Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
Sunday, Dec. 7, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Democrats may be snickering at the indictment of Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, but doing so is shortsighted.
Here’s why: Right about now Nevada could use some trust in its elected officials and public institutions, and Krolicki’s foibles will make it harder for Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, to govern.
Even as the Legislature and Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons meet Monday for a special session to decide on budget cuts, policymakers are formulating plans for next year, which figures to be bleak.
A consensus seems to be emerging that cutting roughly one-third of the budget to bring it to balance would be catastrophic to important services such as child welfare, education and health care.
So some tax increase seems likely.
The best program would be one with broad public support, backed by a citizenry dedicated to coming together, confident they’re being led out of the mess. Otherwise, expect more population decline and punishment for elected officials who make tough choices.
The problem is that Nevada’s elected officials and public institutions haven’t exactly shined, and have frittered away the trust of a public already skeptical of government.
The most recent example, of course: Krolicki’s indictment charging him with misusing public funds when he was state treasurer. The indictment is vague. But according to an earlier audit, no money was missing. Instead, he was accused of using the money to burnish his own public image, and of steering business to the company of his mentor and former state Treasurer Bob Seale. In any case, the headline is terrible: State treasurer allegedly misuses state funds.
Here’s another: the Southern Nevada Water Authority buys meals, liquor for lobbyists. As KLAS-TV investigative reporter George Knapp revealed in a series of reports recently, the water authority has spent all kinds of money on lobbyists and public relations firms, which of course means expensive hotels, meals and Scotch, all to glam up its image as it moves to begin taking water from the ranches it bought up north.
Why again do we pay so much for water? an angry public asks.
Moving on ... “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” Executive Producer Dana Gentry found Metro police running background checks and placing surveillance on an apparently innocent man. It was done on behalf of the city’s robust private detective industry and to settle a score for the son of former Gov. Kenny Guinn.
That’s reassuring.
But at least those local employees work for cheap.
Well, not really. A Sun analysis in 2007 found that one of every six county, city, police and fire employees (teachers excluded from this crowd, of course) earns a six-figure income, mostly from exorbitant overtime, which will in turn lead to exorbitant pensions. The public loves to see that.
And let’s not forget the Los Angeles Times series on our judges, or all those former county commissioners in jail or under indictment.
Although Gibbons was recently cleared in an investigation of his relationship with a defense contractor, his performance has hardly been stellar, and there’s little else to say about that.
A key problem: Our public institutions are so outgunned and outmanned, that private failure sullies our public bodies. So, as construction workers died on the Strip, people reasonably asked, “Where was Nevada OSHA?” Or, when the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada spread Hepatitis C, the public wanted to know, “Where were the state inspectors?”
During the boom years, all of this petty corruption and incompetence was more entertainment than anything else. Who cared if some county commissioner took a bribe in a Crown Royal bag when the value of my home was doubling every four years?
The boom times covered up the festering sores of Nevada governance. But those sores were there, growing worse as the public’s faith in government declined.
The sickness is now plain to see, right when Nevadans need to become invested in solutions.
J. Patrick Coolican said "The problem is that Nevada's elected officials and public institutions haven't exactly shined, and have frittered away the trust of a public already skeptical of government.
The most recent example, of course: Krolicki's indictment charging him with misusing public funds when he was state treasurer. The indictment is vague."
Jon Ralston said "Even after reading the scathing audit when it was released last year, I didn't think Krolicki would be indicted. I have seen plenty of officials accused in audits of playing fast and loose with pots of money but I never considered violations of the state Budget Act high crimes."
Once again we find that Nevada has laws that can be selectively disregarded, bent, enforced or not enforced depending on who did it, who is the AG and who is the judge.
But Nevada Democrats are making an accounting process question into a felony with 30 years in jail.
The alleged crime: In a $3.3 billion education program, of the $11.2 million collected in fees by the company overseeing the plan $6 million dollars still sat in their account, not yet transferred to the State of Nevada Account.
