Editorial: Tax money for hula dancers

Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2007 | 7:14 a.m.

Heavy spending by Clark County commissioners Lawrence Weekly and Chris Giunchigliani has raised legitimate questions about a pot of public money of which there is little oversight.

The pot is created each fiscal year for the seven county commissioners. Each is able to withdraw $15,000 annually to spend on public needs in his or her district.

No specific rules govern the fund, which enables individual commissioners to decide for themselves what constitutes a public need.

Las Vegas Sun reporter Tony Cook examined expenditures from the fund over the past 16 months, a period straddling two fiscal years. The four veteran commissioners, Bruce Woodbury, Tom Collins, Chip Maxfield and Rory Reid, have shown restraint. Of that group, Reid spent the most, $1,810.

First-term commissioner Susan Brager spent $2,203, mostly on formal portraits of herself for county use, a cell phone and two luncheons with town board members.

Weekly and Giunchigliani, also in their first terms, spent considerably more. Weekly spent $22,036 and Giunchigliani spent $8,718.

Here are some of Weekly's more expensive outlays: A children's Halloween party. A Mother's Day celebration, complete with harpist and Frank Sinatra impersonator. Pool parties. A senior citizen luau showcasing Hawaiian hula dancers and drummers.

The bulk of Giunchigliani's expenditures went to send a dance team to Disneyland and to sponsor Halloween parties.

Weekly defended his prolific spending by labeling it community outreach. "Why let it sit there?" he asked, referring to the discretionary fund.

To answer his question: Because if it isn't spent, the money reverts to the county's general fund, which needs every cent in light of diminishing tax revenue for true public needs, such as child protective services.

We understand that worthy district events deserve some county funding once in a while. But giving commissioners the opportunity to gain political points by throwing taxpayer money around almost indiscriminately is just plain wrong.

If, in fact, such earmarked district spending is necessary, then it should be explained and voted on in public at commission meetings. We suspect that much of the discretionary spending going on now, particularly by Weekly and Giunchigliani, would not even be suggested in an open forum.