Consulting work

Assembly Bill 463, proposed by Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, has received its first reading in Carson City.

The bill would impose a cooling-off period of at least one year before a former local or state government employee could be hired (or, more often, "re-hired") as a "consultant." The bill also requires school districts to report to lawmakers every six months on consultants employed there.

State Controller Kim Wallin told the Assembly Government Affairs Committee that of the 780 consultants hired by the state, a sampling shows several are being paid as consultants while they continue to draw state paychecks.

Assemblywoman Smith explained she attended a workshop run by state-hired consultants where participants made collages from magazines.

"We spend thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, on these meetings and we make collages," the assemblywoman said. "Where is the accountability there?"

The devil is in the details, especially when it comes to "one size fits all" remedies. It's not hard to imagine a case where the best person to come in and unsnarl a bureaucratic tangle is the recently retired employee who remembers how the system was set up and intended to run.

Critics will doubtless point out how much time and money could be wasted bringing new hands up to speed on such a problem, when the recently retired expert could roll up his or her sleeves, knowing exactly where the proverbial plumbing is likely to be clogged.

Whether the flexibility to allow an occasional exception can be inserted into such a law without creating loopholes "big enough to drive a truck through" remains to be seen.

But the bigger question here -- which Assemblywoman Smith deserves considerable credit for bringing to light -- is what the heck the state is doing with 780 "consultants." How many of these positions were filled after arm's-length advertising and interviews, and how many are merely insider schemes to help "good old Ethel" pick up a little extra retirement cash counting the pigeons on the roof?

In tough economic times, when all are supposedly tightening their belts, taxpayers and their elected representatives certainly should have a handle on how many "consultants" are really needed, what they're doing, and what they cost.

Will AB463 do that job? In whatever time they have free from the larger question of where this Legislature is going to trim projected state spending by more than $2 billion, that's where lawmakers should be focusing their questions, on this one.