Editorial: ‘Solution’ is better than a ‘response’

Monday, Jan. 5, 2004 | 8:33 a.m.

The issue of whether a city employee should be allowed to serve in the Legislature or other elected office will produce sharply divided opinions when it's discussed Wednesday by the Las Vegas City Council. Little thought had ever been given to the issue in the past. But that changed last year when a city investigation, prompted by media reports, determined that Assemblyman Wendell Williams, an employee of the Las Vegas Neighborhood Services Department, had been double-dipping. He had received city pay and had used his city-issued cell phone while serving in the Legislature and receiving a state salary. The investigation also determined that Williams had received preferential treatment from his city supervisor because of his legislative position. Williams was fired and his supervisor transferred to another city position, but the matter is not resting there.

City Council members are now wrestling with the larger question of whether city employees should be allowed to hold elective office. Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald says the practice presents a management nightmare. "It really presents a difficult situation when you have individuals who are your subordinates when the Legislature is not in session but become your superiors when the Legislature is in session," McDonald said. Holding the opposing point of view are Councilmen Larry Brown and Gary Reese, who say all citizens, including city employees, have the right to serve in the citizen Legislature.

We agree with Brown and Reese. The city's more than 2,600 employees should not be barred from serving in the Legislature because of a past employee's pattern of abuse. If all local governments were to bar their employees from elective office, the policy would affect nearly 50,000 people in Southern Nevada alone. As government needs the most qualified people possible in elected positions, that's too many people to delete from the pool of potential candidates. Voters should have the right to send local-government employees to Carson City if they so choose.

The other option for the city is to adopt policies for employees who want to run for public office. Because Las Vegas never had any policies it was inevitable that a problem would surface. Williams alleges that the city counted on him to assist in passing the bills on its legislative agenda. The city should not regard any of its employees serving in the Legislature as lobbyists. They should serve independently of their employer. Also, employees should be required to take unpaid leaves from the city while the Legislature is in session. No city resources, such as office space or cell phones, should be used to conduct any state business. In our view, a ban on running for office would be a response, while imposing clearly understood and strictly enforced policies would be a solution.