Professional Documents
Culture Documents
cohnc@unr.nevada.edu
2
23 Jurisdiction in the Judicial Council of the Associated Students is proper under Article
24 IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the Associated Students. The Judicial Council is the sole
2 The Parties
5 Nevada, within the meaning of Art. I, sec. 1(a) of the Constitution of the Associated
6 Students.
7 2. Priscilla Acosta was the duly elected Speaker of the Senate of the Associated
8 Students at the Seventy-Sixth Session. She was the presiding officer of the Senate and its
10 3. Gracie Geremia is the duly elected Speaker of the Senate of the Associated
11 Students at the Seventy-Seventh Session. She is the presiding officer of the Senate and its
15 Associated Students, established under Article II of the ASUN Constitution. The Senate is
16 sued in its collective capacity because it has an obligation to ensure it is adhering to proper
18 Background Information
19 6. The public bodies of the Associated Students are subject to the provisions of
20 the Open Meeting Law (Chapter 241 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)). NRS 241.038
21 states “The Board of Regents of the University of Nevada shall establish for the student
23 those of this chapter and shall provide for their enforcement.” In carrying out its statutory
24 obligation, the Board of Regents adopted regulations governing the meetings of student
25 governments, carried at Title 4, Board of Regents Handbook, Chapter 20, Part B, section 3.
2 NRS 241.038 and applies to each student government recognized by the Board of Regents,
4 be held in accordance with the provisions of the Nevada Open Meeting Law, Chapter 241 of
7 under its Constitution, is evidenced by the publication of the ASUN Constitution at Chapter
9 the Regents. (The Board of Regents has subsequently changed its policy on how constitutions
10 of student governments get approved. Approval of the Board is no longer required. Thus,
14 the ASUN. Article II of the ASUN Constitution establishes and provides for the legislative
15 branch of the Association. “The legislative power of the Association shall be vested in a
16 Senate of the Associated Students” (Art. II, sec. 1). Further, the Senate is composed of 22
17 members (ASUN Const. Art. II, sec. 1(a)). Therefore, the Senate meets the definition of
19 9. For the purposes of this complaint, the provisions of the Nevada Open
20 Meeting Law (OML) are made directly actionable under the judicial power of the Associated
22 Accountability Act of 2008 (ASUN Public Law 75–51; 75 ASUN Stat. 131), which generally
23 provides that the secretary of a public body shall take minutes “as required by law” (section
24 7(c)(1)).
25 10. NRS 241.035(1) requires that public bodies “keep written minutes of each of
2 proposed, discussed or decided” (NRS 241.035(1)(c)). Section 7(e) of ASUN Public Law
5 11. The 76th Session of the Senate of the Associated Students met 38 times based
7 (www.asun.unr.edu), under Senate meetings. The minutes from the April 15, 2009, Senate
8 meeting (attached exhibit) represents a sample of the conduct complained against in this
9 complaint.
10 12. The Senate at that meeting elected its Speaker for the new session. The
11 minutes (exhibit) do not reflect the substance of what was discussed at all at that meeting.
12 Three Senators were placed into nomination for Speaker. The minutes state “Each
13 nominee—was (sic) recognized to give a 10 minute presentation to the Senate.” Further, the
14 minutes state, “The Senate questioned and debated the nominees.” The audio recording and
15 the account of The Nevada Sagebrush indicate that the Senate spent over one hour
16 questioning, debating, and discussing the nominees before taking a vote (available online at
17 <http://asun.nevadasagebrush.com/2009/04/15/asun-senate-meeting-april-15/>). The
18 minutes, however, do not reflect any of that discussion, as is required under the Open
20 13. The minutes further show in items 6, 7, 8, and 10 that the Senate adopted
21 several resolutions. The minutes do not reflect the substance of what was decided. This is
23 14. On information and belief, Petitioner believes many other sets of minutes of
24 the Senate are deficient for the same reasons as the set used as a representative sample above.
25 Petitioner believes that all sets of minutes during the 76th Session and 77th Session, so far
3 Declaratory Relief
5 15. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained within
7 16. NRS 241.035(1)(c) requires that minutes kept by a public body must include,
8 among other things, “The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided.”
9 17. The Nevada Attorney General’s Office has published a handbook consisting
10 of guidance to public bodies within the state on complying with the provisions of the OML.
