Reforms that actually would make a difference

Friday, May 15, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.

No one, many elected officials and lobbyists excepted, is against more openness in government.

And no one had been more critical of the legislative non-process than I over 20 years of covering the special-interest-drenched, faux-deliberative body that has too few bold leaders and too many hapless followers. But rarely have I have been as infuriated as I was this week to see the eleventh-hour stunt put on by some of my media colleagues to try to pressure lawmakers to be more transparent by importuning them to sign a vapid pledge that doesn’t even address what ails the system.

I know it’s hazardous to criticize your own fraternity, but I sally forth.

The Nevada Freedom of Information Coalition issued the pledge this week, complete with a news conference and a release with hyperbolic language any politician would envy. “We will call on legislators to put an end to the secrecy with which they currently are conducting business, so that the public will have an opportunity to discuss and debate the solutions they would implement,” wrote Thomas Mitchell, the president of the coalition and the editor of the Review-Journal.

This is not only untrue, but it is also the kind of fatuous mewling that should embarrass any journalist. As with any legislative body anywhere, small groups of leaders meet to hash out issues and go back to their caucuses, and then public hearings are held. No votes are taken in secret. The public has access to the hearings.

Is it practical or even salubrious to prevent small groups from meeting? Of course not. You think Thomas Jefferson and the gang ever had private meetings to hash out differences before they put pen to paper?

Good reporters have ferreted out details of the meetings — all it takes is hard work. A much more important issue is the tendency of so many of the caucus members to rubber-stamp what has been discussed, a commentary on the quality of those we elect because of what we pay them.

But, as members of the media, let’s not discuss that systemic problem. Let’s come up with a pledge!

And what a stirring manifesto: I pledge to “support policies and laws that will give the people of Nevada the ability to be fully informed about government so they can make intelligent decisions.”

Could it be more sophomoric?

Sure there is some good stuff in there about putting government contracts and expenditures online — some of which is being done — and to make floor votes and bill texts available online — which already is done.

But the pledge shows little understanding of what the process’s failings really are. And the timing is ludicrous — a week before lawmakers have (dare I use the word?) pledged to have a tax plan to The Man Formerly Known as Governor. Why now?

The pledge also would do nothing to stop what they are trying to stop: the so-called “secret meetings.” It is the typical impractical, counterproductive absolutism that is designed more to paralyze government than enhance its performance.

Of course there are reforms that would have a much more far-reaching effect than any hectoring pledge demand. To wit:

• Force every legislative secretary to have a log where lobbyists who visit lawmakers must sign in and list the bills they are addressing. Phone calls should also be logged; cell phone records should be regularly released.

• Every legislator’s calendar should be posted online.

• Lobbyists should not only be forced to disclose on separate documents every contact they have, but they also should be made to reveal the issue and who is paying them.

• Some of the finer reporters I know are covering this session. But it is the management of news organizations that fail to dedicate the proper resources to covering government that is much more a problem than any clandestine meetings. Pledge-seekers, heal thyselves.

• At some point, and I know this is a hard concept to embrace, the electorate needs to depend on the integrity of people they elect. You will never pass laws or create pledges to make dishonest folks honest, but vitriolic anti-government screeds do a lot more insidious damage to the system than a few lawmakers meeting privately.

The fault, my dear transparency-seekers, is not in the core groups, but in a system that cultivates a legislative underclass enslaved by lobbyists who know much more about any given issue than most of them and who advise their clients whom they should help reelect.

Instead of offering asinine pledges, how about pushing substantive reforms that might change something? This stunt shows the media acting more like the politicians, posturing for the cameras, whipping up the citizenry and enabling a corrupt system.

Discussion: 9 comments so far…

By JohnF

5/15/09 at 7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

"This stunt shows the media acting more like the politicians, posturing for the cameras, whipping up the citizenry and enabling a corrupt system."

That's just the point, though, isn't it, Jon?

