LAS VEGAS (CN) - The Las Vegas Review-Journal scored a win Wednesday in its battle to get documents Clark County says are confidential.
Clark County District Judge Bita Yeager ordered the county to provide interviews and investigatory summaries related to its probe into potential conflict of interest by Jimmy Floyd, the former manager of the Construction Management Division of the county's Public Works Department. It has two weeks to give the judge that information, which she will review to determine whether any employee names warrant omission before reaching the newspaper.
A follow-up hearing set for June 3 will focus on county emails linked to the investigation.
The paper reported last year that a subcontracting business owned by Floyd's wife could have gotten at least $1.5 million in county dollars for road construction. Floyd oversaw the bidding process. He's since been terminated, the Review-Journal says.
The case against the county stems from the newspaper's requests for documents under the Nevada Public Records Act. The paper has argued county officials have refused to deliver documents for over a year, violating the act. The county said it has an ordinance that shields those documents from public inspection.
"I don't find that that is seeking sensational information," Yeager said of the paper's request. "This is a serious matter."
Yeager sided with the paper in almost all respects. However, she opted against finding the county's delay in producing the documents rose to a level of willful noncompliance. She also wants to ensure no employee name not linked to the investigation is improperly released.
Arguing for the paper, attorney Colleen McCarty said her client is seeking information about county employees who faced interviews in the context of their employment. It wants to know how public dollars were rerouted and what precisely occurred.
"That raises the level of transparency for the public significantly," she said, adding no privacy interest exists. "We should know what they know."
The act allows for some confidentiality, but a law must state it. McCarty argued the county knows the law and willfully chose to withhold documents for over a year in some cases. She opposed the judge's decision to review the information before handing it over, as it would only further delay her client receiving the documents.
"There are a ton of unanswered questions here," she added. "Our Public Records Act provides for that accountability."
Representing the county, attorney Scott Davis hinged much of his argument on a county ordinance that deems county investigations as confidential. That means records about such investigations aren't open to the public.
"We do have an ordinance on point," Davis said. "If that ordinance is a law, then game over."
That distinction is important, as laws that exempt specific records would keep them shielded. Yeager noted case law contemplates statutory provisions, which wouldn't include ordinances.
Davis argued the Public Records Act text refers to "law," not "statute." An ordinance is law.
"When you have an ordinance in place, it's binding," he said. "We have an obligation to follow that.
"It's law," he added.
Yeager questioned a blanket withholding of documents related to the investigation. She asked whether some records, which focus on the county's disciplinary process, could be separated from documents specifically about Floyd.
Davis noted the county has already provided some 800 pages of documents to the paper, arguing his client has complied with the act.
McCarty said those pages are largely unresponsive to her client's request. She also disputed that an ordinance could circumvent a law like the Public Records Act.
"This is not a new idea," she added. "This is the law."
Source: Courthouse News Service
