Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meeting Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deputy district attorney briefs board on Nevada open meeting law, ethics and quorum rules
Summary
Deputy District Attorney Wade Connor reviewed NRS 241 open meeting requirements, quorum and notice rules, limits on serial communications, public-comment procedures, and penalties for violations, stressing that deliberation and action must occur in public.
Deputy District Attorney Wade Connor delivered a briefing on Nevada's Open Meeting Law and related ethics rules to the Churchill County Board of Equalization.
Connor opened by identifying NRS 241 as the controlling statute for open meetings in Nevada and said that "any business that a public body does needs to be open and public." He explained that the five-member board requires a quorum of three members to take action and that both deliberation and action must occur at a public meeting; private serial communications that aggregate into deliberation can violate the law.
He warned board members about the appearance of impropriety at social gatherings where a quorum might be present and described walking or rolling quorums and serial communications, including email and text messages, as potential problem areas. Connor clarified that meetings with the county attorney may be held outside public notice only when limited to potential or existing litigation and that no action can be taken in such sessions.
Connor reviewed notice requirements, saying agendas must be posted at least three days before a meeting by 9 a.m. and that agenda items must be specific enough to notify the public of the action to be considered. He also described public-comment practices: the board must provide at least one public-comment period (typically at the beginning of a meeting) and it is good practice to allow comments before action on individual agenda items; time limits may be enforced uniformly.
On enforcement, Connor said that actions taken in violation of the Open Meeting Law are "essentially void" and must be reheard at a properly noticed meeting; willful violations can carry civil fines and, in some cases, criminal penalties. He advised that when in doubt about conflicts or gifts, a member should request an advisory opinion from the Nevada Commission on Ethics.
The presentation closed with board members asking clarifying questions about public-comment etiquette and whether the board may respond during that period; Connor reiterated that public comment is not a back-and-forth dialogue and that any substantive board response should be scheduled for future agenda consideration.
