Sunday, February 15, 2004
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Ms. Moncrief and the grand jury

Serious charges deserve detailed response from freshman councilwoman

Las Vegas City Councilwoman Janet Moncrief has not been formally indicted, let alone tried or convicted. She has a right to a presumption of innocence.

Not only that, some sense of proportion must be maintained regarding the nature of the charges on which the state will seek a grand jury indictment.

At least one element of those charges -- an underlying state law making it illegal to circulate political brochures anonymously -- is constitutionally dubious. Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison wrote and circulated the Federalist Papers anonymously, of course.

But trying to systematically disguise how much money was spent on a campaign, where it came from, and how it was used, is rightly against the law.

Now, these allegations -- even should they be proven -- do not begin to rise to the level of the charges recently lodged against several former and current members of the Clark County Commission, who are held to have sold their offices and their votes for cash. If proven, that kind of activity merits serious jail time.

But, all that being said, thank goodness state law enforcement authorities have finally taken a serious interest here -- apparently for the first time -- in the state's campaign reporting laws.

Accusations first surfaced during the campaign, when a consultant to incumbent Michael McDonald asserted Ms. Moncrief -- who upset the former police officer for her Ward 1 seat -- distributed illegal mailings and concealed campaign expenditures. "It was obvious during her campaign she had spent $100,000 she didn't report," consultant Jim Ferrence repeated Thursday.

In August, the Review-Journal obtained copies of invoices showing a California political consultant billed Moncrief and was paid for printing mailers sent out during the campaign in such a way as to make them appear to have been mailed by Mr. McDonald -- fliers for which Ms. Moncrief denied responsibility.

Since then, the Review-Journal has reported Ms. Moncrief either seriously underreported or left unreported some $30,000 paid to teenagers to canvass neighborhoods in Ward 1 (that dollar estimate from her campaign strategist, Tony Dane).

There's a pattern of behavior here which -- again, if proven -- far outpaces any hypothetical defense that, "I'm just a newcomer to politics; I didn't know." This is not a mere misplaced decimal point or some invoice that fell behind the refrigerator. This serious a pattern of obfuscation argues that the perpetrator may have something else to hide -- who financed her campaign, perhaps, and why.

The voters deserve to know who a candidate is, and who's backing her. Yes, reporting requirements must be kept simple enough that an "average citizen" can comply without an army of accountants. But Ms. Moncrief has managed an office, and no one is required to run for public office if she believes herself unable to discharge these legal requirements.

This is a not a time for bobbing and weaving. It's time for Ms. Moncrief to address her constituents in some detail. Time to come clean.