City Council Acknowledges Finding Of Open Meeting Law Violation

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

The Mesquite City Council has formally acknowledged the findings of the Nevada State Attorney General in an open meeting law complaint filed by a resident of the city last year. This action took place at a meeting held on Tuesday, July 26.

The complaint was filed in 2021 by David Ballweg, a former city council member. It pertained to a special meeting held by the council on May 18, 2021 where the only action item on the agenda was the appointment of Andy Barton as an Interim City Manager. This was shortly after the resignation of former City Manager Aaron Baker.

In his complaint, Ballweg asserted that there were insufficient public comment periods provided at the meeting. He also claimed that the Mayor and City Attorney at the time had engaged in collusion that would warrant individual liability under the Open Meeting Law.

After investigating Ballweg’s complaint, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) determined that the City Council had indeed violated Nevada Open Meeting Law (OML) by failing to provide adequate public comment periods in the May 18 Special Meeting.

The OAG finding, which was served to the City on July 5, 2022, noted that the agenda of the Special Meeting only included one period allowing for public comment on the agenda item only. No general public comment period was agendized for the meeting.

When Ballweg had stood to make a comment that was not directly connected to the action item in the meeting, he was interrupted by the City Attorney who noted that comments should be limited only to the agenda item before the council.
The agenda item was then approved and the meeting was adjourned by the mayor.

Two other meetings of the council took place successively immediately following the Special Meeting. Both of these meetings allowed for general public comment both at the beginning and end of the meeting. Ballweg was allowed to make his comment in those meetings.

In addition, the OAG scanned similar council meeting dates where two or more meetings were held on the same day in a similar way as occurred on May 18, 2021. In each of those cases, two general public comments were held per meeting.

The OAG thus determined that the Council had indeed violated the OML in that meeting. The finding stated that a public body must agendize a period for public comment both before action of the meeting and again before adjournment. Alternatively, it could allow multiple periods of public comment before action is taken on each agenda item.

“Regardless of which method is chosen, the public body must also allow members of the public time to comment on any matter not specifically included on the agenda as an action item some time before adjournment,” the finding stated.

The OAG did not find sufficient evidence of Ballweg’s allegation of collusion between the mayor and city attorney to willfully violate the OML in the meeting.

What is more, the finding notes that a follow up meeting was held on June 15, 2021 in an effort to remedy any possible OML violations which might have occurred in the May 18 meeting.

In that meeting the council, once again, approved the appointment of Barton as Interim City Manager, and ratified all action taken by Barton on behalf of the City since the May 18 meeting.

The finding noted that this meeting included two periods for general public comment – one at the beginning and one prior to adjournment.
“The OAG finds that the actions by the (Council) on June 15, 2021 were taken as a means to correct any alleged violations of the OML that may have occurred during its May 18, 2021 Special Meeting,” the finding states.

The OAG goes on to state that, because of this second meeting, it would forego filing a lawsuit in the matter in an effort to declare the May 18 action void.
“While the OAG finds that an OML violation has occurred, it is the OAG’s position that the foregoing remedies required of the (Council) are sufficient to address the violation,” the finding states.

Even so, the OAG did direct the Council to acknowledge its findings at its next meeting. This was done at the end of last week’s meeting. The item drew no discussion from the Council.

During the public comment period for the item, Ballweg stood and said that he had taken this action against the city because of “a blatant open meeting law violation basically orchestrated by the mayor during a special meeting.”

“This is the first Open Meeting Law action that has been held up against the City,” Ballweg added. “It took a lot of effort and time to do this. I find it interesting that it was found to be a clear violation.”
“I think that the mayor has had a very bad habit of disrespecting people that talk up here,” Ballweg continued, “shaking your heads, shrugging your shoulders or whatever. That is not how citizen input should be accepted in this town and I feel just direct disrespect for my valid commentary.”

In the end, Councilman Brian Wursten made a motion to acknowledge the findings of the OAG. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.