Opinion ID: 1433828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: A.B. 437 and S.B. 333 (1977)

Text: The first draft of A.B. 437, submitted on March 10, 1977, proposed to define a meeting as the gathering of members of a public body at which a quorum is present to deliberate toward a decision or to make a decision on any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. A.B. 437, 59th Leg. (Nev.1977). On March 16, 1977, Deputy Attorney General Bill Isaeff testified before the Assembly Governmental Affairs Committee. He opined that the definition of meeting should include telephone conference calls or communication by electronic means. See Hearing on A.B. 437 Before the Assembly Governmental Affairs Committee, 59th Leg. (Nev.1977). Other witnesses also recommended that the committee include electronic means of communication in the definition of a meeting. Id. The first reprint of S.B. 333 proposed to define a meeting as the gathering of a quorum of the constituent membership of a public body, whether in one place or by electronic means, discuss or act upon a matter over which the body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. S.B. 333, 59th Leg. (Nev.1977) (emphasis added). The legislature ultimately adopted the current version of NRS 241.030(4), prohibiting only the use of electronic communication to circumvent the spirit of chapter 241. The Board argues, and the district court agreed, that enactment of the first version of A.B. 437, the rejection of S.B. 333, and the apparent rejection of testimony specifically proposing that electronic communications be considered meetings when used by a quorum to make decisions demonstrates the legislature's intent not to prohibit the electronic communications utilized in this case. The Attorney General argues that the legislature enacted 241.030(4) in response to the concerns raised at the hearings on these proposed measures. She contends that even if the communications in this case did not constitute a meeting under NRS 241.015(1), they circumvented the requirement that the Board's decisions be made in public and violated the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. NRS 241.030(4).