Nevada Press Association The best in Nevada journalism since 1924
Why?
When newspapers ask for records from government agencies — and then have to go to court to make sure Nevada’s public-records law is enforced — the question often is raised as to why such information needs to be laid out in the open.
Much of the time, it’s obvious — at least to me and others who advocate for public records. The actions taken by government agencies are paid with tax dollars, on behalf of society, with the intent of upholding laws, improving the health and welfare of the public and bringing justice and fairness to the community. Sometimes, though, a government agency also does nothing — or acts out of motives that are in the best interests of a select few people, rather than the general good.
But sometimes a conflict arises when the release of public records goes up against the desire of individuals to remain private. That’s when people start to wonder, “Why?” Does the public good outweigh the possible harm done to an individual?
Three recent cases offer some insight into the dilemma, and it’s a common issue in public-records cases.
The cases are:
- The one cited above, in which the Clark County School District is trying to shield its investigation of a school trustee.
- A similar case, this one in Washoe County, where the school district wants to hide an investigation into bullying of special-education students.
- A motion by the Las Vegas Review-Journal to recover attorney fees after a widow fought the release of autopsy records from the Oct. 1 massacre.
It was this quote from the widow’s attorney that caught my attention:
“All she ever wanted to do was say when is enough enough? Relative to the heartache that has to be levied on her whenever she reads an article. Every time they want to do something, do they really need the autopsy report?” asked Tony Sgro.
When is enough enough? In all of these cases, the line was drawn when names of victims were redacted. The reports could be examined to determine what the government agencies did or didn’t do without revealing the identities of the people who were harmed. In the Las Vegas case, we wouldn’t have been able to single out the autopsy report if the widow’s lawsuit hadn’t been filed.
I don’t necessarily agree with redacting the names of victims from public records like these, because newspapers generally have policies against printing those names anyway. But it’s become a practical compromise to strip public documents of names of victims and other identifying information before releasing them, at least in situations like these.
The two school district cases, however, want to go a step further. They claim that people may be reluctant to report possible malfeasance or abuse, or to participate in an investigation, because they fear they may be identified later in a public report.
This is exactly the reason given for withholding the investigation of a Nevada state senator who was accused of harassing women for years at the Legislature.
The problem with all of this is the contents of these reports aren’t secret. They’re known to the people who compiled them and the officials who received them. Their interest is in making sure nobody else finds out.
Who are they protecting? Not the people who are in the reports — they already know what happened. No, they’re protecting themselves and the institutions they govern from scrutiny and oversight.
The best explanation comes from a Reno mother, Mary Beth Collins, whose son has learning difficulties. She told the Reno Gazette Journal:
The fact they think it is OK to not tell us what happened … it just makes me mad. I don’t understand how anyone expects parents to trust the school district is taking care of our kids and doing the right thing when the school district won’t even tell us what they are doing.
That’s the word: Trust.
When a government agency fights the release of records, it is asking us to take on faith that they know what they’re doing. But trust only comes when officials are transparent and forthcoming. They can’t have it both ways.
