Listen for yourself: Debt Management Commission violates Open Meeting Law
NPRI has filed an open meeting law violation against the Clark County School District and the Clark County Debt Management Commission. Read this and this, if you aren't up to speed on the case.
At the heart of the case is the fact that DMC did not take public comment before taking action on CCSD's $669 million property-tax-increase proposal.
Today, NPRI is releasing the audio of the meeting, available here.
This is a recording of the meeting, which demonstrates that DMC violated NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3), which requires that public comment must be taken "before the public body takes action on the item."
Another provision in the chapter, NRS 241.036, states that: "The action of any public body taken in violation of any provision of this chapter is void."
After listening to the audio, you can tell that this is an open-and-shut case. DMC didn't take public comment before voting, and the law declares that action "void."
Instead of wasting taxpayer money fighting this in court, government officials should accept responsibility for violating the Open Meeting Law.
Read moreOpen Meeting Law violators pretty upset someone's holding them accountable for violating the law
Last week, NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation filed an open meeting law violation against CCSD and Clark County's Debt Management Commission. Nevada District Court Tomorrow, Judge Michelle Leavitt has set an emergency hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation.
On June 7, DMC did not hold a public comment period before voting to approve CCSD's $669 million property-tax-increase proposal for the fall ballot. As laid out here, this is an open-and-shut case. DMC didn't follow the law, and the action it took - approving the $669 million tax-increase proposal - is "void."
And, oh boy, government officials are furious. They're not upset that the public was denied a chance to weigh in on such an important matter - nope. They're mad at NPRI for defending transparency and openness in government.
"I have no doubt it's politically motivated," said Haldemen, who oversees community and government relations. "It's disappointing and frustrating."Note she's not disappointed that the public was denied a chance to weigh in. She's disappointed NPRI's holding government accountable.
Clark County School Board member Linda Young didn't want to make an assumption about the institute's motives but said, "It certainly doesn't look good."Wow. School board member Linda Young thinks it doesn't look good that NPRI's defending transparency and openness in government.
I'll have to disagree, I think it looks - and is - great. Without accountability, government will get very opaque, and that's why NPRI's CJCL is standing in the gap for transparency.
It's amazing to see so many government officials going on the record attacking us for defending the ability of citizens to offer comment on government proposals - which shows exactly why there is such a strong need for CJCL to take on cases like this one and remind government that it exists to serve people, not the other way around.
But here's my "favorite" argument - attack the victim.
Haldeman, who is now overseeing the district's proposed capital improvement plan, questioned NPRI's motive in filing the lawsuit.When your side is clearly in the wrong, what's left to do? You can either admit you are wrong or attack the victim. In this case, Haldeman is attacking NPRI for daring to challenge a government agency that broke the law and silenced the public.
Suspect is the timing of NPRI's lawsuit, which came just five days shy of the 60-day deadline to file a complaint on open-meeting law violations, Haldeman said.
Well, that's what NPRI's here for - speaking truth to power while defending transparency and openness in government.
And we're happy to do that, because as seen above, some current government officials are fine with citizens not being heard until after the decisions have been made.
Judge grants emergency hearing on NPRI motion for preliminary injunction against tax-increase proposal
Last week, I told you that NPRI has filed an Open Meeting Law violation complaint against the Clark County School District and the Debt Management Commission to help defend openness and transparency in government.
Today, NPRI is pleased to announce that a judge has granted us an emergency hearing this Wednesday on a motion for a preliminary injunction.
______________________________________
Judge grants emergency hearing on NPRI motion for preliminary injunction against tax-increase proposal
LAS VEGAS - Nevada District Court Judge Michelle Leavitt signed an order late Friday afternoon setting an emergency hearing Wednesday on a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by NPRI's Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and Karen R. Gray.
The motion, filed last Friday, asks the court to halt the progress of a $669 million property-tax-increase proposal onto November's general-election ballot, given a violation of state law by the Clark County Regional Debt Management Commission.
Part of a complaint filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court, the motion alleges that the Debt Management Commission violated Nevada Open Meeting Law (NRS Chapter 241) June 7, when it approved the Clark County School District's $669 million property-tax increase for the fall ballot without allowing for any public comment before its vote.
While Ms. Gray was in attendance, prepared to discuss the matter, the Commission ignored state law and allowed no public comment before taking its vote.
Nevada's Open Meeting Law was enacted to ensure that the actions of all public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. Public comment is essential to the effective operation of the Open Meeting Law and the transparency of government business.
To that end, the Attorney General has opined that "[i]t is critical that a public body provide for a meaningful public comment period." See OMLO 99-08 (July 8, 1999). The refusal to allow Ms. Gray (or anyone else) a chance to talk before the matter was voted on was a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Pursuant to Nevada law, agency actions taken in violation of the Open Meeting Law are "void."