The holding account of the overseeing company is called by DEMOCRAT Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and DEMOCRAT Lead Prosecutor Conrad Hafen a "False Account".
No funds are unaccounted for.
No records are unavailable.
No forensic accountant was needed to be called in.
No embezzlement is alleged.
There was no enrichment
How can it be misappropriation and falsification when everybody knew and allowed that it could happen?
In our opinion, there was a statutory process that authorized him to do what he did, said Krolickis attorney, Kent Robison of Reno. He didn't benefit personally from this at all.
The investigation was based on process interpretation allegations by new treasurer DEMOCRAT Kate Marshall,
DEMOCRAT Lead Prosecutor Conrad Hafen indicated that the legislative audit performed by DEMOCRAT Sheila Leslie was the process interpretation basis for the criminal charges.
DEMOCRAT Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said Krolicki had failed to run the questioned funds through the proper budget process, hence she had to enforce the law by a prosecuting the case as a felony.
DEMOCRAT Catherine Cortez Masto claims she could not exercise selective prosecutorial discretion based on the flimsiness of the charges, and had to make this a felony case.
DEMOCRAT Lead Prosecutor Conrad Hafen says Brian Krolicki actions violate basic precepts of government transparency and accountability, and had to make this a felony case.
All that is left is to find out who is the judge.
This was orchestrated by DEMOCRAT Harry Reid who thinks everybody but him "stinks" demanding DEMOCRAT Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and DEMOCRAT Lead Prosecutor Conrad Hafen to abuse their exercise of selective prosecutorial discretion.
The Democrats have chosen not to indict their buddy because he is a Friend of Reid.
Stop putting Krolicki's behavior off on all elected officials. He made his bed.
The Democrats have chosen not to indict their buddy because he is a Friend of Reid.
But the Democrats have chosen to indict a person for adminstrative issues because he is an Enemy of Reid.
Remember confessed Crook lobbyist Bob Loux.
Crook lobbyist Bob Loux is still working for the state of Nevada.
Once again we find that Nevada has laws that can be selectively disregarded, bent, enforced or not enforced depending on who did it, who is the AG and who is the judge.
Loux did not commit the crime of challenging Reid. So he can go free!!!!!!!
In fact, Loux has the to commit all the crimes that he desires because he is a Friend of Reid.
Everybody now understands on how justice is handle in Nevada. Right?
Friend of Reid.....commit crimes...no problem.
Enemy of Reid....even if you did not commit crimes...indictment.
Hahaha, you guys can be so dense sometimes!
"Maddox, in dismissing the suit, said Loux could be removed only by impeachment by the Legislature. The Assembly would have to file and approve articles of impeachment. And the Senate would have to concur. It would take a two-thirds vote in each house, Maddox said."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep...
Republican Governor Gibbons has failed to call a special session to impeach Loux. Under Nevada State law, the Governor must call the Special Session and he can limit the debate to specific issues. He has failed to do so.
Instead, he has impotently requested Loux resign.
When Chuck Muth filed the lawsuit that was thrown out, the Attorney General's office declined to defend Loux in that case.
If you are going to point the finger of blame, you need to point it at Republican Governor Gibbons, not Cortez-Masto.
Loux can still be indicted for crimes against the state.
Removing him from office and indictment are two different things.
Loux has already agreed to resign so impeachment is a moot point.
The only reason why he has not been indicted because he is a good-ole-boy Democrat who has strong ties to Reid.
So you are accusing the Washoe County Sheriff's Office of being partisan?
I didn't know the Sheriff's office was so tied to Reid. Could you explain how Reid has controlled their actions?
Crimes involved with state government are prosecuted by the State Attorney General office which is prosecuting the Krolicki office. Hafen is Chief Deputy Attorney General for the State of Nevada.
If Loux is ever indicted (never will happen to Friends of Reid) then it will done by the State Attorney General's office.
Washoe County Sheriff does not have jurisdiction powers to arrest Loux for crimes involving state government.
