Sought: More questions, less rubber stamp

By Joe Schoenmann (contact)

Tuesday, March 31, 2009 | 2 a.m.

A state senator introduced a bill this month that would likely make relations between Clark County and Metro Police worse before they get better.

At the request of Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, drafted a bill that would change the name, makeup and responsibilities of the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee.

Parks’ interest stems from his part in creating Fiscal Affairs in the early 1980s. The panel grew out of a need to mend a city-county budget rift that arose in the wake of the merger of the city police department and the county sheriff’s department in 1973.

Committee members include two county commissioners, two from the Las Vegas City Council and a chairman chosen by them from a list submitted by the county, city and police.

The county pays roughly 60 percent of Metro’s budget and the city pays 40 percent. Another chunk of money comes from a quarter-cent sales tax enacted in 2005 to hire more street cops. As of Dec. 31, Metro had spent $77.5 million of the revenue from the tax and had $137 million in the bank.

The committee meets monthly and its job amounts to approving Metro’s yearly budget, which weighs in at more than a half-billion dollars.

During meetings, few questions are raised. In February, when new Commissioner Steve Sisolak questioned Metro’s need for a new $2.9 million helicopter, Sheriff Doug Gillespie’s reaction “wasn’t defensive, it was more like shock,” Sisolak said. “Shock that anyone was even asking questions.”

Parks’ bill appears tailored to force more of those interactions. The bill would let the board set policy if it relates to financial decisions, and it would change membership to three county and two city representatives. County commissioners tend to question Metro’s budget more than the City Council members do. And Metro doesn’t like the idea of involving Fiscal Affairs in Metro policy, which is overseen by an elected sheriff.

But if those changes force more questions, Sisolak thinks, it will increase the committee’s value.

“Because right now, I don’t even know what the committee is there for.”

The commissioner said he struggles to get specific answers to budget questions and thinks the meetings move too quickly.

Giunchigliani sat on the committee for two years and says much the same.

“There was intimidation, intended or not, and it just felt like we weren’t there to question anything; we were there to rubber-stamp,” she said.

She recalls the committee’s approval of Metro’s new headquarters as an example.

The 370,500-square-foot structure will be leased from developer Project Alta LLC, then purchased. In the fall Giunchigliani expressed concern about the lease, saying it was negotiated before committee members saw it. The lease payment the first year will be $12.2 million. Metro has said it hopes the county will buy the building in three years. Its price will depend on its market value.

More county-Metro conflict arose in mid-March after the county said it hoped to delay opening a low-level-offender jail to save millions on payroll.

In response, Gillespie called a news conference to say he hadn’t been contacted about the county’s plans. County Manager Virginia Valentine replied that the sheriff had been informed.

A communication problem? Not in Metro’s view.

Even suggesting that commissioners find it hard to get information from Metro drew indignation from Assistant Sheriff Ted Moody.

“I challenge you to find a more transparent police department in the country,” he said. “Nobody does more to get out information than we do. That’s not just for commissioners or the media, but anybody.”

Told of Moody’s comments, Sisolak shook his head.