Widow of former state senator outraged over Sue Lowden’s ad

By David McGrath Schwartz

Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 | 2 a.m.

Former colleagues of a longtime state senator are criticizing Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sue Lowden over her latest campaign ad, which references her 1992 campaign to unseat the late John “Jack” Vergiels.

In the advertisement Lowden tells the audience that she “took on a powerful politician and defeated him because he taxed us while enriching himself” — a reference to Vergiels’ vote to raise lawmakers’ pensions. The increase was reversed before it took effect.

Vergiels, who passed away in December at age 72, was the state Senate majority leader and a former Assembly speaker when Lowden defeated him in the strongly Democratic district.

State Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, said, “It would’ve been a terrific ad without that reference ... We’re just sensitive to it because he has recently passed. We’d prefer that kind of stuff stay out of it, but that’s not what campaign guys do.”

“Sue Lowden showed an insensitive side to her character with her ad,” said Sen. Bob Coffin, D-Las Vegas. Asked if she should keep the ad up, Coffin said, “It depends on her humanity. If she’s not a humane person, she will leave it up.”

Halina Vergiels, the majority leader’s widow, said she first saw the commercial Sunday.

“I’m absolutely outraged,” she said. “My husband never profited from anything in the Legislature. If anything, we lost money. I’m just flabbergasted. I think she should take it off the air and owes me an apology, and owes my husband’s name an apology.”

Robert Uithoven, Lowden’s campaign manager, said that the charge that Vergiels was “enriching himself” references a bill passed in 1989, increasing legislators’ pensions by 300 percent.

After public outrage over the vote, the Legislature repealed the increase and Vergiels did not benefit financially from the law’s passage.

Uithoven said the ad was factual, even if it doesn’t note that the pension increase was reversed.

“The fact remains that the voters decided back in 1992 that not only the incumbent senator from that district, but a number of others deserved to be thrown out of office because of what was then the largest tax increase in state history and a 300 percent increase in their pension fund,” he said.

He also noted that Lowden never mentions Vergiels by name in the ad, and that she “was one of the first people to come out and express condolences when he passed in December.”

Lowden is running in a competitive primary for the right to challenge U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. She’s facing strong challenges from attorney and businessman Danny Tarkanian and former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle. John Chachas, a Nevada native who has been an investment banker in New York, has put up $1.3 million of his money for the campaign.

Lowden was the first Republican Senate hopeful to air a campaign ad on television, when she ran a biographical piece two weeks ago.

The latest campaign ad began airing last week, and ended Monday, Uithoven said. He said the ad coming down had nothing to do with complaints about it.

Although Lowden does not mention Reid by name in either commercial, she is clearly trying to draw a parallel between her defeat of Vergiels and her campaign to unseat Reid.

“There’s was no intention to offend anybody in that ad,” Uithoven said. “We were simply telling the truth, that she has taken on powerful, entrenched politicians in the past, and is doing it again.”

Halina Vergiels said that after Lowden defeated her husband “he always tried to help her, support her. He spoke kindly of her ... I know they’re of different political parties, but I always thought she was a classy person.”

Vergiels of Las Vegas was a longtime education professor at UNLV. When he died, Lowden issued a statement saying, “Sen. Vergiels demonstrated his commitment to public service and to our great state. He will be missed.”

CORRECTION: The story has been updated to correct the following errors: former state Sen. Jack Vergiels' last name was misspelled in the headline; his wife's name was misspelled; and the vote to increase pensions took place in 1989, not 1991. | (February 16, 2010)