Let governor govern the Silver State

SENS. BILL RAGGIO, R-Reno, and Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, have been in the Nevada Senate way too long. Both are gentlemen and friends of mine but it's time for them to go home before they succeed in doing some real mischief and screw up a part of government that works. They are back again seeking power to reject or approve the appointments of the governor who has the responsibility to run the executive branch of government.

Injecting legislators into the process of approving or disapproving the governor's appointments is enough to make any student of Nevada government laugh. Raggio and Rhoads find it difficult to run the Senate every other year without increasing their responsibilities to also pick the people who report directly to the governor. It's already difficult for a governor to entice high caliber professionals to serve in government. Now add senatorial fingers into the mix and see how many more qualified people refuse to accept an appointment and wait six to 16 months to see whether or not the senators say they can keep the job.

Rhoads says that if he were governor he would want the senators to be partially responsible for any appointment that was a failure. This kind of reasoning on his part is exactly why he should never have to carry the burden of chief executive. Governors are elected to serve 365 days every year for four years. They have the responsibility to run the government and select those individuals who can best do important work. If the governor fails to satisfy the people, he and his appointees will soon be out of office.

This brings up another bit of nonsensical palaver about "the U.S. Senate approves appointees." Please don't use that argument with me and compare a legislative body in session all of the time with one that meets every two years. Even more important is the obvious partisan abuse of the U.S. Senate's power to reject some appointees. Time and time again, our nation has been embarrassed by the actions of both Democrat and Republican senators and the reasons given for failing to confirm appointments by presidents.

What about a prime appointee being rejected by senators and the president being forced to nominate a person of lesser abilities to the post? It's not necessary to list the number of times this has happened in past and recent years. The advice and consent of the U.S. Senate has come at a high price for our nation on too many occasions. As for senators sharing the blame of some failures, that's pure poppycock. Only one person, be they president, mayor or governor, shoulders the failure of any department head or Cabinet member. The next time you hear a U.S. senator say that he or she is responsible for the faults of a Cabinet member, it will be the first time you have heard it.

Let's take a look at Senate Bill 160 being promoted by Rhoads and Raggio and signed by 16 of their colleagues. They want to be able to intervene and even reject the people governors appoint to head up boards and commissions. When it comes to the Gaming Control Board, Gaming Commission and Public Utilities Commission, they even want the power to approve or reject members and commissioners. Great, our citizen legislators can now make certain that the people regulating the businesses that employ them aren't too strong or independent.

As I've pointed out in the past, there is some citizen concern about legislators who sit on money committees that have a direct influence on the regulatory agencies which oversee their businesses. An example that is often used is the possible influence a legislator, who makes a living from gambling, might have over the Gaming Commission and/or Gaming Control Board.

A citizen legislator has every right to make a living in a legitimate industry, but the selection of who regulates that industry may be carrying things to an extreme. Our senators want a voice in selecting the chairman of the Gaming Commission and the members of the Gaming Control Board. Let's back off this one.

I'm sure that some of the senators also involved in public utilities, banking and ranching will have fun rejecting or approving who runs the Public Utilities Commission, department of business and industry and department of conservation and natural resources. Not that gaming and all of these other businesses don't already have plenty of power, they now want to further influence the regulators by being able to stop their appointments. Already at least one public utility lobbyist has appeared to support the bill. He claims it would improve the quality of the regulators. Sure, the weaker the better, but that doesn't do the consumers much good. And just how long will it take state senators to learn they can trade appointment votes for support of their own private bills?

Again, as in the past, let me suggest that rather than create unnecessary problems for all concerned it would be wise to kill the bill and let each and every governor continue to succeed or fail with the men and women he or she selects to run state departments and regulatory agencies.

What may look good today could become a mess four or five years down the road. Nevadans find it much easier to hold a governor strictly accountable than they would having to sort through the possible legislative game-playing of 21 state senators.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor. He is also publisher of the Henderson Home News, where this column first appeared as One Man's View.

archive