Fire union-county flap reverberates

By Joe Schoenmann

Sunday, May 10, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Sparks are still flying from the legislative hearing last week at which the president of the Clark County firefighters union made startling allegations against Clark County administrators.

Testifying on a bill to reopen University Medical Center’s outpatient oncology clinic, Ryan Beaman, the union president, said he had offered $4 million in concessions to Clark County administrators in mid-April. He said he told county officials he wanted the savings earmarked for reopening the cancer clinic at the county-run hospital. He added that he saw so much wasteful spending by the county, he wanted to be sure the money was well spent.

Late last fall, the county began talking to the firefighters, police and service employees unions about concessions. The county faces a $126 million deficit in the fiscal year beginning July 1 and is looking for salary savings. However, the county cannot force the 700-member firefighter union to concede anything because it has a legally binding contract.

At the hearing, Beaman said Clark County administrators turned down his offer because it was money enough for only one year, to which he replied that maybe a year later they’d have more money to keep it open.

The problem is, Clark County officials say it’s not true. First, County Manager Virginia Valentine said the $4 million Beaman offered couldn’t be transferred because of laws restricting its use to the fire department.

But she also said Beaman never mentioned UMC or the oncology clinic.

Does she have anything to back that up?

Her office provided the Sun with a copy of a “letter of agreement” that Beaman wanted Valentine to sign. The letter is undated but leaves a space for her and Beaman’s signatures. It mentions the $4 million, but nowhere does it mention UMC or the oncology clinic.

Is that proof then?

Not necessarily. Beaman also told the Sun he dropped the oncology earmark request when he met with county officials about concessions a second time at the end of April. This letter was produced at that second meeting, Valentine said. So at this point, it’s a he-said, she-said deal.

What difference does it make? It’s not like testimony at legislative committees is provided under oath, with felony perjury charges possible for lying, right?

It’s not a felony. But a state statute, NRS 218.942, says lobbyists “shall not knowingly or willfully make any false statement or misrepresentation of facts to any member of the Legislative Branch in an effort to persuade or influence him in his actions.”

Beaman is a registered lobbyist for the firefighters union.

What kind of penalty can one face for such an act?

Violating the law is considered a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for misdemeanors is six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.

Who would have to ask for charges to be pressed?

Researchers in the Legislative Counsel Bureau say the Carson City district attorney would likely have to be asked to investigate. They also said they could not find records of anyone ever being charged with the misdemeanor.

If Valentine is sure about what she heard, might she want the matter investigated?

The Sun tried to ask her about that. She declined to comment.

• • •

Apparently even in a bad economy, the Las Vegas Valley still looks good to terrorists, or at least the County Commission figures it does. Commissioners last week approved a staff request to pursue a federal grant to pay for the monitoring of bad-particle collectors situated around the Las Vegas Valley.

How much money are we talking about?

Quite a bit. The county’s Air Quality and Environmental Management Department will ask the U.S. Homeland Security Department for $2.18 million to continue its participation in Homeland Security’s BioWatch Program, which the county has been in since 2003.

Where are the sniffers located?

A spokesman for the program said he could not disclose the locations. It’s top-secret stuff, so if he told me, the CIA would have to torture me. (Just a little joke there, Langley.)

What do the BioWatch devices do?

According to a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service, the program’s purpose is to “detect the release of pathogens into the air, providing warning to the government and public health community of a potential bioterror event.”

The report goes on: “Aerosol samplers mounted on preexisting EPA air quality monitoring stations collect air, passing it through filters. These filters are manually collected at regular, reportedly 24-hour, intervals and are analyzed for potential biological weapon pathogens using polymerase chain reaction techniques.”

What kind of pathogens are those?

The report says “news reports suggest that the system tests for the pathogens that cause anthrax, smallpox, plague and tularemia (a bacterial illness, sometimes called ‘rabbit fever’), but the entire list of pathogens is not publicly available.”

Why not?

See the earlier answer on the sniffer locations.