Washoe’s Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday voted to adopt an ordinance requiring paid lobbyists to identify themselves when providing public comment at commission meetings.
Commissioners in May directed county staff to draft an ordinance to regulate lobbyists interacting with county policymakers. The policy was modeled after the City of Reno’s. A version of the ordinance county staff presented in August would have required lobbyists to register with the county each year. They would also have to disclose their clients and indicate their lobbyist status when providing public comment before the commission.
The language was similar to Reno’s policy and those in other Nevada jurisdictions, such as Clark County. However, the final ordinance approved Tuesday is a stripped-down version of what was presented to commissioners in August, and it removes the requirement for lobbyists to register with the county.
Lobbyists now have to self-disclose but not register with the county. The registration requirement was removed from the board’s Sept. 12 meeting. Commissioner Clara Andriola, who previously had not voiced concern about the registration requirement, later said she was concerned the registration requirement would add costs for the county.
The county’s government affairs liaison, Cadence Matijevich, said the ordinance had no fiscal impact, but it would require time from existing staff.
Andriola, on Tuesday, again said she was concerned about the fiscal impact of requiring lobbyists to register with the county and said she supported the latest version of the ordinance that didn’t include “heavy-handed provisions.”
Despite suggesting, at the Aug. 15 and Sept. 12 meetings, a policy nearly identical to what was presented for adoption Tuesday, Commissioner Mike Clark said he was still not supporting the ordinance. He called it “busy work.”
“The more I think about this, I’m just wondering what we’re doing,” Clark said. “This county has been here for 162 years. We’ve made it this far without this type of an ordinance. I think we can struggle through maybe another 50 or 60 years.”
Commissioner Mariluz Garcia disagreed. She said having the ordinance in place for Tuesday’s meeting—one in which a number of people commented on a federal lands bill—would have helped her discern who was speaking on behalf of other topics on the agenda.
“I hear a lot in these chambers about the importance of transparency,” Garcia said. “It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you stand on, transparency matters to us all. I really liked the August version.”
She said she would vote to approve the “watered-down version” but only because “it’s better than nothing.”
Commissioner Alexis Hill said she also preferred the previous version of the ordinance but was willing to compromise to get something in the books.
Commissioners Andriola, Garcia and Hill voted to approve the ordinance, and Commissioners Jeanne Herman and Clark voted against it.
Clark toes the line on open meeting violations
Twice during the meeting, Clark was stopped from speaking by Chief Deputy District Attorney Mary Kandaras, who warned him he was close to violating Nevada’s open meeting law.
Both moments came during Clark’s comments at the start of the meeting. He initially tried to read an email he said he received from County Manager Eric Brown into the record. The email was part of communications between Clark and county staff regarding a woman who was kicked out of the Nevada Cares Campus the same day she spoke out about safety concerns at the shelter to the Community Homeless Advisory Board.
Clark said Brown accused him of threatening county employees over the matter.
Kandaras stopped Clark from reading the email, which she said could be considered a discussion of “character, misconduct, competence or health of persons,” requiring public notice to allow the person being discussed to prepare, secure representation and be heard.
“I’m not questioning anybody’s competence,” Clark said. “I’m just going to read to you the email that was sent to me. You can make your own decision.”
Kandaras said she was aware of the email Clark planned to read and said it seemed Clark intended to move the matter toward an investigation. The matter should be referred to the Human Services Agency to investigate, she said. Clark agreed not to read the email but said it made him feel maligned and threatened for trying to help a homeless resident.
During a second round of commissioner comments, Clark again came close to violating open meeting law when he asked Andriola to weigh in on whether public comment should be restored to the beginning of the meeting. Clark and Herman have both urged for the return of public comment to the start of county meetings and repeatedly asked for board members to vote on the issue.
Chair Hill removed the initial public comment period from meeting agendas because caustic public commentary—stretching for hours—would occur before the commission could start hearing most meeting agenda items. The school district also removed public comment from the beginning of meetings.
The change is legal based on the state’s open meeting law requirements but has been panned by far-right commenters, who have often monopolized comment periods at local government meetings. Many have falsely claimed the new format is illegal.
Kandaras said Clark’s attempt to secure Andriola’s vote for or against the opening public comment period would qualify as board deliberation and action on the issue, which had not been put on the agenda for that meeting.
Clark abandoned his question but urged Hill again to bring the matter to the board for a vote.
