A district judge has declared the Fernley City Council’s March 4 vote to expel Councilman Stan Lau void because the meeting agenda did not clearly notify the public that removal from office was a possible action.
The written order, filed Oct. 15 by Third Judicial District Judge Leon Aberasturi, also confirms that the council has authority to expel a member for cause. It does not decide whether the allegations against Lau justified removal or whether a second expulsion vote taken April 15 was valid.
That distinction leaves the ruling short of resolving the larger dispute over Lau’s removal.
The order follows an Aug. 11 hearing in Lau’s lawsuit against the city. Lau filed the action March 16, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and court orders challenging the council’s action.
Notice fell short
The March agenda item concerning Lau listed possible disciplinary actions, including censure, removal from boards or committees, adoption of a resolution and a request for resignation. It did not specifically list expulsion.
A separate item concerning possible discipline of Councilman Torres did expressly identify expulsion as a potential action.
Aberasturi found that difference significant in determining whether the public received adequate notice.
“The item failed to apprise the reader that the Respondent could expel the Petitioner,” the order states.
Nevada’s Open Meeting Law requires agendas to provide a clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled for consideration. Applying that requirement, the judge declared the March 4 expulsion void.
The order further states that the city has no basis to declare Lau’s seat vacant based on that March vote.
April vote remains outside the ruling
The council voted again April 15 to expel Lau, after the lawsuit had begun.
Aberasturi said he could not determine the validity or effect of that vote because neither side amended its court pleadings to put the second action before him.
“This ruling neither invalidates nor validates that subsequent action,” the order states.
The judge noted that state law allows public bodies to take corrective action addressing an alleged Open Meeting Law violation, with that action effective prospectively. He also reiterated that his earlier temporary restraining order did not prevent the council from taking statutorily permitted corrective action.
Whether the April vote accomplished a legally valid removal was not decided.
“Both Parties had ample time to amend their pleadings to place the issue before the Court,” Aberasturi wrote.
The ruling therefore does not establish that voiding the March vote, by itself, restores Lau to the council.
Council has removal authority
Lau also challenged the procedures under which the city exercised its expulsion power, arguing that additional ordinances were needed to define cause and establish procedures.
The judge rejected that argument.
The order cites Nevada law authorizing a city council, with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members, to expel a member for cause. It also cites Fernley’s municipal code, which provides for expulsion for cause as defined by resolution.
Aberasturi found that the council’s resolution stated the grounds for Lau’s expulsion and that the city had authority to exercise its removal power.
That finding addresses the council’s authority and procedural framework. It does not establish that the stated allegations were sufficient grounds to remove Lau.
The judge expressly declined to decide that question.
Grounds for removal still disputed
In discussing the meaning of cause, the order cites legal authorities distinguishing substantial grounds related to an official’s fitness or performance from removal merely at another official’s discretion.
But Aberasturi made no finding that Lau’s conduct met that standard.
Because the March action was void under the Open Meeting Law, the judge said the substantive arguments about grounds for removal were moot in this action. The order identifies a separate case, 26-CV-0295, in which those arguments have been raised.
The order does not report a disposition of that separate case.
Legal fees to be considered separately
Aberasturi allowed Lau to apply for additional relief available under the Open Meeting Law, including attorney’s fees and costs.
Any fee request must be submitted separately within 14 days of entry of the order, unless the parties resolve it by stipulation. The city would have an opportunity to oppose the request.
The order itself awards no attorney’s fees or costs and denies Lau’s additional requests for relief.
For residents following the dispute, the written ruling settles one specific question: the March 4 expulsion cannot stand because the public notice was inadequate.
It leaves two consequential questions unresolved: whether the April 15 vote validly removed Lau and whether the grounds cited by the council were sufficient to justify expulsion.
The Reporter has requested comment from the attorneys involved and will will continue to follow up on this story.
Comment
Comments