Possible conflicts of interest are workforce board’s norm

By Timothy Pratt

Friday, June 12, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Clark County Commissioner Lawrence Weekly gave up a $48,000-a-year part-time government job after it stirred up talk about conflict of interest last month.

The prospect of the state directing federal money into the pocket of a county officeholder didn’t sit well with the public and some legislators.

But not much attention was paid to the other hat Weekly wears, that of member of the Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board. The money for the part-time job came through the Governor’s Workforce Investment Board, which, like its southern counterpart, gets funding from the U.S. Labor Department.

Should members of these volunteer boards be eligible to receive any of this federal money? Should they be eligible if they resign from the board first? Should there be a cooling-off period?

The conflict-of-interest issue is not new at the local workforce board.

In 2004 Steven Horsford, about to announce his candidacy for state senator, resigned from the Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board. This was after concerns were raised in board meetings involving the nonprofit organization Horsford directs, Nevada Partners. At the time Horsford had been on the board for nearly four years. During that period he had abstained from voting on grants that might go to Nevada Partners, as federal rules require. But the agency had awarded at least $3.4 million to his nonprofit organization from 2003 to 2005.

More recently, Cornelius Eason resigned from the board in late April and received about $10,000 from the agency in early May for laying groundwork on the federal stimulus money, according to John Ball, executive director of the Southern Nevada Workforce Investment Board. Later the same month the agency offered Eason a full-time job as part of a team overseeing nearly $15 million in stimulus money. That job pays up to $105,000, Ball said.

Before saying yes to the offer, Eason not only resigned from the board, he also sold his interest in a company he was a partner in for 11 years, Priority Staffing. Ball said Eason’s experience with the employment agency helped make him the best choice for overseeing the stimulus money, because the former board member understands the hiring practices of many local companies and has good relationships with public officials.

But even if that is the case, what about the possible conflict of interest? Didn’t Eason have an unfair advantage over other applicants for the job? Ball said the job was advertised for three weeks, got 12 applicants, and Eason was one of three finalists interviewed.

John Chamberlin, a consultant who has worked with workforce investment boards for 35 years, noted that the issue of board members getting federal money has been raised before, but may be more pressing now. “First of all,” he said, “people are looking at government differently. They’re looking for solutions and full of anger. Second, in ARRA (the stimulus legislation), there’s more language about transparency.”

At the same time, Chamberlin, who was in Las Vegas recently offering a workshop on the stimulus funding, said, “if nobody (on the board) has a conflict of interest at some time, you don’t have the right players” — meaning the board needs people who are involved in the system they’re overseeing.

The solution, he said, would be to require a cooling-off period of, say, a year to avoid “the appearance of conflict of interest.”

Horsford said recently that he supports the idea, “for purposes of transparency and accountability.”

Ball was more focused on the immediate. “It’s not an issue to me. Our job now is to pursue the policy goals of ARRA, and get the right people on the bus.”

The conflict-of-interest issue will remain, however, if “the right people” turn out to be the same people, time after time.