LETTERS: Laxalt leak serves no good purpose
To the editor:
I was saddened to read the article about the unauthorized leak of evaluation notes from four lawyers concerning Adam Laxalt, a candidate for Nevada attorney general (“Laxalt touts high praise as JAG,” Aug. 23 Review-Journal). The evaluations reportedly were from lawyers at the private law firm where Mr. Laxalt had worked. To release any personnel records without permission seems to me at best unethical, and although I am not an employment lawyer, I would not be surprised if it were illegal.
However, even more important, it amounts to a grossly unfair and misleading tactic. I was a lawyer at a large, multinational corporate law firm for more than 20 years. From my perspective as an associate and later a partner managing a practice group, I can say with certainty that the views of any four lawyers can be grossly misleading. In any given year, an associate at a large firm can come into contact with dozens of lawyers and have only fleeting contact with some of them.
How the four lawyers were selected for the leak is critical and can present a picture which is completely counter to a balanced overall evaluation — one which gives due weight to the various individual evaluations based on such matters as degree of contact, the lawyer’s area of expertise, etc. Also, law firms are not necessarily free of internal or external politics, in which this leak speaks for itself.
Regrettably, I never served in the military, but I have to believe that Mr. Laxalt’s military reviews as described in the article are off-the-charts outstanding and reserved only for the very best of the judge advocates general. Moreover, they reflect final, definitive and official military records, as opposed to selective, out-of-context leaks. I do not know Secretary of State Ross Miller, Mr. Laxalt’s opponent for attorney general, but I would seriously doubt Mr. Miller had anything to with the leak.
However, all of us — voters and candidates alike — disregard red flags at our peril, particularly in the context of an election for Nevada’s highest ranking legal officer. It is generally agreed that the tone at the top is the most critical element of ensuring compliance with ethical standards and legal requirements in any organization, public or private. These days, we see repeated examples of nefarious conduct in federal, state and local governments. While there is seldom direct evidence implicating the people at the top, as the conduct persists, one must wonder why staffers believe what they are doing is permissible if not for the tone at the top, even in the absence of explicit permission from the top.
Let us hope this leak is a one-off example of a rogue supporter and that the remainder of this important campaign will be based on the issues.
NEAL A. KLEGERMAN
LAS VEGAS
Reward solar users
To the editor:
Hats off to Gary Musser for a very cogent letter regarding NV Energy’s ongoing attempt to raise the connection fee for customers attempting to utilize the sun to make their own electricity — and in so doing, make life easier for NV Energy (“Rate hike would hamper solar energy,” Aug. 28 Review-Journal). I’d like to add a point that will hopefully strengthen Mr. Musser’s case.
NV Energy’s latest argument uses the cost of power transmission lines as the basis for charging customers who use solar power more often. The utility says that solar power users, by not paying a higher fee to connect to the grid, do not participate in the investment that NV Energy made in those transmission facilities. Well, for one thing, we’re not using those facilities, and if we are, it’s a minute amount. It’s kind of like the gas tax: if you don’t drive much, you don’t pay much, which puts the onus on those who use the most gas.
Another factor NV Energy conveniently left out of the discussion is that those transmission facilities, particularly the one connecting the Northern Nevada grid to ours in Southern Nevada, are often financed by low-cost loans and/or significant subsidies from the federal government. Based on the number of tall transmission poles crisscrossing our city, extending out into the desert, it looks as if NV Energy got a little ahead of themselves, thinking that the boom in Las Vegas would go on unabated, forever.
Should we pay for what appears to be NV Energy’s hopeful spending? Oh, that’s right, I forgot — electric utilities get a guaranteed return on their investment, so they can spend and spend, and then plead to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission that they are not getting that return and need more money, sticking us with the bill for their imprudence.
The Nevada Net Energy Metering Impacts Evaluation issued in July states: “NEM (Net Energy Metering) is an electricity tariff designed to encourage installation of customer sited renewable generation.” NV Energy may never have noticed the word “encourage,” but that is what the utility should be doing — promoting solar energy and rewarding solar energy users, not using us as pawns before the PUC.
JIM FOLEY
LAS VEGAS
