Thursday, Oct. 17, 2002 | 11:33 a.m.
Informational reports that came before the Las Vegas City Council and Clark County Commission this week were criticized as veiled pitches for upcoming ballot questions.
Both boards heard items this week pertaining to measures on the Nov. 5 ballot, and critics noted the lack of any opposing arguments. They said without the other side to discuss or debate the issues, the boards' presentations, both of which were televised on government-funded cable stations, became political speech.
The City Council heard a report Wednesday from the Southern Nevada Water Authority on its proposal to purchase Nevada Power, causing several council members to call it a one-sided bid on live television to drum up support for Question 14.
The Clark County Commission heard the same water authority presentation Tuesday, as well as a lengthy report on homelessness, an issue addressed on the ballot in Question 11. That meeting also was televised.
Question 14 is an advisory question that asks voters whether they are interested in a publicly operated utility -- Nevada Power Co. is privately owned. Question 11 is an advisory question that asks whether voters would support a one-cent property tax hike for a homeless trust fund.
Commission meetings are aired live on the county's public access Channel 4, while city council meetings are broadcast on cable Channel 2.
Las Vegas Councilman Michael McDonald said he would have preferred to see Nevada Power at the meeting to give its side. City staff members told him the utility declined to debate the issue before the council, but it could come back to make its own presentation at the next meeting on Nov. 6 -- a day after the election.
Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald said the decision to put the matter on the council agenda on Wednesday could be construed as an opportunity to "skew the outcome" of the ballot question.
"This was a great disservice to our taxpayers today," she said, noting that a disinterested third party should have given such a report. She added that Nevada Power was not invited until earlier this week after she studied the agenda and made inquiries.
"I'm very troubled by that," Boggs McDonald said.
Their concerns didn't stop the council members from debating the issue's merits. McDonald questioned whether a public entity could do a better job than a private company running a utility. He noted the county-run University Medical Center was near bankruptcy and the county's Regional Justice Center was behind schedule and over budget.
County commissioners did not air similar concerns as they received both the water authority report and one on services for the homeless in Southern Nevada.
Instead a copy of an upcoming advertisement advocating Question 11 appeared on the television screen as the homeless report began.
"The purpose was to inform the voters if in fact they pass the ballot question, what the money will be used for," said Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates, who proposed the tax increase to help the homeless. "We weren't trying to influence anybody, just give them information."
But opponents of the question said they would have liked equal air time on the public access channel to deliver their message.
Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, said explaining how taxes would be spent is understandable; placing an upcoming advertisement on the monitors "starts to smack of being a commercial."
Greg White, an electrician who chaired the committee that wrote arguments against the question, said the opposition can't afford television spots. The commissioners discussed the issue for 20 minutes with no opposition.
"I definitely think it's unfair," White said. "The board is using taxpayers' dollars to provide information on one side of the issue."
After the water authority's presentation, commission discussion turned to how a municipality-owned utility would provide energy at lower rates.
The commission last month entertained similar discussions on the proposed quarter-cent sales tax increase proposed by the Regional Transportation Commission to pay for infrastructure and roadway improvements.
Those discussions did not violate county policies that forbid election use of county forums, County Counsel Mary-Anne Miller said.
Because of the regulations, the county newsletter is no longer published after the candidate filing deadline during election years, and incumbent commissioners cannot appear on Channel 4 talk shows or public service announcements after they have filed for re-election.
But Tuesday's reports did not violate them because the public could have spoken during the public comment period, Miller said.
"If they were reserving time on Channel 4, it might be problematic," Miller said. "If someone came to the podium and commissioners refused them, that would have been problematic. But it was publicly noticed and someone could have showed up."
If the county's intention was to arm voters with information, commissioners should have hosted a public forum, said Craig Walton, an ethics professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
"The county should see these things as inherently discussable," Walton said. "If you're talking policy, you're talking discussion. That should always be your hallmark."
archive
