"Kari Stephens was voted off the Board but would listen to the concerns of the members." We don't need listening, we need ACTION. Stephens supports continued out of state convention meetings. I believe she supported random audits, although I could be wrong.

Vote Terry Coffing out when his term is up. Will not return a phone call.

Not 8:52, but for one thing, the budget is not transparent. As noted in the comments yesterday, the BOG minutes only superficially touch on what happened. The annual report has one page with little detail. There have been several proposals and ADKTs in the last few years that fly in the face of logic and that were put forth without asking the bar what they think. Now, I understand that we elect the BOG to do some of that without bothering us about it, but the way things have gone does little to instill confidence that they're looking our for out best interests.

Quinn is a patsy. Says one thing but if pressed will turn. That's my experience.

The NV Bar MUST be audited every year by a truly independent, disinterested third party and the audit must provide a list of every expenditure both regulatory in nature and non-regulatory. Where is the proof of compliance with the mandates of Keller v. State Bar of California? There is currently in Texas, a lawsuit against the Texas Bar brought by three Texas lawyers. They want to know, “Is it constitutional to require Bar members to pay compulsory Bar dues, including to support Bar programs … that Bar members object to on First Amendment grounds (e.g., free speech, freedom of association), inclμding programs that are not within the regulatory functions of the State Bar?”

Because the SBN is NOT transparent, we have no way to know if we are funding the same unconstitutional activities in Nevada that the Texas Bar is accused of. Is the solution for members to attend BOG meetings or to individually call someone on the board (who is likely as clueless as the rest of us)to ask about where our money is going? REALLY? Who has that kind of time? Those aren't solutions. Put the burden where it belongs, on the people who have are money and are spending it without any accountability. And sorry the high level, not-detailed financial disclosures provided via that slick BS 'annual report' the SBN puts out every year isn't worth the time to wrap a mackerel in it.

Members do not know how the funding they are forced to provide every year is being spent. Does, for example, anyone even know how much total annual compensation is paid to bar management, especially to Kim Farmer? Does anyone have a single clue how much of members mandatory assessments is paid out every year for boondoggles, meals, travel, and most of all for lobbying? And does the bar give away any of our mandatory assessment money to any special interest specialty bar associations that may or may not be taking ideological or political positions in contravention of Keller?

The timing is now to put pressure on the SBN. https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/14/us-supreme-court-ruling-fuels-suits-challenging-mandatory-bar-fees/

Gentile would. I thought he did until a he lost his balls, and is now a Summerlim cat sitter.

No it is not. State Bar is not a public or state agency (see the Errico case that was discussed here last week). The records of the State Bar are not subject to FOIA or public records requests.

@4:20 points out the lack of transparency and 8:19 reminds that FOIA doesn't apply to State Bar. Inexplicable I can get on line and see how much a level 2 clerk is paid in the AG's office. But, I can't get on line and see how much Kim Farmer is paid? If there is a report or link or something somewhere that has that info, please post it. If financial information isn't public, I can only surmise that Kim and the State Bar are hiding details of finances for a reason. I wonder if the BOG (aka Student Government) knows the details.

I read Errico, and I'm not convinced it means that the state bar is not a "governmental entity" for purposes of the public records law (NRS Chapter 239), and as defined in that statute. Errico dealt with NRS Chapter 239A, which uses and defines the term "governmental agency," which is arguably narrower.
Keller, cited by Errico, also involved an entirely different question. Neither of them addressed whether the State Bar is subject to the public records law, nor do I think that is the necessary implication of Errico. Is there some other authority that clearly states that the public records law does not apply to the State Bar?

Has anyone actually made a formal public records request (i.e., a written request using the magic words "public records request pursuant to NRS 239.010") for the budgets, financial, etc., and had it denied?

@11:42; I think the critical missing fact from the analysis is whether there has ever been a determination of whether the State Bar is an independent governmental entity (agency or other term), or rather is merely an arm of the Supreme Court.

If it is an independent entity it would fall within the Executive Branch and therefore be subject to the public records law. If, however, it is merely an arm of the Supreme Court, it would be part of the Judicial Branch and not subject to the public records act as the NSC has previously held that the Judicial Branch is not subject to the public records law under the separation of powers doctrine.

Not withstanding that holding, the courts generally will cough up the majority of records that would otherwise be covered by the public records laws, in the interest of transparency, unless under a balancing test there is a legitimate interest in maintaining the record private.

"In light of the basis for our disposition of this appeal, we do not address the applicability of the NPRA to the State Bar." Birch v. State Bar, 2017 Nev. App. Unpub. LEXIS 528 *, fn 2, 2017 WL 3525855

Birch basically affirmed because the plaintiff didn't show that he actually made a public records request, hence no need to resolve whether the public records law applies to the bar. So apparently whether the law applies to the bar was an open question at least as of 2017. Is there anything more recent than 2017 that I am missing?

True, the court may eventually rule that the State bar is an arm of the court, and therefore the PRA does not apply, because of separation of powers. Which I suppose would leave litigation as the only way to get the records.

It just strikes me as absurd that the Bar would keep secret documents related to its budget, expenditures, revenues, etc., and I frankly have a hard time believing that the Bar wouldn't cough up the records if someone actually asked (and did it the right way).

Every other licensing board in the state clearly has to release these. (I recognized that those other boards are clearly covered by the PRA.) What possible justification could there be for the bar to keep those types of records secret?

I'm not talking about minutiae concerning a particular disciplinary matter, or anything like that. And some personal information of bar employees should not be public.

But budgets, expenditures, revenues, etc., like all other licensing boards must produce? Should be fair game.