyone, like Enge, who stands up and says the emperor has no clothes.

That being said and duly noted, here’s the complaint Joe Enge will be filing today…

Open Meeting Law Complaint

Joe Enge
Carson City School District Trustee
August 30, 2007

NRS 241.035 was violated by the Carson City School Board on August 28, 2007 by approving substantively insufficient minutes for the previous August 14, 2007 School Board meeting. The approved minutes blatantly omit important and significant matters proposed and discussed, creating a misleading and whitewashed public version of the actual meeting.

This is a clear violation of section c of the statute as outlined on page 68 of the AG’s Open Meeting Manual. Section d and e may have also been violated.

I requested the approval of the August 14, 2007 minutes (agenda item #15c) be pulled from the general “consent agenda items” listed for the August 28, 2007 meeting. My prepared written objections stated:

“Agenda item #15c Approval of Board Meeting Minutes – action item

• All the comments made by me on the issues, with the one exception of the future board items, and all of Mr. McKenna’s refutations and personal, ad hominem, non-collegial, personal attacks on me are not in the minutes. My comments are footnoted as “Subsequent to the August 14, 2007 meeting Trustee Joe Enge submitted a transcript of his prepared comments for inclusion with the minutes. A copy is on file in the District Office.”

The same is true for Sheila Ward’s public comment comments. I think this censored and sanitized version is a blatant violation of the OML. These misleading minutes when read by the public do not reflect the true discussion of the meeting and requires a visit to the district office to get any sense of what was really discussed. Hiding comments from a board member and the public made at a board meeting in the bowels of the district office violates the OML.

The AG’s Open Meeting Manual, which can be viewed at http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/manuals/omlmanual.pdf on page 68 shows the minutes currently submitted for the August 14, 2007 meeting violates NRS 241.035, sections c, d and e:

Ҥ 10.02 Requirement for and content of written minutes (See Sample Form 2) NRS 241.035 requires that written minutes be kept by all public bodies of each meeting they hold regardless of whether the meeting was open or closed to the public. The minutes must include:

a. The date, time, and place of the meeting;

b. The names of the members of the public body who were present and the names of those who were absent;

c. The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided and, at the request of any member, a record of each member’s vote on any matter decided by vote;

d. The substance of remarks made by any member of the general public who addresses the body if he or she requests that the minutes reflect his or her remarks, or if he or she has prepared written remarks, a copy of his or her written remarks if he or she submits a copy for inclusion; and

e. Any other information that any member of the body requests be included or reflected in the minutes.

Therefore, this board is obligated by NRS 241.035 to include in the public minutes all of the omitted information I’ve referenced above from the last meeting as well as my written statements for tonight.”

The 2 major omissions as can be readily verified by watching a tape of the meeting and reading the August 14, 2007 minutes include:

• The lengthy and sometimes lively debate between Mr. McKenna and me about the OML regarding public comment (agenda item #8) and the Board being able to respond to the public. These positions and interpretations are important as a public matter and the future handling of Board meetings.

• The issue of Agenda item #16 Information and Discussion regarding the format and location of the August 22, 2007, CCSD New Teacher Orientation – discussion only. I voiced the following concerns: “There are potential problems of having employees on the district’s time attend an event at a facility paid for by the union (Carson Nugget). This presents a quid pro quo and conflict of interest perception during a time period when we are negotiating a new contract with the union. I move we have the district orientation at a district facility.” This is a major issue as the Washoe County School District has and is dealing with it as well. Substantive policy discussion followed.

An opinion is also respectfully request from the Attorney General whether sections d and e were also violated by these minutes by having the written remarks of a member of the public (former Board member) and current Board member simply footnoted stating “A copy is on file in the District Office.” This puts the onus on the public to visit the district office to read what was actually said.

To assist the secretary for recording the minutes, I provide her with a digital copy of my information and prepared statements. Usually this is done at the meeting, but I forgot my memory stick on the August 14th meeting and subsequently in a timely manner e-mailed it to her. That I expected them in the minutes is clear.

As a compromise I have written on August 29, 2007 the attorney for the district, the Board president, and the superintendent, “I’ve come up with what I think is a reasonable and rational method of distributing my written remarks during board meetings for inclusion in the minutes. My only reason for not distributing my written positions and statements on agenda items has been the dynamic nature of meetings sometimes addresses the given issue. Additional information of others changes modifies the pre-written statements. A better approach to take is to have 15 copies on a separate item by item basis that I can handout to all board members as each agenda item comes up and inclusion in the minutes. I believe this meets the concerns voiced by some board members and allows adhering to the relevant OML AG’s guidelines on page 68 of their manual.”

Just prior to the Board’s 6 to 1 approval of the insufficient August 14, 2007 minutes, I asked fellow board members to read the AG Open Meeting Manual, page 68 before their vote and that approving would be irrevocable. Ignoring this advice for proper due diligence after clearly showing a serious violation was probable demonstrated the Board’s flagrant disregard for the OML and their obligation and duty to properly inform the public.

I would like to make clear the omissions in the minutes are not the fault of our secretary. She asked for guidance in the district office and is conscientious. The omissions are purposeful and directed by her superiors.

Posted on August 30th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Carson City