I'm sorry, you are wrong.
The Attorney General's office has stated they have a conflict of interest in prosecuting Loux and has referred the investigation to the Washoe County Sheriff's Office.
Your complaining should be to the Sheriff's Office and Mike Haley.
You have stated that he has not been indicted because he is friends with Reid. You are accusing Sheriff Mike Haley of impropriety? Where is your proof? How do you know the investigation is not ongoing?
You have no proof.
Just more insane, paranoid delusions. You don't even know who's in charge of the investigation. LOL!
Can you provide a link to support your statement?
I searched the internet and the Attorney General's website and found no such statement.
I would imagine that either the LVRJ or the Sun would print a news article.
I think that you are just making up stuff.
Nope, sorry, your ignorance is no excuse.
http://conservablogs.com/muthstruths/200...
The Attorney General's office responded to an inquiry by Chuck Muth, informing him that the investigation has been handed off due to a conflict of interest.
You obviously fail at searching, too.
Can you get anything right?
Sorry, you are right.
I found it on the internet.
I think it is really lame for the AG to claim conflict of interest. She could easily claimed a conflict of interest with Krolicki for the AG has worked with him, too.
I think Maestro should instead say: "We really really fear Reid and do not want to indict his friend."
Yes, it might help if you knew what you were talking about before you posted.
Still with the "the books balance, so no foul" defense? And the "he didn't benefit, so he should skate" defense?
What a crock.
He TOOK AN OATH to uphold the laws of the state. You don't get a free pass because the ledger equals out - this isn't playground basketball.
Patrick, could you ask next time you write an article about the budget how they reach the 1/3rd or 34% cut?
I mean, ask how they do the math.
According to NPRI the 2009 budget is only down 9.1% over last year. THe next budget will only be down 3%. That is a big difference than 34%. So how are the politicians getting that number?
http://npri.org/blog/imaginary-budget-cu...
I know you are sourcing yourself again, Patrick Gibbons, but I think you are intentionally misleading people when you say, "the 2009 budget is only down 9.1% over last year."
According to your source, Patrick R. Gibbons, aka you, the 9.1% figure is based on the percentage change in general fund revenue, not the budget.
In addition, the 9.1% figure is misleading, as your own words say, "General fund revenues in 2008 were only 2.9 percent less than in 2007, and the revised 2009 estimate is only 9.1 percent less than 2008." In other words, general fund revenues were down nearly 15% from 2007.
But then, none of this is surprising, when you fail to identify yourself as the source of your own quotes. When you have to stoop to misleading and disingenuous sourcing, you've already lost the argument.
ksand,
He also wants people to view other people only in dollars and cents. It's quite disgusting that when talking about safety/OSHA, he wants people to look at the workers through the prism that they ONLY make $50k/year. Obviously if they make that little, they deserve safety only up to that point.
And yeah, it's a real slimeball tactic to be with/affiliated with NPRI and not tell people that. All he's really doing is PIMPING them out on this site. Disgusting.
Ksand,
The state and the newspaper are both refering to the general fund...99% of the time unless they intend to mislead. For example, claiming that they need $340 million to cover a $205 million general fund shortfall. In this case they've chosen to put the budget together where as generally they refer only to the general fund.
As for misleading, it would be misleading to site continual budget cuts by conflating a 2 year period as you have done.
Red,
That is not true, I don't want you do view it that way, you already do and just don't know it.
Some other things are true that you won't want to take into account. For example a fisherman in the NE has the highest death rate the country just over 100 for every 100,000 workers (about .01% chance of death each year).
Now we could demand special safety features on a boat that would increase the cost of a boat for say $100,000 a year.
That cost would be reflected in generally one of two ways. Increased price of fish or decreased salaries. Most of the time safety equipment costs are passed on to the laborer in the form of lower wages than they otherwise would get.
Now in terms of increasing regulations, as I said before, if we increased the regulator costs to save X number of lives today that means we are wastefully spending money that could be used for other things. Maybe AIDS research to save millions in the future. We don't know.