"Requiring strict adherence to the Open Meeting Law is critical, even if it appears a bit technical, because government bodies should act in an open and transparent manner," stated Jacob Hafter, a local attorney who defeated the Board of Medical Examiners' attempt to pass emergency regulations regarding the administration of injection by medical assistants in 2009. Hafter was retained as outside co-counsel by NPRI and its Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation to assist in this litigation.
Not only does the motion suggest that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success in showing an Open Meeting Law violation occurred, it also argues that time is of the essence and that a failure of the court to intervene immediately will cause irreparable harm. Larry Lomax, the Clark County Registrar of Voters, has gone on record that his office will begin preparing to print more than 750,000 sample ballots this week.
"By asking the court to address this issue now, we are trying to prevent the county from having to reprint election materials, should the tax-increase proposal be struck down," said Andy Matthews, NPRI president. "By asking the court to keep this matter off the ballot, we are also helping to ensure that the electorate is not confused by being presented with a voided ballot question, because it was not passed in compliance with the Open Meeting Law."
The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction will be held Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., before Judge Michelle Leavitt in Courtroom 14D of the Regional Justice Center.
Matthews, Hafter and Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of CJCL, will have media availability immediately after the hearing.
A copy of the motion is available at: http://justice.npri.org/assets/cases/Motion-for-PI-080912.pdf.
CJCL's Open Meeting Law Violation Complaint in Nevada Policy Research Institute, et al. v. CCSD, et al. is available at: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20120807_Nevada_Policy_Research_Institute_v._Clark_County_School_District.pdf.
The Week in Review: The return on our 'investments'
Every week, NPRI President Andy Matthews writes a column for NPRI's week-in-review email. If you are not getting our emails, which contain our latest commentaries and news stories, you can sign up here to receive them. Just enter your email in the box on the top right.
For today's week-in-review email, Andy looks at the recently concluded National Clean Energy Summit and finds that federal funding of renewable-energy projects has simply not produced a surge in green-energy jobs as predicted.
The return on our 'investments'
"Facts," John Adams once famously said, "are stubborn things."
I recalled this quote while reading Kyle Gillis' coverage of Sen. Harry Reid's fifth annual National Clean Energy Summit, which was held Tuesday in Las Vegas.
A constant theme at these summits has been that "investing" (i.e., spending large sums of taxpayer dollars) in renewable-energy projects will do more than simply produce environmental benefits. It will also be a boon to job creation and economic growth. On Tuesday, former president Bill Clinton, the event's keynote speaker, sounded that now-familiar note, saying that if each state were to adopt a renewable-energy standard, it would "put a lot of people back to work."
It's a contention we hear often from the current administration as well. On the same day Reid held his Las Vegas summit, the White House issued a press release announcing that it was expediting approval for "seven nationally and regionally significant solar and wind energy projects," which Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar says "have great potential to grow our nation's energy independence, drive job creation, and power economies across the west."
The problem is that this "potential" has been put to the test, over and over. Instead of debating the theoretical, we can actually see - and evaluate - the tangible results. And while we're constantly being told that public subsidies in renewable-energy projects will drive job growth, the stubborn facts say otherwise.
As Kyle reported in his story previewing Tuesday's summit, "over $1.3 billion in federal funds funneled into geothermal, solar and wind projects [in Nevada] since 2009 has yielded and is projected to yield just 288 permanent, full-time jobs. That's an initial cost of over $4.6 million per job."
I had a chance to appear on the Fox Business Network this week to discuss this story, and I highlighted a few examples of how substantial federal funding of renewable-energy projects has failed to produce the predicted surge in green-energy jobs. One particularly egregious example is a solar plant in Primm that is set to receive $50 million but employs only two people full-time:
After years of rosy assurances and more than $1.3 billion in handouts in Nevada alone, we're not getting anywhere near the return on our "investments" that renewable-energy advocates promised. By their own standards, their policies have failed. And this is to say nothing of the additional fact that renewable energy costs up to four times more than electricity from coal and natural gas.
Unless and until the renewable-energy sectors find a way to offer their products in a way that is respectful of the laws of economics - at which point there should be no need for government subsidies - they are simply not viable solutions to our energy (or economic) challenges.
It's long past time for devotees of the green cause to face that simple fact, and to stop throwing taxpayers' hard-earned money down the renewable-energy sinkhole.
Have a great weekend, and I'll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remember, if you'd like to receive the latest from NPRI, sign-up for our emails here. Enter your email address in the box on the top right.
Reid bullies private company. Where's the outrage?
I can't believe the subdued reaction this got from the media, including Steve Sebelius writing an opinion column that just described what happened.
