Attorney general clears Indian Hills GID | NevadaAppeal.com

Attorney general clears Indian Hills GID

by Regina Purcell, Staff Writer

The Indian Hills General Improvement District did not violate open-meeting laws, as alleged by a disgruntled former trustee, according to state officials.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office ended its investigation of the IHGID last week. In its formal letter, the Attorney General’s Office concluded: … “because we have found no evidence of secret meetings of the Board, we find no violation of the Open Meeting Law …”

“We knew from the beginning there wasn’t any violation,” said Jim Bentley, IHGID manager. “It is just continuing hassle and harassment.”

The original complaint was filed last month by Joanne Riekenberg, a trustee of the district who was recalled in 2000.

Riekenberg said the Attorney General’s Office did not look at all facts of her complaint.

“I still feel residents were not informed,” she said.

Riekenberg alleged designs for the new office, with construction nearly complete at James Lee Park, were never submitted for residents’ consideration. She also alleged a written statement against the proposed office she made in January was not included in district meeting minutes.

The Attorney General’s Office disagreed.

“Because the minutes include a copy of the written submission, we find no violation of the Open Meeting Law in this regard. We recognize that the minutes may have been somewhat confusing because they stated that there was no public comment during the public comment section even though there was a written submission of public comment for a particular agenda item. We do not believe that this amounts to a violation of the requirements for minutes under the Open Meeting Law because the written comments were included with the minutes.”

On Monday, Riekenberg was chastised by Justice Court Judge Jim EnEarl for her “obsession” with the IHGID. On March 28, according to district personnel, Riekenberg disrupted the district office when she requested information.

While EnEarl denied a temporary restraining order against Riekenberg, he did require both parties to come to an agreement by Friday. The district will have 72 hours to respond to written requests by Riekenberg for district information.