It’s unclear why anyone in North Las Vegas would have thought it a good idea to push for a special election to extend a couple of property taxes this month. The timing, after all, would have disrupted preparations for next year’s upcoming presidential primaries, and voter turnout would have been virtually nonexistent. 

“Having an election during December is just generally not a good idea,” Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar told reporters earlier this year. “I don't think it's a transparent process for the citizens of North Las Vegas.”

Nevada Independent Editor and CEO Jon Ralston clearly agreed, saying “We were puzzled why North Las Vegas would schedule a special election in December, where turnout would surely be very low, to extend taxes on its constituents.” 

However, it’s only puzzling if one assumes the city was interested in voter involvement in the first place. It’s not too difficult to imagine that city officials might have preferred a low turnout to reduce the possibility of voters rejecting the continuation of two important revenue streams. The alternative explanation, on the other hand, is that city officials were merely ignorant about what goes into preparing and conducting an election. 

Given that neither possibility reflects well on the city, it’s no wonder none of those involved is in a hurry to explain their reasoning to the public. 

According to a report by The Nevada Independent, city officials have been stonewalling on the issue for months — with officials denying interview requests and heavily redacting records that have been requested by journalists searching for answers. 

The city’s attorney has even refused to provide reporters with a general description of what those redacted communications entail — leaving the public with no glimpse into why the city ever considered December a reasonable time to hold its own special election on a couple of tax issues.

“We are flabbergasted at the secrecy by the government, which only piqued our curiosity even more,” commented Ralston in The Indy’s report. 

Certainly, such secrecy raises a few red flags and, ironically, draws more attention to the matter than it likely would have otherwise received. However, such secrecy shouldn’t be surprising to veteran journalists or policy activists who have had to take the government to court in the past for even the most basic public information.

Indeed, such contempt for transparency is a depressingly common tendency among some public officials, agencies and government entities throughout the state. Whether it’s police departments refusing to release bodycam footage, lawmakers holding off-the-record legislative debates “behind the bar” or even school boards concealing the inappropriate actions of fellow trustees, officials at all levels of government routinely flout the basic tenets of transparency when they believe doing so can shield them from public scrutiny. 

And it’s easy to see why: There are no real consequences for infringing on the public’s right to know what our elected (and unelected) officials are up to. 

The worst-case scenario for those who defy Nevada’s otherwise robust transparency laws is a little bad press and a legal judgment against their government agency. To describe such punishment as a “slap on the wrist” is a gross overstatement, given that all legal fees and fines are paid for by the very taxpayers who were denied a transparent and accountable government in the first place. 

In other words: What incentive exists for government officials to share potentially embarrassing information with the public when it’s the public itself that will bankroll their efforts to keep it hidden?   

In 2019, a diverse group of activists and transparency advocates came together to push for changes to the state’s open records law so such incentives actually exist. Working with many of the group’s founding members in 2019, Sen. David Parks (D-LasVegas) sponsored a bill (SB287) that, among other things, would have imposed penalties on individual government officials who knowingly and wrongfully denied public records requests. In 2021, Assemblyman Andy Matthews (R-Las Vegas) introduced another pro-transparency bill (AB276) that took aim at the agencies themselves by increasing the penalties for noncompliance. 

In both instances, local and state government entities lobbied heavily to water down or kill the reforms. Sen. Parks’ bill was stripped of the provision that would have held individual officials responsible for violating the open records law, and Matthews’ bill didn’t survive the session. 

As a result, the sort of blatant disregard for transparency on display in North Las Vegas is unsurprising — even if it is appalling. There are countless examples of governments, agencies and individual officials who are willing to ignore even the most basic transparency requirements of government — let alone spend taxpayer dollars to keep their own indiscretions, ineptitude or incompetence from seeing the light of day. 

Until Nevada’s transparency laws are given teeth to hold officials and agencies directly responsible for unlawfully keeping the public in the dark, the sort of brazen secrecy we now see in North Las Vegas shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, why wouldn’t government officials try to shield their bad decisions from public scrutiny when they face little personal cost for doing so?  

Besides, it is undoubtedly easier for North Las Vegas officials to refuse interviews and redact documents than explain why they thought December would have been a good time for a special election.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.