Dear Mr.

Hart,

In response to your request to Washoe County for any complaints, documentation concerning
complaints and any memos or dispositions filed by employees concerning County Commissioner
Kitty Jung, Washoe County has not received any such complaints; however, two complaints
against her as a Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District Commissioner have been made and
are being investigated. Except for the complaints there are no memos or dispositions at this time.

While the complaints are record of the District, they are confidential during the investigation and
for the reasons which follow the District cannot presently allow inspection or copying of the
records.

If the government is denying a records request on the grounds of confidentiality, as is the case
here, the governmental entity must provide notice of that fact and a citation to a specific statute
or other legal authority which makes the record confidential. NRS 239.010(3). The Nevada
Supreme Court has held that governmental entities may weigh the general policy in favor of
open government and access to public records against the interests of the government or an
individual in non-disclosure. Donrey of Nevada, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 106 Nev. 630 (1990). Donrey
also recognized that documents involved in criminal matters may be confidential if there is a
pending or anticipated criminal proceeding; there are confidential sources or investigative
techniques to protect; there is a possibility of denying someone a fair trial; and there is a
potential jeopardy to law enforcement personnel. Id.

Complaints filed by employees with their employers are similar and are confidential for the same
reasons. After a complaint is filed, the District commences a confidential investigation that
includes interviewing witnesses and reviewing evidence, a review of whether law or policy has
been violated, and a review of whether to impose discipline.

The investigation is conducted and maintained confidentially to assure to the greatest extent
possible that the accuser and accused are provided a fair investigative process by encouraging all
witnesses to come forward and provide a candid recollection of the facts, without fear of
repercussion, which also reduces and protects the District against claims of retaliation.
Conversely, a failure to maintain the confidentiality of a complaint and the investigation while
the investigation is pending will have a chilling effect on witnesses and victims, who may be
reticent to come forward or to be open and honest in their interviews, both now and in the future.
The investigative results would be subject to attack by the accuser, who may sue for failure to
remedy the situation, and the accused who may also escape discipline due to the tainted results.

A confidential investigation is also integral to the District’s ability to defend itself in future
litigation. The existence of an effective policy and practice of punishing employees who engage
in violations of law or policy is frequently an affirmative defense in future legal actions which, if
proven, entitles an employer to dismissal of a civil action. See Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S.
775 (1998), Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
The risks attendant with release of names or information during the investigation discussed
above are real and will irreparably affect the District’s ability to defend itself in the future, will
harm accusers the accused and witnesses, and put the District at risk of expensive lawsuits.

For these reasons your request for the complaints and any accompanying materials is denied at
this time. Upon the completion of the investigations, we may be able to provide redacted
documents to fulfill your request.