carson city:

Raggio back in vote as lawmakers stay late

AP Photo/Nevada Appeal, Cathleen Allison

Sen. Bill Raggio, R-Reno, listens on the Senate floor at the Legislature in Carson City on Wednesday. A Republican operative leading an effort against higher taxes said Wednesday that Raggio shouldn’t vote for a $780 million tax package, in line with his pattern of not voting on bills that pose a potential conflict.

By J. Patrick Coolican (contact), David McGrath Schwartz (contact), Cy Ryan (contact)

Published Wednesday, May 20, 2009 | 12:40 p.m.

Updated Wednesday, May 20, 2009 | 11:04 p.m.

Reader poll

Time not on state budget’s side (5-20-2009)
Horsford maneuvering now, planning ahead (5-19-2009)
Legislative process no match for lawmaker gamesmanship (5-19-2009)
Talks on taxes collapse, to resume Tuesday morning (5-18-2009)
Gibbons signs marriage license bill despite tax opposition (5-18-2009)
Why winning Legislature got Democrats only so far (5-17-2009)
Party in power's tension heating up (5-13-2009)
As budget clock ticks, easy part still isn't done (5-12-2009)

Archive of Sun politics stories

Archive of Sun politics stories

CARSON CITY -- Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio is back in the vote for the tax plan after the state Senate changed rules governing conflicts of interest and abstentions.

Under the Senate resolution, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, Raggio said, "I would be eligible to vote and required to vote" on a tax package.

Earlier in the day, Raggio said a legal opinion found there could be a conflict of interest with him voting on a tax plan because a member of his law firm testified on a tax proposal.

That sent legislative leaders, who have until Thursday or Friday to pass a tax plan, scrambling for a way to get him back into the vote. Democrats need two Republican senators to pass a tax package and override Gov. Jim Gibbons' expected veto.

Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, said, "Throughout our history, Nevadans have chosen a citizen legislature as our form of government."

Senate Joint Resolution 10 enables legislators to act "on legislative measures of immense statewide importance which globally impact all citizens of this State."

Sen. Mark Amodei was the only vote against the resolution. He questioned the timing. "This is a sad day for the fabric of this process," he said. "Legislative bashing is a state sport ... It will be interesting to see, given the context of this vote, how this is viewed."

The Legislature is expected to meet late into the night, as questions swirled over who would abstain from voting on the tax increase as legislative leaders continue to hammer out changes to public employee benefits.

"There's a great deal of tension," said Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas. "There seems to be an effort to prevent lawmakers from voting."

Earlier today, Raggio and Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, announced they would abstain from voting on a tax package because of rumors ethics violations would be filed against them.

Raggio, a law partner at Jones Vargas, was told because another lawyer from the law firm, Jim Wadhams, had testified last week vaguely in favor of a broad based tax.

Hardy, head of a construction trade group, had been threatened with another ethics violation if he continued to be the lead negotiator on reforming public employee benefits.

The rumors of potential conflicts spread through the building, to the point that legal staff was besieged by requests from lawmakers.

Buckley said a resolution would be introduced tonight that would clarify the Senate and House rules over ethics.

"It comes to the point of, well, if you work for a business, own a car or pay sales tax, you can't vote," she said.

Nevada has a part-time Legislature that meets for 120 days every two years. They make less than $10,000 per biennium.

Asked earlier this evening if she believed Raggio would, at the end of the day, vote on a tax, Buckley said yes.

In the meantime, Sen. Randolph Townsend took over the roll of lead negotiator for Republicans on reforms to pensions, retiree health benefits and collective bargaining between local governments and unions.

GOP leaders urged not to vote on tax package

This morning, Hardy, the lead Republican negotiator on a package of taxes and changes to public employee pay and benefits to help solve the budget crisis, informed legislators that he could no longer negotiate and would abstain from voting on any package of bills.

And Raggio had told reporters he believed he didn’t have a conflict. But he had been advised to abstain from voting because a member of his law firm had testified last week advocating that any tax should be broad based.

There has been a threat that an ethics complaint would be filed against Raggio if he voted. So he asked Legislative Counsel Brenda Erdoes for a legal opinion.

Eileen O’Grady, chief deputy legislative counsel, told Raggio that if a member of his law firm of Jones Vargas had lobbied, he would be required to abstain “because the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in your situation would be materially affected in those circumstances.”

The member of his firm has been identified at Jim Wadhams. Raggio said there was no lobbying but only a statement to a tax committee that any tax should be broad based.

Raggio said this afternoon he was “getting irritated” by these ethics threats to influence voting. “To be threatened to be turned into the ethics committee goes too far,” he said.

He said he has not accepted any gift, has no economic interests and the bill does not affect Jones Vargas or its clients any differently than other similar taxpayers. But the threat of an ethics complaint was believed to be made by an opponent of the tax package.

Raggio, in a speech on the Senate floor, stressed he backed the tax package that he helped negotiate.

