Lack of procedure in picking lobbyist

By Jon Ralston

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.

A lot can happen in 17 minutes.

In that window of time Tuesday, Clark County commissioners embarrassed themselves as they discussed (or didn’t discuss) whom to hire as a legislative lobbyist and simultaneously illuminated just how the Carson City game really works, in case anyone is still in the dark. In that short time frame, the commissioners also showed how juice still rules in local government and how silence is the best refuge for cowards.

“That wasn’t handled well,” one county insider said after the 4-3 vote to hire Dan Hart, a veteran campaign strategist, including for two commissioners, who has spent some time at the Legislature, mostly for the teachers union. Hart beat out four other firms, none of which has tremendous experience lobbying for local governments or in the capital generally — and none has run any commission campaigns, either.

Give Hart credit, though: Being able to win a contract with a divided board and a paralyzed staff that didn’t make a recommendation or even give a presentation, was quite the audition for someone trying to prove his lobbying bona fides. He clearly can count to four, the sine qua non at the county government building; now we will see whether he can play the 22-11-1 game in Carson City.

The 17 minutes were astounding from start to finish.

After no staff presentation or recommendation, Chip Maxfield quickly moved to select his former campaign manager as the county lobbyist. Why? Maxfield didn’t say. Nor did he disclose the relationship.

Tom Collins, a former assemblyman, immediately jumped in and tried to slow the Hart train by saying the county should wait a couple of months to firm up a legislative agenda. And then Bruce Woodbury, obviously not keen on just picking Hart, wondered about selecting “more than one firm.”

If Hart could have had a sphygmomanometer hooked up at that point, his reading would have been strokelike. Of course having more than one firm would be a prescription for disaster, with mixed messages and destructive competition likely. Lobbyists generally are not the sharing types.

Next, the ever-voluble Chris Giunchigliani, a former assemblywoman, jumped into the fray, clearly not happy with where this was going and suggesting the county needed an agenda before hiring anyone.

She echoed Collins’ comments about this “being premature” and then made the case for no lobbyist at all. “I think we have a talented staff,” she declared, the first oblique shot at Hart. Indeed, the county’s government affairs specialist, Sabra Smith-Newby, is very well-liked and respected on both sides of the aisle.

Giunchigliani then outlined what really makes a successful lobbyist: “It is about who has relationships with what legislators ... I know some individuals may not be supportive, may damage the county ... Some of our stuff will be doomed before we move out the door.”

Hook up that blood pressure cuff to Hart again, folks.

Collins would later pile on, saying he did not “have full confidence in the interview process that took place.” You mean there was a process?

Collins mentioned that the county needs someone who can get the ear of Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley or Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio — Hart might be able to do the former, but the only one in that room who could do the latter is Woodbury.

I am shocked to learn that it’s all about whom you know as opposed to the merits of the case in Carson City.

Reid, clearly realizing that Maxfield had provided no cover with his ham-handed motion bereft of any justification, patronized all the applicants and then made the case for Hart, who, he disclosed, had run his campaign. (At that point, and you could almost see the light bulb go off over his head, Maxfield decided to disclose, too.)

Reid outlined Hart’s credentials — his ability “to see the big picture” and “provide strategic advice,” skills as a political operative that often come in handy in lobbying. The chairman then asked for further discussion and no one spoke up.

Feeling no need to explain their votes for what could be a large contract, Susan Brager voted for Hart and Lawrence Weekly voted against him. Woodbury provided the new county lobbyist with his fourth vote.

With a nightmare session for local governments looming in 2009, with lawmakers searching for revenue anywhere they can pilfer it and with a County Commission split over its lobbying choice, Hart should be careful what he wished for and what the board clumsily awarded him Tuesday.

If he thinks those 17 minutes were torture, wait until he experiences 120 days in Carson City.