Local, state officials square off in blame game on service cuts

By Joe Schoenmann

Friday, July 24, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Lawmakers finished their work in Carson City weeks ago, but a key debate from the 2009 Legislature continues.

The county says over the next two years it will lose $180 million because of legislative action. As a result, it will have to cut county Social Service Department spending by $7 million to $9.3 million.

Cuts in social services will be an unpopular move in this economy, as the needs for rent, medical, transportation and living assistance multiply.

But county officials say their hands are tied — state law allows only a certain percentage of the county budget to be spent on social services, making the cuts mandatory — and are placing blame for the cuts on legislators who raided county coffers.

Legislators “are going to have to answer for the fact that they voted directly against the needs of their everyday constituents in Clark County,” said a local government lobbyist who asked not to be identified. “For the next two years here, as services needs grow, the county can point to the Legislature.”

Last week Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas and the Assembly’s assistant majority leader, answered the county’s claims in a news release.

He said the county’s version — that social services cuts are inevitable because of a thoughtless Legislature — is a convenient excuse. The county could fund those services with money it allocates to other, less pressing needs, he said.

Though acknowledging that some tax revenue for indigent services is capped by law, Conklin said the county can spend its general fund budget of $1.35 billion in any way it sees fit.

Legislative counsel Brenda Erdoes supports Conklin’s assessment. State law restricts county medical spending for the poor, but places no limit on funding for other social services, she said.

County administrators insist their legal counsel says the cap exists for medical and other social services.

Even if Erdoes is right and the county could more easily move its money around, it wouldn’t spare officials from hard decisions. Other jobs or programs would have to be lost to pay for the growing population of needy county residents.

The debate is the latest round of county-state jousting over tax revenue and which governmental body controls it. In these arguments, local officials complain about the lack of home rule, and state lawmakers point to what they say is excessive spending by Clark County and other local governments.

There is bit of politics at play, as well. If the county succeeds in pinning the cuts on state lawmakers, it could give Commission Chairman Rory Reid, a Democrat planning a run for governor, an issue on which to hammer Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, who is also contemplating entering the race.

What’s clear in all the disagreement is that the number of people needing assistance is on the rise.

In the fiscal year that ended June 30, 168,950 people walked through the Social Service Department’s doors, up from 129,979 in 2008 and 103,115 in 2007.

Of the 114,000 who signed in for interviews, 53,000 were turned away “because we had nobody available to see them,” said Nancy McLane, social service director.

When people call to complain about it, Commissioner Steve Sisolak said, he tells them, “Call your assemblyman, call your state senator. That’s why we don’t have any money.”

But Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani isn’t so sure.

If Erdoes, who writes law for the Legislature, says the county can spend money for social services in any way it pleases, then why shouldn’t the county do that? Giunchigliani said.

“Do you think the state is going to sue the county for helping the poor?”