A new RTC vote on bus contract

The Regional Transportation Commission declared it would defer to the judgment of the state attorney general's office on whether a 4-3 vote cast May 19 to award the region's huge bus contract is valid.

A 2001 state law declares such matters require the support of a majority of the current board members, not merely a majority of those present. That statute covers more than 100 state agencies, but it does not name the RTC among them.

Therefore, RTC attorney Zev Kaplan advised the seven commission members present in May that they could proceed with a vote -- despite the absence of new member (and Las Vegas City Councilwoman) Lois Tarkanian.

Now, Senior Deputy Attorney General George Taylor has said the law in question does cover the RTC, and that the 4-3 vote did not have the true majority of members necessary to award the contract -- five of eight -- and that the May 19 vote must be rescinded and repeated.

Given that RTC members said they would abide by an opinion of the attorney general's office, an appeal seems unlikely, though presumably they could still go to court and seek a more definitive precedent if they wish.

Otherwise, what they should do now is properly schedule and post public notice of a new meeting, with an agenda that includes a new vote on the bus contract that's worth roughly $600 million over a seven-year period.

Out of courtesy, the two bidders -- Veolia Transportation, the current operator, and First Transit, which was awarded the contract in the abortive May session -- should be given an hour apiece to re-state the merits of their existing bids. And then -- assuming enough members are in attendance to at least potentially form a true majority -- a new vote should be taken.

First Transit's bid, which came in $50 million lower than Veolia's, is difficult to argue against and would better serve the recovering economy of Southern Nevada.

Waiting months and expecting the bidders to spend vast new sums generating new proposals, especially after commission members and hired consultants have pored over those in hand, is unnecessary. Similarly absurd is a proposal to split the baby, cutting the service area in half and awarding a part to each company.

Yes, bus service in the region could be made more efficient. Ticketing and boarding could be improved -- especially on the busy Strip routes. Someone should also ask why the RTC now operates 13 different types of buses -- merely on their main commercial routes, understand, without reference to special services for the handicapped -- some of which are virtually unique in the world and require parts and fluids specially ordered from overseas.

In the end, though, the bids are in hand and a choice must be made. That's the commission members' job.