Where’s the outrage?

Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 | 2:04 a.m.

Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki was indicted by a state grand jury last year for allegedly misappropriating money and falsifying accounts when he was state treasurer. Last week Judge Valerie Adair tossed out the indictment, saying Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s office failed to provide enough detail of the allegations in the indictment.

Krolicki’s supporters bashed Cortez Masto as a political hack and a lousy lawyer. Krolicki, a Republican, said last year that the indictment was being used to keep him from staging a run against Sen. Harry Reid in 2010. Cortez Masto, like Reid, is a Democrat.

The accusations of political motivations and poor lawyering are red herrings used to exact vengeance by hurting Cortez Masto’s re-election run next year. Any outrage at Cortez Masto’s actions is misplaced, but it may gain traction because accusing her of politics is easy and provides a crisp sound bite.

The evidence amassed against Krolicki lacks headline-grabbing pizazz, but that shouldn’t obscure the facts, as detailed in a 2007 legislative audit. Auditors found that Krolicki and his staff did not obey the law regarding the state’s college savings plan. More than $6 million that was by law supposed to go into the state treasury, where the Legislature would have say over its use, never made it there. Instead, it was kept “offline” and used for advertising, legal fees and management services related to the college savings plan.

Auditors say the treasurer’s office spent that money in amounts above and beyond what the Legislature approved, which is another violation of the law.

Krolicki’s defenders dismiss the charges because they say he never personally profited and, they note, all money was accounted for. However, in addition to the alleged illegal acts, Krolicki used some of the money to pay for a television advertising campaign to promote the college savings fund, in which he was featured prominently. That certainly helped Krolicki because it raised his profile, giving him free advertising as he prepared to run for lieutenant governor. The audit also noted that Krolicki and his staff overpaid some of the college savings plan’s advisers, including Krolicki mentor Bob Seale, the former state treasurer.

Krolicki can’t feign ignorance. Before being elected treasurer, he spent eight years as Seale’s deputy. He should have known the law inside and out.

Still, Cortez Masto’s decision not to appeal Adair’s decision is understandable. It would be a difficult and costly appeal, and Cortez Masto’s office has other priorities it can move on to, such as pursuing scammers who defraud homeowners in foreclosure. More than that, there is no public outrage, which is certainly due in no small part to the lack of a clear payoff — the fact that no money went missing — and the absence of any salacious details.

Shouldn’t the public be outraged? Shouldn’t violations of the law be prosecuted? Of course they should. Unfortunately, it seems like the public doesn’t often care — and that may be because the law, and the authorities, often let cases like this slide.

Take for example the ethics case against Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross, who moonlights as the head of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council. Before he took the job as the head of the labor organization, Ross was warned by the state Ethics Commission that he was entering an ethical minefield because of the inherent conflict of interest. Ross was elected to represent citizens — taxpayers who would fund those jobs — yet the job had him representing unions. The Las Vegas City Council approves building contracts involving millions of taxpayer dollars that affect members of the union group.

Undeterred, Ross went ahead and took the job. Citizens complained that he twice voted on the new city hall project, which will give his members plenty of work, when he should have abstained.

The commission found him guilty but did not punish him because it said the violation was “not willful” — despite the commission’s previous warning. The decision is not surprising, though, considering the state’s ethics laws were written in ways that make them malleable, as was the situation in Ross’ case. Never mind the warning, Ross said he simply followed the city attorney’s advice. Thus, case closed — it wasn’t really his fault.

Situations like these have left Nevada with a poor reputation for public ethics. Give Cortez Masto and the Ethics Commission credit for taking up these cases, yet the results are dissatisfying and altogether familiar to Nevadans. Wrongdoing and conflicts of interest are often clearly visible yet rarely punished. They pass with just a shrug of the shoulders, a sigh and a comment, “What can you do? That’s just the way it is in Nevada.”

It shouldn’t be that way, but when it happens often enough, citizens become cynical. More than that, they don’t care enough to be outraged, and that is a real crime.