THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Court’s decision reinforces public’s right to information


image_pdfimage_print

Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Dec. 21, 2011, Reno Gazette-Journal.

Many Nevadans may not care about the specific contents of the more than 100 emails that former Gov. Jim Gibbons tried to keep secret, but the principle set forth by the Nevada Supreme Court in last week’s decision on the controversy is critical to everyone in the state.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Reno Gazette-Journal, the court rejected Gibbons’ attempt to simply declare the emails private without offering any proof.

The unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Nancy Saitta requires that Gibbons, who lost a bid for re-election in 2010, provide the newspaper with a log of the emails, including a “general factual description” of them and a specific explanation of why he believes they aren’t public.

In other words, the court said that the burden of proof is on an official when he or she wants to prevent the public — not just a newspaper, but all of us — from seeing a document. Otherwise, it’s public.

The Supreme Court’s decision has implications well beyond the governor’s emails, written on a state-owned computer and sent to staffers, family, friends and political campaign contributors.

The principle espoused by the Nevada Public Records Act is rather simple: Unless there’s a specific exemption in law, all government records are considered public.

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (2)
  1. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: December 25, 2011

    Anyone sending an email should consider it public information. If you want private communications, meet in a desolated area and speak softly (even then you are at risk if some of the media or FBI are interested).

  2. Citizen Kane says - Posted: December 25, 2011

    the above commenter may have some sort of point – but this isnt “anyone” – its a public official working in an official capacity making a comment in writing – the presumption is the comment is public business (and if not it should not have been made on a governmenty email account) and I for one am glad courts are starting to swing us back to where we need to be in terms of providing the environment for an informed electorate.