Again, in your deep mind you get this concept you just don't want to admit it. OSHA and regulatory safety measures save lives today at the expense of lives in the future.
To both,
If I was affiliated with NPRI you'd harp about the ideology of NPRI. If you didn't know you'd accuse me of being a member of NPRI.
Either way you will commit a logical fallacy by addressing something other than the facts and I never get my point across to you because you're both too hung up on NPRI.
And you seem to be only concerned with saving money no matter what the cost in human lives. The fact that you stack a person's "worth" in terms of their salary is repugnant to say the least. The more you try to rationalize it the more you sound like a doctor for the T4 program in the 1930s. You know save money on the lives of today for the benefit of tomorrow. Your atavistic view of the world coupled with your borderline social darwinist spin is repugnant.
And it is just a little bit odd that you don't do any research outside of NPRI. That just reeks of an ideological slant that you will never own up to. Just like a student only going to one source for their paper, your slant on all issues is only colored by NPRI. If you bothered to do some real research outside of that fishbowl you would be more credible. As it stands you are only a mouthpiece for NPRI, because anything you cite for ANY topic is NPRI.
PS, FY 2009 general fund is down 9.1% from 2008 here is another source for the logically fallacious readers out there: http://leg.state.nv.us/lcb/fiscal/Econom...
"As for misleading, it would be misleading to site continual budget cuts by conflating a 2 year period as you have done."
It is a biennial budget, thus citing (the proper usage of the word) the two-year shortfall is appropriate.
Referring to NPRI as a neutral 3rd party when they are your employer is very much an issue. The credibility of an organization like NPRI, which has its employees spamming newspaper websites and personal blogs with comments in an attempt to legitimize its ideology, is suspect.
It still does not answer the question of why you intentionally conflated the general fund with the budget.
They don't cut the entire biennial budget so not it is not appropriate they cut during the FY year. There was no intention to conflate the total budget with the general fund budget.
But if you want to play this numbers game how's this:
Even with the $1.2 billion budget shortfall Nevada's general fund revenue has increased 52% since FY 2003. Are you telling me that the state can't run itself on 52% more revenue?
Btw, questioning the ideology of an organization like NPRI, rather than the facts it brings up is as fallacious as someone attacking Brian Greenspun for wanting a housing market bailout because his family invested heavily in real-estate or attack his personal opinion on education funding because he's a left-winger and then call into question any article on this newspaper as ideologically biased rather than questioning the facts presented.
And since you like talking about the beinnial budget, or at least insist that is how the state does its cuts, I might add that the FY 08-09 general fund budget is 63% higher than the pre MBT and national economic bubble budget in FY 02-03.
Why is our state struggling with 63% more money in the general fund budget?
KDR, you still ineptly dance around the question. Do you work for NPRI? Do you regularly contribute to it? Those are valid questions if you are going to spam this site with their publications. These are legitimate questions, because it puts a slant on your "facts and findings".
Besides your NPRI could be 1000% correct on everything, but because people like you LIE to the public by not coming clean the public will more than likely not listen to a word you said. That's the problem, Americans don't like being lied to LIAR.
Do you not get that either way it is irrelevant? Do you not get that you sidestep the issues with this logically fallacious reasoning?
Do you not see that you are insinuating that the credibility of a fact hinges on the political ideology of an organization - an ideology that must match your own. This is in effect what you are saying and it too is logically fallacious.
You can keep dancing around the real question and the real facts but I'll ask again: Why is our state struggling with 63% more money in the general fund?
NO that's not the point. The point is that all of your points hang on ONE organization. This organization you seem to be a part of. Worse, this seems to be an organization that you regularly contribute to. So to show you the reasonings...
You consistently PIMP this organization out as having all the answers in the world. However, you never admit to being a part of the organization. That's disingenuous, and calls into question the validity of all your arguments, because you won't be upfront that you are with them. This in turn makes people question what ulterior motives this think thank has if their employees have to hide their relationship to it.
