Ruling: Trustees did not violate open meeting laws in Jara contract sessions

The Nevada attorney general’s office has concluded that no violations of state open meeting laws occurred in the run-up to a Clark County School Board vote in May to extend Superintendent Jesus Jara’s contract.

Trustee Danielle Ford and UNLV law professor Sylvia Lazos each filed complaints related to multiple closed sessions between a quorum of School Board trustees and the board’s attorney leading up to the public meeting, where trustees voted 4-3 to extend Jara’s contract through Jan. 15, 2023, the AG’s office said in a Dec. 3 opinion.

The closed sessions with then-board attorney Mary-Anne Miller between January and May were “regarding threatened litigation and settlement efforts in the contract dispute” with Jara, according to the opinion.

At the time, the School Board and Jara were locked in a dispute over whether the superintendent’s contract, initially approved in 2018, was slated to end over the summer or had automatically been renewed for two years.

Clark County School District representatives did not provide a comment on the opinion Thursday.

Ford said she supports the attorney general’s conclusion, noting that the office explained the situation and shared historical information as to why the meetings technically didn’t violate open meeting laws.

She said that the finding doesn’t mean the process leading up to the May vote was done by the book. The AG’s opinion, she added, just means it doesn’t warrant intervention based on the scope of what the office oversees.

Lazos said her complaint was based solely on what occurred during public meetings, including concerns that were expressed by some trustees about being polled related to settlement negotiations. That raised red flags, she said.

The AG’s opinion stated that it’s unclear from the evidence presented whether “polling” of trustees did occur at the meetings. It provided no details, but says it assumed that it did for purposes of its analysis.

Evidence indicates trustees expressed to Miller in closed sessions “what type of settlement they might be willing to accept to give guidance to her in settlement negotiations,” as opposed to tallying how members intended to vote, according to the opinion.

The AG’s office noted that when “a consensus occurs as part of deliberation that is a precursor to an action taken during a public meeting,” it doesn’t violate open meeting law.

Miller advised trustees that opinions they expressed weren’t binding and any action on the matter would have to happen during a public meeting, according to the AG’s office.

During a May School Board meeting, multiple trustees “voiced concerns over the process leading up to the (previous) meeting and requested legal advice on the record” regarding open meeting law, according to the opinion.

The complaints were filed by Ford and Lazos long before the latest round of School Board decisions about Jara’s contract.

In late October, Ford initiated an agenda item to consider terminating Jara’s contract “for convenience,” meaning trustees didn’t need to provide a reason. The board voted 4-3 to approve the termination.

But in mid-November, the board reversed that decision and voted rescind Jara’s contract termination.

Jara announced earlier this month he plans to remain in his position after reaching an agreement with the School Board.

Contact Julie Wootton-Greener at jgreener@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2921. Follow @julieswootton on Twitter.