User profile: NLVResident

It's no wonder Fox News didn't rush to break the story. What a poorly written letter. And this guy made over $160K while working for Senator Ensign? And held one of the top positions in his office? Please! My writing skills are better than his. I couldn't even read the entire letter because his spelling errors drove me nuts. I wonder if he's a product of the Clark County School District???

The utility companies are guaranteed a certain return on investment. The problem is all the perks they provide to their management staff -- starting at the director level and up. Free personal vehicles with maintenance, insurance, fuel, and registrations fees paid by the company -- or the ratepayer. Upper management personnel traveling first class and staying at first class hotels for business meetings. These guys can afford to purchase their own vehicles. Why should someone making over $100K (at the director level) be given a vehicle? Why should the ratepayer be responsible for the insurance, maintenance, fuel, and registration costs for those vehicles? And why should employees be able to use frequent flyer programs for personal vacations? If the ratepayers paid for their business trips, then free airline tickets or hotel rooms should be used for business purposes ONLY. It's time the PUCN start cracking down on these things.

Jon, the bill is actually S.B. 395. Don't want to give the Governor's office any reason to discredit your report.

I hope the PUCN does a thorough examination of the company's expenses. Given these financial times, the PUCN should start disallowing some of the perks given to management, such as cars where the company pays for a personal car (that can be used by the employee's family, including teenagers), car insurance, maintenance, and gas. They should also do a thorough examination of travel and business expenses to ensure that the company is conserving at all levels.

While I appreciate the analyses above, my only thought is this: nothing is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court rules it is. And I am so tired of our elected officials spending money to fight a referendum or petition. Now, based on the above analyses, this may be a case where it is beneficial to fight it because of possible impacts of previously-issued bonds. But, let the voters speak. At least then the decision will be from the voters of the City of Las Vegas and not just members of Steve Ross' trade association or the union. If the Mayor thinks his constituents support the new City Hall, why is he so afraid of putting the issue to a vote?