Editorial: Pure as the driven snow?

Thursday, March 22, 2007 | 7:09 a.m.

Gov. Jim Gibbons wants Nevadans to believe that his secret, undisclosed legal defense fund was really just much ado about nothing.

How could a new governor, consumed by his agenda, be expected to remember that he should disclose having hit up his political pals for big money to pay lawyers to get him out of personal and public jams?

That was the essence of a letter that Gibbons' lawyer, Michael Pagni, sent last Friday to Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller.

"The governor had just taken office, was preparing his agenda in office, his State of the State message, his budget and was preparing for the legislative session," Pagni wrote. "It is certainly understandable that he was busy dealing with the state's business and did not focus on a fund that he had no involvement in administering."

After spending two weeks stonewalling Miller's questions about his fund, including why he failed to include it on his January campaign disclosure form, Gibbons finally came forward on Tuesday. He released copies of checks made out to the fund that totaled $169,100 by Dec. 28.

After Miller wrote that he was satisfied no state laws had been broken, the governor crowed, "I have consistently maintained that I acted in accordance with the law. (Miller's letter) allows us to put this issue behind us and move forward with our commitment to the people of this state."

Whenever they are caught in deceitful behavior, public figures want to "put the issue behind us and move forward." The fact remains that Gibbons set up the fund on Nov. 7, while he was still a congressman, and ignored the specific House rules governing such funds. He kept the fund secret until earlier this month, disclosing it only after Las Vegas Sun columnist Jon Ralston asked him how he was paying for the prominent lawyers he had retained.

In addition to Gibbons' excuse about being distracted by state duties, he has also said pertinent state and federal laws weren't clear. So why didn't he err on the side of disclosure?

As governor, he sits on boards that award state contracts and he has the power to sign or veto bills passed by the Legislature. And he is unclear about whether he should disclose the names of those who have given him large sums of money?

Is the governor saying it's OK for him to have a secret slush fund? With his aggressively defensive attitude, we believe he's saying exactly that.