More importantly is the fact that you only cite them, you go around wikipedia changing all pages relating to them, and you won't state whether or not you are with them.
Again this brings up the palpable point of credibility. The fact that you dance around this kills your credibility. So as said earlier, you can be right 1000%, but if you have no credibility no one will listen to you.
No it is the point and it wouldn't matter if I used NPRI or Cato or Heritage or Von Mises you'd come up with some fallacious excuse to ignore the points made (And I have cited them - note these other organizations rarely mention Nevada, NPRI for "some" reason mentions Nevada quite a lot- and other people, quite like you, have attacked the ideology of the sources - not that any of you know the meaning of the word ideology).
You have no credibility on top of having no logical reasoning skills. Whether or not I work for NPRI makes no difference to you. Anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong and therefore any fact they present must be wrong.
You can keep dancing around the real question and the real facts but I'll ask again: Why is our state struggling with 63% more money in the general fund?
Look LIAR, I'll not debate you on your chosen ground until you come clean. I really wouldn't care if you cited Cato et al, as long as it was balanced. All you cite is NPRI, and many people believe (with some reason) that you work for them. Because you won't/can't come clean about this, people will discard your points because you have no credibility. I've got limited cred, I'll admit. I must come off as a lefty, but at least I'll be HONEST about that, which is where I get my cred. I'll be HONEST about where I come from, unlike you who only spams his bosses' screeds anywhere you can. So either fess up, or stop spamming this NPRI dreck.
You don't want to deal in facts, you want to deal in personal attacks. I mean, look at your choice of words "NPRI dreck"
You just want to move beyond attacking me for potentially working for NPRI to attacking me for working for NPRI...but if you found out I worked somewhere else you'd just switch to attacking me for my ideological leanings.
Face it, your reasoning is fallacious. Please stop.
I don't care if someone is left-of-center or right-of-center so long as they have good arguments and facts to back them up.
For example, I like the Brookings Institute even though I'm a libertarian. They do solid research even though they are left-of-center.
I admire the facts first not the person who presents them. And since I'm not a mind reader I try my best not to subjugate their facts with probably motives or alleged political agendas.
And you keep dancing around this. It just says you have no cred if you can't answer that question. Honestly I don't care about NPRI's stances on issues, I just care that you are a trojan horse for their ideology, and you won't own up to that fact. Just keep on duck, dodging, and weaving. By the way when ducking questions, I hear a serpentine pattern of running helps. So keep jumping to other issues and not answer that one nagging question.
You've already set your tone and implied your personal opinion of the organization and its research. There is no use in anyone debating with people like you who continue to resort to fallacious ad hominem attacks.
To do one of my own...I own you. :P
Actually "I own you" is well... dumb and outdated. If you wanted to use the parlance of the times you would have said that you pwned me, but that's a digression. Also ksand showed me something interesting, a post of yours with a linked email stating that you are Patrick Gibbons. So now I know you are a liar, and all you do is hide interesting info that might color how others view your posts. Thank you Mr. Disingenuous for hiding something until someone else had to show me. You really do lack any credibility, Spammo. Now that isn't just pwnage, that's UBER-pwnage.
ps- Click crouch button, unclick crouch button, repeat.
The word/phrase of the day is...
1. fallacious
2. UBER-pwnage
3. NPRI
4. partisan
5. Patrick Gibbons
Please, vote once and no wagering.
Ok fine, I pwned you.
I've got the facts and you've got no counter points except personal attacks and wondering who my employer is hoping you can make personal attacks against them.
Johnevegas already wears his colors on his sleeve. If its partisan it must not be true, right?
Only objective opinions are true, so long as objective opinions are left of center otherwise they are ideological and wrong.
--- this is why you guys never deal in facts.
There is no easier way to put this.
1) Fact, the sky is blue.
2) George Bush said the sky is blue.
