New reform committee raises fears of political retribution

By Anjeanette Damon

Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011 | 2 a.m.

The goal of the Legislature’s new Sunset Committee is a worthy one: Scrutinize the alphabet soup of boards and commissions that make up the state’s tangled bureaucracy and decide whether they can justify their existence.

The panel will eliminate some, consolidate others that duplicate efforts and tweak those that need some tinkering.

The result should be more nimble, transparent and responsive regulation of everything from alfalfa seeds to the behavior of elected officials in Nevada.

But the first commissions on the list for scrutiny have some wondering whether lawmakers are targeting boards and commissions for political payback.

Some on the committee admit that a commission that has aggravated a lawmaker makes an appealing target, but say that might not be such a bad thing.

“If a legislator is having issues with a department or an entity and the opportunity comes up to look at them and re-evaluate what’s going on, that’s going to happen,” said state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, who sits on the Sunset Committee. “Is that wrong? I don’t necessarily think so.”

Many of the boards targeted for examination are obscure — those on “Geographic Names” or “Alfalfa Seed” or “Anatomical Dissection,” for example. Some haven’t met for years: the Garlic and Onion Growers board or the Appraisers Certification board, for example.

Staff has no idea the last time the Credit Union Advisory Council met. It has been around since 1975. And the Executive Advisory Council to the Land Use Planning Advisory Council (yes, that’s one board) has never met since its creation in 1977.

But many of the commissions under review deal with weighty public policy that causes a fair amount of controversy and have antagonized some of the lawmakers on the Sunset Committee.

Take the Wildlife Commission.

There are arguments for examining the board — it was seen as dysfunctional and politically motivated under Gov. Jim Gibbons. But some see payback behind its inclusion on the Sunset Committee hit list.

It recently approved an annual bear hunt in Northern Nevada, a decision that angered the Sunset Commission’s chairwoman, Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno.

Although Leslie didn’t put the wildlife commission on the list, she has come under fire from sportsmen who think she’s reacting to the bear hunt controversy.

“That’s always a possibility,” said Charlie Howell, one of the wildlife commissioners. “There’s always a segment of the population that’s opposed to something and the bear hunt people were very vocal.”

Leslie acknowledged she was beyond frustrated by the handling of the bear hunt regulations, saying the commissioners ignored legitimate safety concerns in the Tahoe basin.

“But the answer is not elimination of the Wildlife Commission,” Leslie said with a chuckle.

Assemblywoman Irene Bustamante Adams put the Wildlife Commission on the list because the director didn’t respond to a request for information from Sunset Committee staff.

“The bear hunt caused a lot of concerns, but we’re listening to the Legislature,” Commissioner Jack Robb said. “They’re saying, ‘Hey we have constituent complaints that we need you to listen to,’ and we are.”

Many of the commissioners interviewed were reluctant to publicly accuse the lawmakers on the Sunset Committee of political motivations, worried about antagonizing those deciding their fate. But others privately grumbled that a serious effort to streamline government could be undermined by the appearance of a political witch hunt.

But wildlife isn’t the only busy and at-times controversial commission targeted.

Former Assemblyman David Goldwater, one of three private-sector committee members, said he put the Ethics Commission on the list because he questions whether it is fulfilling its mission.

The Ethics Commission has long been a thorn in the side of state lawmakers and other elected officials, some of whom have been incurred expensive legal bills defending themselves against what they believe are meritless complaints taken up by the commission.

Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled the Ethics Commission should not have oversight of legislators’ conduct because it is part of the executive branch of government.

“They have some court rulings that have either emasculated their powers or changed their mission,” Goldwater said. “The purpose is simply to review exactly that: their original mission and tools they may or may not need to do the job.”

The Sunset Committee is also looking at the executive branch’s audit committee, which has irritated some lawmakers, who have described them as duplicative of legislative audit efforts and the Public Employees Benefits Board, which governs health benefits for government employees.

But lawmakers on the Sunset Committee denied that their choices on which boards and commissions to study have anything to do with political retribution. Every board and commission identified in state law will be reviewed before the committee is disbanded, they noted.

“I think you’re seeing a certain amount of paranoia from some boards and commissions, which I suppose is natural,” Leslie said. “I suppose the potential is there for political retribution. But anyone who sat through the first meeting knows that certainly wasn’t the case.”