By Robert Perea
Third Judicial District Court Judge Leon Aberasturi ruled Monday that the Fernley City Council may move forward with a corrected agenda item scheduled for Wednesday’s meeting related to former Councilman Stan Lau’s expulsion, denying Lau’s emergency request to block the item.
The city placed the item on the April 15 agenda to take what it describes as “corrective action” under Nevada’s Open Meeting Law. The council voted on March 4 to adopt a resolution to permanently expel Lau, but the agenda for that meeting did not list expulsion as a possible action, although the resolution did.
On March 24, Lau filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order arguing the council violated Nevada’s Open Meeting Law by approving the resolution to expel him because the agenda item did not list expulsion as a possible action.
Aberasturi granted the injunction on March 26, ruling that Lau would face “immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage” if the city moved ahead with declaring his seat vacant and filling it before the matter could be heard.
On April 9, the city posted the agenda for the April 15 meeting, which includes an agenda item to consider “possible corrective action to adopt Resolution 26‑002,” the same resolution it approved on March 4, with the date updated to reflect the new meeting.
On April 10, Lau filed an emergency motion for supplemental temporary restraining order to stop the council from considering the April 15 agenda item and asking for sanctions against the city if the court approved the motion.
However, after hearing arguments from attorneys for both sides during a hearing on April 13, Aberasturi denied Lau’s request for an emergency order.
Attorney Jeffrey Dickerson, representing Lau, argued that the city’s April 15 agenda item does not properly identify what is being corrected, making the notice inadequate under the Open Meeting Law.
“We know because we're well apprised of the history of the situation that expulsion, but a member of the public, looking at that agenda item, would have no idea what is being corrected,” Dickerson said. “The notice of what is going to be corrected is meaningless if that's not made clear.”
He also argued that re‑adopting Resolution 26‑002 would improperly “re‑expel” Lau and constitutes prospective action barred by the temporary restraining order. Dickerson said the city triggered a statutory obligation to fill the seat by declaring it vacant, and therefore any further action on the resolution is prospective and prohibited.
Dickerson also argued that the city missed the 30‑day deadline for corrective action because NRS 241.0365 measures the period from the date of the violation, not from the date the item is agendized. He urged the court not to follow the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Manual, calling it nonbinding guidance and arguing that its interpretation of the statute is unreasonable.
Attorney Sean Lancaster, one of three attorneys representing the city at Monday’s hearing, argued that the April 15 agenda item does meet the statutory requirement because NRS 241.0365 only requires the agenda to identify the action as “for corrective action.” He said the alleged violation concerns the agenda language, not the resolution itself, and that the city corrected the notice issue by adding the word “expel” to the new agenda item.
He told the court the resolution being brought back is identical to the one adopted March 4 except for the date, which was updated to reflect the April 15 meeting. Lancaster said this is the proper way to take corrective action when the alleged violation is the wording of the agenda, not the substance of the resolution.
On the timing issue, Lancaster argued that the statute is ambiguous and that the Attorney General’s interpretation, starting the 30‑day period when the public body receives notice of an alleged violation, is reasonable. He said the city is acting in good faith, both with the court’s orders and guidance from the attorney general’s office.
“The status quo remains the same, whether the new agenda item is passed or not,” he said. “The state of affairs right now is that Mr. Lau has been expelled, the seat is vacant but no appointment has been made and we understand that your TRO entered on March 27 remains in place. The city council cannot appoint a replacement.”
In his ruling, Aberasturi said the statute governing corrective action is ambiguous and does not clearly require the 30‑day period to run from the date of the violation. He also said courts may look to the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Manual for guidance and that interpreting the statute as Dickerson urged would “frustrate the purpose” of encouraging public bodies to correct alleged violations.
Aberasturi said he found the April 15 agenda item sufficiently clear and said he saw no Open Meeting Law problem with the council attempting corrective action, but added that does not remove the Open Meeting Law allegations regarding the March 4 meeting made in Lau’s original motions for the injunction and restraining order.
“What I see this doing is, if they correctively do it, all they’ve done is remove the attorney general from possibly seeking criminal penalties under NRS Chapter 241,” he said. “It doesn’t remove the allegations that there was, because I haven’t decided that yet.”
The council is scheduled to consider the corrected agenda item at Wednesday’s meeting. The hearing on Lau’s preliminary injunction request is now set for May 1.
Comment
Comments