11 The Attorney General’s Office is authorized under the OML to issue advisory opinions with
12 respect to the enforcement of the law. In so doing, the Office has opined on the requirement
13 that minutes include the substance of what happens at a meeting. In the Office’s Open
14 Meeting Law Manual, readers are directed to Open Meeting Law Opinion No. 98-03. “See
15 OMLO 98-03 (July 7, 1998) for an example of how a public body may violate the Open
16 Meeting Law by failing to reflect in its meeting minutes the substance of the discussion by
17 the members of the public body of certain relevant matters” (Nevada Open Meeting Law
18 Manual, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, 10th ed., December 2005, at §10.02).
19 18. The Attorney General opined (OMLO No. 98-02) on whether the minutes of
20 the Board of Trustees of the Washoe County School District complied with the standard in
21 the law. At the meeting in question, the Board was engaging in discussion about the selection
23 [t]he Board spent 43 minutes (about one-third of the meeting) discussing the
selection process, and, in the opinion of this office, deciding on the selection
24 of the Dr. Attea’s firm and giving it the authority to advertise at the NSBA
conference in New Orleans, yet the minutes are completely silent about the
25 substance of the discussion
2 19. Another OML opinion from the Attorney General’s office provides further
3 guidance on the standard for minutes. In this opinion, a board of county commissioners was
4 discussing revisions to an ordinance. The minutes state, “John Doughty went over the
5 revisions that had been completed at the direction of the Board. He felt that the revisions will
6 streamline the process and provide clarity” (OMLO 2002-01 at 3). The Attorney General
7 opined that the minutes were not compliant with the law:
8 The minutes of the meeting … do not reflect the substance of what was
discussed or decided on item 43a as required by NRS 241.035(1)(c). From
9 the minutes we know that John Doughty went over the revisions but the
substance of those revisions are not expressed in the minutes. The ordinance
10 was read by title no differently than expressed in the agenda. The motion to
approve Ordinance 97-801 similarly does not reflect the substance of what
11 the board decided. Without detail on the changes made by the ordinance
being reflected in the minutes, the public cannot know from the minutes the
12 substance of the discussion or the decision of the Board.
13 (Ibid.)
14 20. The Attorney General has opined many times on the issue of the sufficiency
15 of minutes. In OMLO No. 99-09, the Attorney General found a commission violated the
16 OML because the minutes “do not reflect all matters discussed or decided at the meeting”
17 (OMLO 99-09 at 6). In OMLO 2001-07, the Attorney General found a violation of the OML
18 when the minutes did not include a notation of absence of a discussion on an agenda item.
19 Thus, if an item is not discussed at a meeting, the minutes should state so.
20 21. The Council should give weight to the Nevada Attorney General’s opinion
21 because the Open Meeting Law is the same for state and local entities as it is for the ASUN
22 Senate. The provisions of the law do not change for ASUN, as they were made specifically
24 22. In the instant case, the Council should view challenged minutes in light of the
2 with the provisions of the OML in that the minutes of its meetings do not reflect the
5 Injunctive Relief
7 24. Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained within
9 25. The Council should enjoin the Senate from approving minutes in violation of
12 Declaratory Relief
14 26. Petitioner repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained within
16 27. Assuming the Council grants the relief granted in the First Cause of Action,
17 the Council should also declare void the acts had and decisions made during the meetings
18 declared to have been held in violation of the Open Meeting Law. NRS 241.036 states “[t]he
19 action of any public body taken in violation of any provision of this chapter is void.”
20 Accordingly, if the Council finds that violations occurred, it has no choice but to declare
21 them void. Although Petitioner is aware that NRS 241.037(3) contains a statute of limitations
22 on when a person can bring a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to seek
23 compliance with the OML or to have actions declared void, NRS 241.038 states that the
25 “provide for their enforcement.” The parallel provision at the Regents level to NRS 241.036
2 this section shall be treated as follows: a. Any action taken in violation of the provisions of
3 this section is void.” Because ASUN has enacted its own legislation stating that its officials,
4 in the ASUN context, are to comply with the law, the provisions of the OML as applied on
5 ASUN by the Regents is enforceable in this Council under the constitutional judicial power
7 28. Further, the Regents did not institute a statute of limitations on enforcement
14 3. For a declaration that actions take in violation of the laws and regulations
16 4. For such other relief as the Council deems just and proper.
18
____________________________
19 Corinna Cohn
cohnc@unr.nevada.edu
20 Petitioner
21
22
23
24
25