Last week, significant changes made to the top leadership at the Moapa Valley Water District (MVWD) suddenly came to light. The MVWD Board, looking for a change, had offered General Manager Brad Huza a retirement option and had then strongly encouraged him to take it; which he did. All this had happened quickly and quietly, with little notice to ratepayers nor opportunity for public comment or discussion. No doubt the Board acted in compliance with the letter of the Nevada Open Meeting Law; a code requiring transparency and openness in public entities. But the true spirit of that law was somehow left behind.

We are in no position to cast judgement on the wisdom of the board’s action in regard to Mr. Huza. It is likely that the time had come for Mr. Huza and the MVWD to part ways for good. The power certainly lies in the MVWD Board to make such a decision. In this case it may have been the right one and the best direction for the community.

Still, something in the way the matter was dispatched was rather unsettling. The decision was made: quickly, suddenly, away from the public eye, and without real transparency or any chance for an open public process. Thus, while it may be argued that the decision was right, the process of making this decision was seriously askew.

The effective dismissal of a General Manager is a huge game changer. This was no minor decision. It wasn’t like giving a donation to the Booster Club or providing water to the Fair. It wasn’t even choosing whether the next district backhoe should be a John Deere or a Caterpillar. No. This was a decision about a key person appointed to lead this important public entity. It had huge repercussions on the future outlook and direction of the district and the community. There ought to have been more sincere and diligent efforts to inform the public that such a monumental decision was in the works. Instead, the entire matter occurred in the course of two special call meetings sandwiched into the weeks between regular monthly Board meetings.

The initial introduction of the subject of Mr. Huza’s retirement apparently took place during a closed door session of a special call meeting held in late March. Had a member of the public attended this meeting he/she would have witnessed a small item of routine business appearing on the agenda. Then the public would have been asked to leave the room to allow a closed door personnel session. A person in attendance would have left the meeting with no inkling whatsoever of the magnitude of matters being discussed in his/her absence. But under the circumstances, there was no member of the public in attendance.

By the next special call meeting held on April 6, the formal retirement package was already prepared and offered. The matter was all but concluded by that time; before the general public knew anything was afoot.

So, what would be involved for the average MVWD ratepayer to have been present in that meeting and to give input? Well, since this was not a regularly scheduled meeting, a person would have had to observe the meeting agenda discreetly displayed somewhere at the post office in order to know the meeting was even taking place. It would only have been displayed at the post office and at the Water District office in Overton, because that is what is required by law. Interestingly, the meeting was not listed on its customary spot in the calendar section of the community’s newspaper because the newspaper was not specifically notified of the meeting; and, sadly, no one on the Progress staff had observed the aforementioned postings made. It should be noted , in fairness, that the district is not required by law to specifically notify the newspaper or any other media outlet of its meetings.

In any case, after noting the posted agenda, our amazingly observant MVWD ratepayer would have had to take time out to attend this special call meeting. As it happens, the meeting occurred on the evening before the opening of the Clark County Fair; a rather busy and hectic time of year for most people in town. Terrible timing to hold a meeting if you actually want public input.

Of course, if this remarkable person had actually attended the meeting at the posted time, he/she would no sooner have taken a seat in the MVWD conference room before being asked to withdraw to allow the board to meet in closed door session. After waiting alone in the lobby for an hour or two while the closed door session took place, he/she would have then been called back into the conference room for a brief open meeting. At that point, things would have moved quickly. A motion would have been made and seconded to offer the retirement package. This would have been followed by a quick vote. Then the meeting was adjourned.

Somewhere in all this, we assume there would have been an opportunity for the public to make comments. Of course, by that time, the decision had already been made, the offer tendered, and the ink all but dry. Any public views expressed would have been too little too late. Once again, the sad, but unsurprising, fact of the matter is that no one from the public was in attendance at this meeting.

While it may be argued that the whole episode met the letter of the law, this is really no way to run a public entity. True, this case was, no doubt, fraught with sensitive matters. But that is no excuse for keeping the public in the dark on the broader community issues at stake in this huge decision.

The public should have been informed at the earliest possible time that a change of such magnitude was in the works at the MVWD. The matter should have been open for public input; and such input should have been diligently sought. Before a final decision was made, the issue should have been held for discussion at a regular monthly Board meeting; the kind that the public is accustomed to attending; and not relegated wholly to special call meetings thrown together at odd times. If special call meetings were necessary they should have been posted to the public with all due diligence through every reasonable avenue of public discourse; not just the few that meet the minimum required by law. In short, with such a huge change in direction underway, the MVWD Board should have more diligently worked to satisfy the real spirit of the law in this case. They should have better involved the public to whom they must answer.

Since the November elections, the work of the MVWD Board has shifted over to a new group of people. They are good, honorable people motivated by a sincere desire to serve their community. It is understandable that each one of them is still trying to find his feet on the board. The board’s actions over the past month will bring drastic changes to the district. This will, no doubt, point the MVWD into entirely uncharted territory. It will possibly bring on a new era that may improve the district and strengthen the community. We can only hope that, in the future, this new path will include more transparency, more openness and a greater desire for public input than has taken place in the events of this past month.