On Tuesday, the second most powerful man in the United States, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, publicly called for a private company, in this case NV Energy, Nevada's monopoly electricity provider, to stop doing something that's perfectly legal - producing cheap energy from a coal power plant.
Earlier Tuesday at the conference, Reid took aim at the state's primary electricity provider, NV Energy.Here's how the Review-Journal described it.
During his opening remarks at the Bellagio, the Nevada Democrat criticized coal plants and said it's "time to close the dirty relic we've built." He acknowledged that closing one plant would not solve all energy problems, but for NV Energy, "the first step should be turn out the lights on Reid Gardner, and turn them out forever."
The Senate majority leader was referring to NV Energy's Reid Gardner Generating Station near Moapa, northeast of Las Vegas. The coal-fueled, steam-electric generating plant was built in the 1960s, though NV Energy says it has undergone "extensive technology improvements and is among the cleanest coal-burning facilities in the nation."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a break from stumping for renewable energy at Tuesday's National Clean Energy Summit to slam NV Energy for keeping its Reid Gardner coal-fired plant open 50 miles outside of Las Vegas.These aren't just empty words. As Thomas Mitchell notes Sen. Reid fought and killed a pair of privately funded coal power plants NV Energy wanted to build in 2009. Just one of those plants would have created 200 permanent jobs.
Reid's comments came just days after he criticized the utility for not agreeing to buy power from ENN Mojave Energy LLC, a Chinese company that has proposed a major solar energy manufacturing and generating plant near Laughlin, but is finding few takers for its planned output.
Also worth noting is that Sen. Reid's son works as a lawyer for ENN Mojave Energy. Are Reid's comments just another way to pressure NV Energy to buy more expensive solar energy from ENN?
Regardless, why is anyone okay with this? A powerful government official is singling out a specific company to stop a legal business action.
To my friends on the left, consider if the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine a powerful Republican politician publicly telling a solar power company to shut down its completely legal power plant. Would you be outraged?
This isn't about having a policy debate. It's about a politician using his power in a way that attacks the freedom of a private company, although NV Energy is utility monopoly.
Sen. Reid's threats should have generated outrage from the right - and the left.
NPRI files OML violation complaint against CCSD
And seeks to "void" the Debt Management Commission's approval of CCSD's $669 million property-tax-increase proposal for the fall ballot.
As our press release explains, the law is perfectly clear in this case.
LAS VEGAS - The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation at the Nevada Policy Research Institute has filed a complaint in district court alleging an Open Meeting Law violation by the Clark County School District (CCSD) and the Clark County Regional Debt Management Commission (DMC).
The filing, available here, seeks to void an illicit vote the DMC conducted in contravention of state law.
On June 7, 2012, DMC held a public meeting during which it approved a $669 million property-tax-increase proposal to be put on the general-election ballot in November. Karen Gray, an NPRI reporter and Clark County resident and taxpayer, attended that meeting to provide comment and gather information. However, no public comment was taken by DMC before the panel approved the measure.
Nevada's Open Meeting Law, at NRS 241.020(2)(c)(3), requires that public comment must be taken "before the public body takes action on the item."
Another provision in the chapter, NRS 241.036, states that: "The action of any public body taken in violation of any provision of this chapter is void."
"The Debt Management Commission did not provide a public comment period before approving CCSD's $669 million property-tax-increase proposal for the fall ballot, which is a violation of Nevada's Open Meeting Law," said Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of CJCL.
"Especially on an issue of such importance, it is essential that citizens be given the opportunity to comment, and when government officials do not allow public comment before taking action, the law states that action is 'void.'
"If a government agency violates the law, that agency must be held accountable, just like a private citizen would be. Nevada's Open Meeting Law would be functionally worthless if it is not defended, and we are pleased to guard transparency and openness in government, especially in a case involving an issue as important as this one."
Within hours of being informed about the lawsuit, the Las Vegas Sun reported, Clark County Commissioner Susan Brager, who chairs DMC, said that the commission will conduct a re-vote on CCSD's property-tax increase ballot measure in August. The Sun also reported that Brager said that she "think[s] it's very important the public should have a voice."
"It's great to see the defendants in this case admit the importance of giving the public a voice in policy debates," said Becker. "It's just as important that the law is obeyed, and the public is given a voice before a government body takes action on agenda items.
"Without constant oversight, government tends to drift towards opacity, and this case is a way to protect transparency and openness throughout government."
To put its $669 million tax-increase proposal on the November ballot, NRS 293.481 states that CCSD "shall provide to each county clerk within the designated territory on or before the third Monday in July preceding the election: (1) A copy of the question, including an explanation of the question."
The third Monday in July was July 16.
CJCL's Open Meeting Law Violation Complaint in Nevada Policy Research Institute, et al. v. CCSD, et al. is available at: http://www.npri.org/docLib/20120807_Nevada_Policy_Research_Institute_v._Clark_County_School_District.pdf.
