Nevada Press Association The best in Nevada journalism since 1924
Thanks to the Reno Gazette-Journal for being willing to go to court to clarify the law on public records cf medical marijuana establishments.
The city of Sparks, for some reason not readily apparent, is holding onto an interpretation of a poorly worded statute intended to protect medical-marijuana cardholders’ and physicians’ identities as an excuse to redact names from business licenses for dispensaries and growhouses.
The Attorney General’s Office has the sensible answer.
“When a local government obtains records and personal information independently through local licensing and regulatory procedures, that information may be subject to disclosure if it is not otherwise made confidential by a local ordinance,” Attorney General spokesperson Patty Cafferata said in a written statement.
I blame myself as much as anybody for this confusion.
I didn’t catch the vague language in a bill in 2013 that led to the state’s interpretation it must withhold information. I also didn’t get the language cleaned up in this year’s session.
Nevertheless, most people have come to the reasonable conclusion that business licenses are public info, and the state statute places no restrictions on local government.
“The RGJ believes transparency in this matter is in the public’s interest,” said Kelly Ann Scott, the executive editor of RGJ Media. “And our legal challenge is based on the belief that transparency in government — especially with the government’s role in the newly formed medical marijuana industry — should prevail because it is the spirit of our state’s public record laws.”
Now the RGJ is asking the courts to settle it in the interests of open government. What I do not understand is how Sparks taxpayers will benefit by paying to fight it.
