Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Planning an ambush

Friday, Jan. 14, 2000 | 9:32 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

THE HEADLINE sounded ugly. The story was even worse.

Sometimes our elected officials float trial balloons to test the public sentiment about a controversial idea. If the voters go nuts, usually that's a sign that no matter how good the idea is, the timing might be, shall we say, unwise. When that happens, the balloon loses air, as does any prospects of passage. Sometimes, though, our elected representatives skip the balloon part and try to take everyone by surprise, at least as much as a darn good open meeting law will allow.

It seems that such a surprise attack was working its way to the Las Vegas City Council agenda next week. It may still get there but, at least, because of some good reporting by the Sun's Erin Neff, it won't get there unnoticed as planned.

Planning is the operative word here because it seems that some city councilmen were lying in wait for the Las Vegas planning commissioners -- all of them -- through a proposed ordinance that would have the effect of forcing the resignations of the entire commission so that our city councilmen could appoint their own people, according to the story, "for the sake of a uniform vision."

That's sounds admirable, but the reality is that if all the planning commissioners resigned to accommodate a political whim by a majority of the city councilmen, there would be havoc and disorder, which would lead very probably to some very bad planning decisions. Now, before everyone says that "we already have some very bad planning decisions," let me suggest that things can always get worse. Much worse.

There is a reason that planning commissioners are appointed for staggered terms. One is that there will always be some continuity on the board, which is essential, especially in a fast-growing community like Las Vegas, in which institutional knowledge may be the only link to past decision-making. Another reason why terms are staggered -- which means the appointees may be on the planning board long after the appointing councilman has left the City Council -- is to reduce the intensity of the political pressure that not only flows upward from the public but downward from their elected patrons. If a planner does not have to fear removal, he or she is freer to make the proper decision.

The headline, "Planning commissioners may be forced to resign," even sounds bad. Who in this day and age forces anyone in public office to resign unless there is good cause? And, I can assure you, there is no cause good enough which has at its core an increase in personal political power for our elected officials.

Whether the council actually changes the way planning members are appointed will be determined next week, if the issue is still floating around by then. What is disturbing, though, about the whole matter is the surprise with which it had been foisted upon the members of the planning board. Life is tough enough when you volunteer to serve the public good -- as we are witnessing every day when people's personal lives and motives are constantly scrutinized solely because they get involved -- that to send folks packing just because they may disagree sends a message that could dissuade others from serving.

Most telling was Planning Commission Chairman Michael Buckley's comment. "I've heard that we're supposed to resign, but that's (just) rumors. No one's heard that officially, but I think it would be a shame to bring in seven new planning commissioners. I guess that's all politics, and I'm not very political."

Precisely. No one for a moment believes that any commissioner appointed by elected representatives is free from political influence. They are, at their core, supposed to be subject to some politics because they are there to serve the public. When a fellow like Buckley says he isn't very political, though, that should be taken as a sign that he takes the fairness part of his job very seriously. To now subject him and the others to blatant political maneuver is disheartening, in the least, and disrespectful of the time and effort these ordinary citizens give to their community.

Newly appointed City Councilman Michael Mack, whose resignation from the Planning Commission probably prompted the move, said it best in referring to the commissioners who may be dumped. "These people need to be applauded for their service, not slapped in the face."

Perhaps I have been a bit hasty in condemning what appears to me to be a surreptitious effort to fix what ain't broken. Perhaps not. What should concern most people, though, is the way in which this matter surfaced. It didn't float high above the town like the vegas.com blimp. It was purposely kept well below the radar.

Does anyone else want to know why?