The fishwrap that covers up this paper each morning is doing just fine under this corrupt system. They can cart their profits back to Arkansas every night secure in the knowledge that they won't ever have to contribute anything to the state whose infrastructure supports them as long as the status quo reigns.

The worst part is they have a very large portion of this population believing that failing to tax WalMart, Home Depot, and Stephens Media is in the best interest of the state and its residents. In the meantime, our schools and universities are failing, our people can't get proper medical care, and our roads are crumbling.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

5/15/09 at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jon,

I take it this article is your lobbying attempt to at a make work program for journalists.

"Don't make it easy for citizens to understand, if you do that, I'll be out of a job" - Jon Ralston.
By hss46

5/15/09 at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mr. Gibbon:

I don't know where you got that quote from Mr. Ralston but if he said it, I suspect it was at best facetious and more likely a commentary on that fact that people will beleive any pap printed with a banner over or an "Institute" publishing it because critical thinking is not a skill prized in our system. (Could it even be that the quote was pulled out of context?)

I'd love to hear your detailed analysis supporting the mythology that a graduated, high exemption, corporate earnings tax will cost jobs or drive the Home Depots and WalMarts out of Nevada? Or is it just that thoese corporations might decrease their sponsorship of NPRI?
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

5/16/09 at 1:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Its called satire hissy, the kind Jon does frequently.

Will that kind of corporate income tax drive away Wal-Mart and Home Depot. No. But it will decrease the number of people they hire, the wages paid, and the amount of investment they do in this state. Maybe you can explain how this doesn't occur when government takes the money?
By JohnF

5/16/09 at 2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mr. Gibbons,

I don't know, perhaps we should look for the answer in those many states with lower unemployment than ours with business tax rates higher than ours.

I'll give you a hint: it's pretty much all of 'em.
By teacher

5/17/09 at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

The R-J is so hypocritical that it's laughable. Its editorial staff is so lame that it can't see its own ironic stances. Can you imagine the editorial you'd read from Mitchell and his staff if somebody else presented this pledge? Thomas Mitchell should be driven out of town in some old-fashioned Western way, since he seems to be stuck in a different century. He is one of Nevada's worst citizens - and that's saying something.
By hss46

5/18/09 at 3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Its funny how PRG doesn't respond to the facts in other people's entries. Mr. Gibbons Are you now claiming that WalMart employs more people in Nevada per square foot of store space and sales than it does in other states just because its state taxes are lower? "Hey Sherm, our taxes are lower here so lets run out and hire some folks to keep our bottom line down" ROFL

Its clear that you, who claims that government should be run more like a business, know nothing about running a real business! Solicting contributions from Corporate donors and hiring an admin aren't really a substitute for real business experience.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

5/18/09 at 4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Comrade Hss,

Its hard to respond to facts in other people's entries because their are so few (if any) just hyperbole and empty rhetoric.

John F,

Your comment is not fully fleshed out. You imply that other states have a better employment rate because of corporate taxes? That goes against almost all research on the subject.

It is more likely the case that Nevada's economy suffered two strokes 1) the housing market crash and 2) the general economic crash. We were over invested in housing capital which is why we got hurt more than anyone and then on top of that tourists have fewer disposable dollars to spend here. That means we took quite a beating.

That isn't to say raising a corporate tax will make everything better. That would just be a silly statement, although it is one John F sophomorically implies.
By Mastermcom

5/20/09 at 7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

To paraphrase Shakespeare: "The first thing we do is kill all the Libertarians."

If Communism is a bankrupt idea, then ideology of the Libertarians is at least as bad if not intrinsically worse. Anarchy in disguise is probably the best way I ever heard it described.

Libertarianism works great if you only have two people and one of those is dead.

In the history of the real world there has never been a Libertarian state that lasted more than a nanosecond if that. And there never will be, because human nature is based on survival, not some insane stupidity that humans are rational.