Monday, Aug. 18, 2003 | 8:40 a.m.
Clark County agreed last year to pay a company in Virginia nearly $5 million to upgrade the computers in the recorder's office. As part of this plan for greater accuracy and ease of use, the company agreed to put records maintained by the county recorder's office on the Internet, where they would be free to the public and easily accessible. The company, however, ran into roadblocks thrown up by Recorder Fran Deane, who took office in January. Now the company is saying that the delays, which Deane admits she purposefully caused, will cost county taxpayers an extra $2.3 million.
Deane argues that she foresaw major problems with the Virginia company and acted in the best interests of the taxpayers. She was concerned, she told Sun reporter Launce Rake, with the ultimate cost of the new computer system. She also argued, inexplicably, that the new system would not provide the public with access to the office's real estate and other records through the Internet. Yet establishing Internet access for the public was one of the main benefits of the contract.
A clearer picture, however, emerged with the revelation last week that Deane has been involved with a private venture to offer the same Internet service. She filed with the Nevada Secretary of State's office to incorporate a business, with former Nevada Lt. Gov. Lonnie Hammargren as her partner, that would have provided records from her office over the Internet -- for a fee. Of course, as a part-owner of the business, she would have pocketed a portion of the fees. Ostensibly in earnest, Deane says she saw no conflict of interest between this business and her public duties, for which she is paid $91,000 a year. After her private venture was publicly disclosed last week, Deane said she would abandon the plan. She also said it had nothing to do with any of the roadblocks she threw up against the Virginia company.
We are appalled that Deane would even contemplate such a private venture given her public responsibilities. It was a clear conflict from the beginning and it raises serious questions about why she worked so hard to impede the progress of the Virginia company. Deane is an elected official, answerable only to the voters. Her behavior, however, reinforces our belief that the position of recorder should be appointed. If so, she would be answerable to County Manager Thom Reilly, who agrees Deane's venture would have been an obvious conflict. As an appointed official, there would be a swift way of removing her from office.
archive
