Homeland security legislation could erode open meeting laws

Since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a justifiable need to prepare for potential terrorist acts in secrecy. The unthinkable happened on that day. Thousands of American citizens were killed, and there's no turning back.

However, 9/11 has also brought a chilling effect on the dissemination of information under the ever-expanding umbrella of homeland security.

Open government advocates are watching legislation introduced during this session of the Nevada Legislature which potentially could allow far too many discussions by public bodies to take place in secret.

Some Clark County lawmakers argue that planning for terrorism and creating emergency response plans must be done out of the public's view. Certainly, those thinking about engaging in acts of terrorism should not be tipped off about security issues.

But as the ACLU and the Nevada Press Association pointed out this week, Senate Bill 115 goes too far in allowing local government bodies to talk about and even vote on issues in closed sessions if they in some way, shape or form relate to homeland security or terrorism topics.

SB115 goes beyond the state's anti-terrorism legislation passed in 2003, open-government advocate say, and begins to infringe on the public's right to know what governments are up to by circumventing the state's open meeting laws.

In the extreme, city and county governments could invoke homeland security when they talk about municipal water or power systems. Residents may not be privy to information about the quality of the water they drink if officials believe disclosing information is a matter of security. Public safety budgets may be off limits to public review if dollars within those budgets are derived from or pledged to homeland security equipment. School districts could refuse to let the public look at building plans for new projects for fear they will (ruefully) fall into the wrong hands.

While we are confident our local leaders will keep doors open, we fear SB115 could potentially lead to a general erosion of Nevada's open meeting laws, which clearly require the public's business to take place in the open for all to see. We want to be responsible citizens when it comes to the security of Nevada residents without closing the doors for what we suspect will become many "homeland security" issues.