Road to ACA repeal starts in the states
Cato's health care guru, Michael Cannon, in his most recent column, calls attention to the fact that implementation of the Affordable Care Act is entirely dependent on compliance from state policymakers.In particular, for the law to have any teeth, states must agree to (1) set up exchanges and (2) expand their Medicaid eligibility requirements. According to Cannon, if states refuse to do both they could essentially block the $1.6 trillion in new federal spending that the law would compel over the next 10 years and could even force Congress to repeal it altogether.
It's an interesting read...and one that should be carefully scrutinized by Silver State policymakers.
NTU to Nevada legislators: The margin tax is a losing bet
The National Taxpayers Union is an independent, non-partisan advocate for taxpayers, including the taxpayers of Nevada. NTU has taken a look at the union-backed margin-tax initiative and has reached a similar conclusion as NPRI - the margin tax is a terrible, terrible idea. Today, NTU sent a letter to every state legislator and Gov. Brian Sandoval detailing why that is the case.
August 1, 2012
An Open Letter to Nevada Legislators: The Margins Tax is a Losing Bet!
Dear Legislator:
On behalf of the 3,100 Nevada members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to reject efforts to impose a modified gross receipts or "margins" tax on businesses with at least $1 million in revenue per year. This scheme threatens to hinder small business growth and capital formation and should be opposed by any legislator that believes in quality tax policy.
While margins tax proponents claim the state needs the funds for education, the fact is that government spending in Nevada ballooned an inflation-adjusted 42 percent from 2000-2010. According to our friends at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI), education spending per student ($10,449 in 2008-09) is already significantly higher than neighboring Utah and Arizona, where students have higher graduation rates and test scores. Instead of enacting damaging taxes in order to throw more money at Nevada's public schools, the Legislature should seek to reign in wasteful spending and create an environment with greater school choice and accountability.
Even if high education spending could turn around Nevada's public schools, the margins tax would still be a dangerous proposal. It would affect small, local, and startup firms due to the low minimum revenue threshold of $1 million. Many liquor stores, gas stations, and "mom-and-pop" retailers regularly have revenues exceeding that level and would be forced to suffer under this tax policy. And since businesses will be taxed on their total revenue and not their total profit, failure will be accelerated for businesses already operating at a loss or on narrow margins, while others will be hesitant to open new stores. This will only worsen Nevada's current unemployment rate of 11.6 percent.
Despite benefitting from the absence of personal and corporate income taxes, the Silver State's standing among taxpayers and business owners is tarnished by exceedingly high local tax and regulatory burdens. According to NPRI, Nevada has the ninth-highest local government revenues per capita and is one of only six states that taxes more locally than on the state level. In addition, the Institute for Justice recently concluded that Nevada has the fourth-worst regulatory environment in the country. Lawmakers should seek to improve upon the competitive advantage provided by the lack of income taxes, not fritter it away with another obstacle to entrepreneurship.
The Texas chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses says that their state's margins tax is "crippling the small and mid-sized businesses without bringing in what [revenue legislators] thought." The policy's complexity means forcing smaller businesses to cough up more money to hire outside tax experts to navigate compliance. This disadvantage has been a frequent complaint from business owners in Texas, where lawmakers heard more than 100 bills to modify or repeal this burdensome tax in 2009.
Instead of copying the Lone Star State's failed margins tax policy, the Nevada Legislature should seek to increase accountability and school choice while continuing to foster a pro-growth environment for taxpayers and businesses. Let's not roll the dice on a damaging margins tax. In today's economic climate, this is one bet Nevada can't afford to lose.
Sincerely,
Lee Schalk
State Government Affairs Manager
cc: Governor Brian Sandoval
States aren't obligated to participate in ObamaCare
Here's a great clip of the Cato Institute's health policy guru Michael Cannon explaining why states are under no obligation to expand Medicaid OR to set up health insurance exchanges. And, as he says, they shouldn't do either.This is of particular relevance to Nevada, which - as my colleague Steve Miller has recently written - is home to the nation's only Republican governor who has pushed ahead to create an exchange.
Celebrating Milton Friedman: Champion for liberty, free enterprise and educational freedom
July 31, 2012 would have been Milton Friedman's 100th birthday.
Friedman, of course, was one of the 20th century's greatest champions for the free market. One of his most enduring legacies is his championing of educational vouchers or other ways to give parents a choice in the education of their students.
The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is another part of his legacy and the Foundation helped facilitated over 100 events that were held today and celebrated his legacy. This included NPRI's event earlier today with Dr. James W. Guthrie, Nevada's current Superintendent. (We're working on posting a video of that event, so stay tuned.)
Bonus: Here's a great column by Steven Moore on Friedman and my favorite Friedman clip.