3) George Bush is a Republican ideologue
4) You all hate republicans.
by your logic demonstrated you would assume that either
a) the sky is not blue or,
b) you will not think about the possibility of a blue sky because an ideologue who you hate has said it.
You are committing a logical fallacy by ignoring the facts and focusing on the presenter of the facts.
It wouldn't matter if I worked for Karl Marx, Uncle Sam, or the Ant Queen. If you can't prove the facts to be wrong, you've got no counterpoint.
"Johnevegas already wears his colors on his sleeve. If its partisan it must not be true, right?"
Not at all. It's more like, if you say it, then there is probably an agenda.
You and nance speak in polarities. But the world is not comprised solely of polarities. Seriously, how polarized is "...you guys never deal in facts"?
I see a broad range of possibilities. Nearly always. And for that I face a constant stream of ridicule and belittlement. I expect it now, and think very little of it. It isn't my problem that you can't see.
Actually, because you won't come clean Mr. Pat Gibbons, your facts are moot. You tried to sneak in here to push your NPRI agenda without declaring it. Therefore you have no credibility, because you hawk your own articles like they weren't your articles. If you hide this little fact, what else do you hide?
Johne,
"Not at all. It's more like, if you say it, then there is probably an agenda."
I rest my case. You've already made up your mind, you're not interested in facts.
Red,
"Actually, because you won't come clean Mr. Pat Gibbons, your facts are moot."
Pointless and irrelevant, being who or who is being has nothing to do with believing. Let alone nothing to do with a cross examination of the facts. You just have no counter-point, plain and simple and you don't want to deal with people who don't agree with you who also have much better arguments than you can muster.
Look you obviously consistently evade that question which is why I know that you do work for NPRI and you do contribute to them regularly. As I said before, if you lie about this little stuff, what else are you lying about. Your credibility is shot, and the fact that you can't see this problem is hilarious. You PIMP out the NPRI as if they have all the answers but fail to tell us that you write that stuff. That's pretty embarassingly disingenuous.
If you are so convinced that this is the fact, and I still note it is pointless and irrelevant to the argument at hand, then why don't you get on to the argument at hand?
As I stated before, your preoccupation with who I potentially am and potentially work for is an excuse for you to ignore any points I bring up. You have no intention of addressing my points, regardless of who I am and who I work for.
You are either an intellectual coward or you are logically fallacious. Which is it?
And you are either intellectually disingenuous or so vaccuous that you don't understand why people would find your employment an issue. Of course you'll say that NPRI is right, because you write/work for them. The problem I've tried to tell you is that if you lie or dodge about your employment, what else are you lying about? I would have no problem with NPRI, but you've acted like a trojan horse trying to sneak their viewpoint onto these discussion boards. I'm at the point where I believe your employer tells you not to identify yourself here. In any case you are the liar, you have the credibility problem, and you are projecting your own problems onto others. Just come clean and then I'll debate the issues, until then you just lie, lie, and lie some more.
Admission by ommission, kdr. you are so busted.
Thank you!, gmag. I mean if I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong. Also he might have great facts, but since he's touting the papers he's written, it just looks really really bad.
You guys really have a hard time getting over this don't you? I don't think you even understand the rules of logic.
The employment issue is only a problem if your intention is (and has always been as i've seen) to use that as an excuse to ignore the points made.
I'll let you wallow in your logical failures.
If you decide to debate me on the merits of the points, I'll be here. Until then, good night and good luck.
KDR, I checked out your site. Are you Patrick Gibbons?
BTW, I know you see consider me highly partisan. However, also like nance, you dismiss the partisan nature of your own positions, and therefore amplify your reactions to me. Put simply, I'm actually quite centrist. I only appear so liberal to you two because you disown how "right" you are. Simple logic.
I will say this though, I don't get the hateful condescension from you. I do appreciate that.
Say, how about that Illinois Gov huh? What a total jerk! I can't believe anyone could be so stupid. Especially a dem.
See that. Centrist. :)