Lobbying crew
August 18, 2011 - 1:01 am
From the onset of the Great Recession, Nevada's local governments pleaded poverty and bemoaned budget cuts. Then they demonstrated their cautious stewardship of declining tax dollars by handing out six-figure lobbying contracts to exercise influence in Carson City.
It was as much a perception problem as it was a policy problem. Governments using tax dollars to lobby other governments? The contracts -- worth millions of dollars statewide each legislative session -- provided extravagant compensation to politically connected insiders and former public employees.
But the 2011 legislative session was different. Many governments sent their own employees to Carson City instead of contracted lobbyists.
We now know that this practice saved taxpayers a bundle while providing a more direct voice to lawmakers. The Department of Taxation reports that Nevada governments spent a total of $2.948 million lobbying the 2011 Legislature, down 19 percent from the $3.618 million they spent in 2009. And the bulk of their 2011 costs were wages and benefits, which would have been paid to those workers anyway.
The two entities that dialed back lobbying costs the most: Clark County and the Clark County School District, which reduced expenses 29 percent and 35 percent respectively, while dispatching their own employees to Carson City.
The city of Henderson took the opposite approach, not only keeping its contract lobbyists, but paying them even more. Henderson spent $312,867 in 2011, up 11 percent from the $289,489 it coughed up in 2009. Among its contract lobbyists: former Henderson Police Chief and Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins.
Meanwhile, North Las Vegas' lobbying costs declined 24 percent, while Las Vegas' were flat from 2009 to 2011.
The 2011 legislative session marked great progress in removing the lobbying lard from local government budgets. Given that Nevada lacks home rule, local governments and school districts must have some presence in Carson City every other year. But government-to-government talks are the public's business -- and should be transparent. Government lobbying will be somewhat more tolerable when the Legislature finally subjects itself to the state's open meeting law.