In Hardy's case, he has been threatened with an ethics complaint if he continues to negotiate a final package.

An absence will almost certainly create delays. As lead negotiator he knows the issues and where the two sides differ and need to compromise.

If Hardy is out, that means getting a necessary Republican vote to pass a tax increase would be more difficult. Both Raggio and Hardy said they planned to vote for the tax increase, as long as appropriate changes to pensions and retiree health benefits were made.

Hardy said of Democrats who threatened him: "They just killed one of the mules."

Townsend promised that if the reforms came through, a majority of the remaining seven members of the Republican caucus will vote for a tax increase.

"It's not going to be two Republicans, it's going to be a majority of the caucus," he said.

Hardy is president of the Associated Builders and Contractors and already faces an unresolved ethics complaint for allegedly mixing his roles as senator and lobbyist during the 2007 legislative session.

He said he heard from a friend in the lobbying corps that he could face another ethics complaint because Steve Hill, president of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the leading advocate of reductions to public employee pay and health and retirement benefits, sits on Hardy’s board.

Therefore, Hardy reasons, he could be accused of carrying water for Hill and the Chamber only because Hill’s supervisory role of Hardy on the ABC board. Hardy’s withdrawal from the process would have the potential to derail the sensitive negotiations and knock legislators off a timeline with little margin for error.

The Legislature’s 120-day session ends June 1. Gov. Jim Gibbons will likely veto any tax increase and he can delay acting for five days after the Legislature sends him a final budget.

Counting backward, legislators think they need to have a deal by Thursday or Friday if they are to give Gibbons time to act and the Legislature time to override any veto by June 1.

If the clock runs out, the Legislature can act on a veto only if Gibbons first calls them into special session, a step lawmakers think is unlikely if it means his veto will be reversed.

Hardy, a Las Vegas Republican, said he has always followed the advice of counsel on the conflicts issue, and is doing so this time. He asked legislative counsel for a legal opinion ruling his actions admissible, but was told that although his actions are most likely defensible, legislative counsel could not provide such a letter.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By neiman1

5/20/09 at 1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nevada is following California's history to the letter. The leader of the Senate there was replaced before budget negotiations were finished and resulted in the disaster politicians just faced at the polls yesterday.

The Republican's need to follow the Governor's lead and hold against new or increased taxes. The voters here will have their say if they don't.
By That_Anonymous_Guy

5/20/09 at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Here's a question -- why the heck do we allow our state legislators to serve as lobbyists?? Wouldn't that job, in and of itself, qualify as a conflict of interest?
By 2zero

5/20/09 at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

"defensible".....LOL

Reprehensible.....unethical!
By DouglasDemocrat

5/20/09 at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

No, neiman, the California budget crisis was caused by everyone over there abdicating their duties as legislators and leaders. For the California Legislature to hand over the fundamental duty of their body to a popular vote sets a dangerous precedent. We elect legislators to do these things, not to have them pass the buck back to us.

And the Republican leader of budget negotiations over in California was ousted by his own party for being too "soft" on the tax issue.

Is this how it's going to be played? Hardy's abstaining. Raggio's being told to abstain. Sounds like more than the usual political arm-twisting to me. Sounds a lot like political blackmail.

You can't just cut your way out of this hole, and you can't just tax your way out of it either. So stop pretending that it's a binary problem, because if we keep doing that then the clock will run out and no budget at all will pass.
By bremskraft

5/20/09 at 2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Now it all makes sense... Hardy *is* a schill for the Chamber.
By AngryReader

5/20/09 at 2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Only in the circus side show of NV politics.
By dbuss

5/20/09 at 2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Given Senator Hardy's action to remove himself from the process should prompt all the other legislators with conflicts to take the same action.
By late49er

5/20/09 at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

sum zero has competition.

Now we have many sum zero`s in the legislature.

These folks are making Gibbons look good.

Understand the legislature is not going to tax cat houses as a matter of professional courtesy.
By bremskraft

5/20/09 at 3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

dbuss, do you work with Uithoven or for the Chamber?
By obamasmama

5/20/09 at 3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

The threat of an ethics complaint is just more union terrorism and tactics that we are seeing on a local, state and national level. Sen. Hardy is an honest as they get.
By Launce

5/20/09 at 7:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

If the charge against Sen. Raggio were substantial enough to force him to abstain, there would be no one from either chamber able to vote on anything. Nevada's a small state.
And I can easily think of some far more egregious ethical puzzles up there. Look at the former head of the mining association and the inability to fairly tax mining, an incredible failure that deserves very, very close scrutiny.
By DouglasDemocrat

5/20/09 at 9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

"The threat of an ethics complaint is just more union terrorism and tactics that we are seeing on a local, state and national level."

Um, why would the unions threaten an ethics complaint? That makes no sense since getting this budget passed is better than the alternatives offered by the governor.

I think it's political blackmail to be sure, but to automatically blame the unions without a scintilla of evidence is jumping the gun quite a bit.