Editorial: Contract is way, way, way high

Thursday, Aug. 7, 2003 | 8:32 a.m.

A former top official with Clark County government, who is now a consultant, has been handed a $106,000 contract to improve the public awareness aspect of the Desert Conservation Program. The federally required contract makes little sense to us -- the program has received considerable, and free, publicity through the news media. And the land developers, who pose the greatest risk to desert tortoises and other endangered animals and plants, are required by their building permits to abide by the program. Making even less sense is the size of the contract, which was awarded to Terry Murphy.

As an administrator with the Southern Nevada Home builders Association in the late 1980s, Murphy helped draft the conservation program and as a county administrator in the 1990s she oversaw it. She resigned from the county in 1997 after having risen to the position of director of the county's Administrative Services Department.

No one responded to ads soliciting proposals. The county had also directly solicited bids from 13 people and Murphy was alone in responding. With only one bidder, and at that a person with strong county ties, the contract should have been delayed until a greater pool of applicants could have been assembled. A public-private committee appointed by the county to advise on the contract made that very suggestion, but to no avail.

The contract itself could possibly be justified. The federal government, under the Endangered Species Act, requires a consultant's review of the conservation program's publicity. But it doesn't set the cost of the review and there is no justification for spending $106,000. The amount represents more than half of County Manager Thom Reilly's annual salary, and he oversees 9,000 employees and a $2.9 billion budget. And the county, earlier this summer, recoiled in horror at a suggestion to divert a portion of county revenue to the state. Then, it said there wasn't a penny to spare. So how can the county now defend spending so much on a contract with so little value?