Editorial: Raise the bar in debate on health board

Friday, March 25, 2005 | 3:28 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

March 26 - 27, 2005

Assemblyman David Parks, D-Las Vegas, has lit a fire under the Clark County Board of Health, and, naturally, its members and administrators are steaming. Parks has introduced a bill in the Legislature that would reduce the number of members on the board from 13 to eight. The bill would also create two committees that would assist the board in its job of setting policy for the Clark County Health District.

The district's chief health officer, Dr. Donald Kwalick, says there's nothing wrong with the board's current makeup. He says Parks' bill would make the district's administration more bureaucratic and the board less representative of Clark County's residents. Las Vegas Councilman Gary Reese, who chairs the board, called Parks' bill "crap."

We, too, believe that there is much to criticize in Parks' bill. For one thing, just 1 percent of the district's current $55 million budget comes from the state's general fund. So why should the Legislature have any influence over how many board members the district has or how its administration is organized? We'd grant the Legislature a say if the state was paying, for example, 20 percent of the district's budget. Other states contribute that much to their county health districts, according the district's top administrator, Karl Munninger.

And we're not terribly impressed with Parks' criticism of the district. He points to a controversy over Clark County's air pollution program, which was resolved five years ago. Granted, there was a major record-keeping problem, but no criminal violations were found and the program was transferred to Clark County, which should have been handling it all along. And he points to the shortage of flu vaccine, which was caused not by the health district, but by manufacturers so fearful of liability that most ceased making it, forcing the whole country into a shortage when a plant in England became contaminated.

Nevertheless, Parks' bill is serving a purpose. It's drawing attention to the health district, whose vital services include immunizations, response to outbreaks of communicable diseases, public health education and inspections of facilities that serve the public, including restaurants, swimming pools, water systems, underground storage tanks and tattoo parlors. It doesn't hurt for such an organization to be in the public eye from time to time, so that its role and efficiency can be debated. Parks may be right, for example, about the number of board members. Any number over seven is probably too much.

We hope the debate progresses to more important points, however. In this age of increased fear of naturally occurring viruses and bioterrorism, it's a waste to be spending too much time on low-level spats. If the debate becomes centered on how the state must do more, and provide a fair share of the health district's costs, then Parks' bill will have served a good purpose.