What are they hiding? County keeps investigation records secret

After investigating claims of conflicts of interest in its construction management division, Clark County in August fired the division’s boss, whose wife had benefited from a lucrative county contract.

What exactly did investigators find? The county isn’t telling.

So far, county officials have withheld records related to what it said were two investigations, citing an employee’s right to privacy in a personnel matter. The Las Vegas Review-Journal maintains that the county has no grounds for keeping the records secret.

“I think they are withholding from the public records that the public has the right to see and that they have the legal duty to provide,” Benjamin Lipman, the news organization’s chief legal officer, said in an interview.

In May, the Review-Journal reported that the county had awarded a $10 million construction management contract to a team that included the wife of Jimmy Floyd, the construction management division head. Raquel Floyd’s firm, Rock Solid Project Solutions, stood to make at least $1.5 million as a subcontractor on the contract awarded to Diversified Consulting Services to manage the Clark County 215 Beltway &Summerlin Parkway Interchange Project.

The county awarded the contract without interviewing other top-ranked firms, a decision that runs counter to its stated procedures. Jimmy Floyd managed the bidding process and was among those who ranked the firms submitting proposals. Observers of the process said the contract’s requirements were skewed to favor the Diversified/Rock Solid proposal.

In addition, the construction management division pre-qualified Rock Solid to become a primary contractor on construction management contracts for projects of $10 million or less. Jimmy Floyd prepared the document used to demonstrate a firm’s qualifications. The county uses outside firms to help manage some of its projects, including providing engineering services for construction inspection and verification of contract compliance.

As of May, Rock Solid had been paid $442,200 over four years as a subcontractor on county construction management contracts, primarily as a scheduling consultant.

In the spring, the county’s construction management division was overseeing $938 million in public works construction. At $130 million, the 215 &Summerlin Parkway interchange was its costliest project.

County records could shed light on whether potential conflicts within the construction management division were overlooked, ignored or condoned by county officials.

“We need to see the records to understand who, if anyone, was at fault in this,” Lipman said. “And these actions by governmental entities that hide the details of what happened — preventing the public from knowing who did what, who knew what and when, and who failed to do what — are concerning.”

County spokesperson Jennifer Cooper wrote in an email, “The County has provided responsive public records. As a result of the County’s investigation into these allegations, the employee was terminated from employment.”

Competitive process bypassed

The county has not disclosed whether its investigations resulted in disciplinary action against any other employees.

It is unknown whether the county looked into other instances in which preferential treatment was alleged.

An anonymous email sent a year ago to Clark County officials, and later obtained by the Review-Journal, called into question both the 215/Summerlin Parkway contract and plans for a separate construction management contract. The email questioned Jimmy Floyd’s intention to extend Diversified Consulting Services’ contract for improvements on one segment of Las Vegas Boulevard to an additional segment.

The $4.5 million contract extension, approved by the County Commission in April, bypassed a competitive process altogether, according to sources familiar with county public works protocols.

Cooper wrote in an email to the news organization, “The same management firm was selected to maintain continuity with key stakeholders along the project footprint.”

Concern over ‘continuing obfuscation’

For months, the Review-Journal has continually requested records related to the county’s investigations.

The county has provided documents outlining changes it was making as a result of its investigations, such as increased disclosure to identify conflicts of interest with subcontractors and more oversight in the awarding of public works contracts.

It also provided documents redacted in their entirety. After Lipman protested, county Counsel Lisa Logsdon provided new redactions, which showed that the documents were emails between Jimmy Floyd and a human resources representative. In the emails, which remain heavily redacted, they discuss arranging a meeting.

County representatives have claimed that other than some emails, all other documents are confidential personnel records.

In August, Cooper cited the ruling in Clark County School District v. Las Vegas Review-Journal, writing in an email that “the local government must balance the individual’s nontrivial privacy rights against the public’s right to access public information.”

Her email also cited Clark County Code, stating that “Clark County employees have a privacy interest with respect to certain information in their personnel records, such as disciplinary actions and investigations.”

In an email to Logsdon in September, Lipman wrote, “In fact, not only did the Supreme Court in CCSD not say that personnel records are confidential, it said the opposite, requiring the records to be disclosed, albeit while recognizing some limited information may be withheld under some circumstances.”

Even if the county could justify keeping certain information confidential, it “is still required to redact the limited confidential information and produce the remainder of the documents,” he wrote.

He also wrote that the county cannot use its own code to limit the reach of the Nevada Public Records Act.

Logsdon responded, “The County understands that your client disagrees with the County and the other governmental entities when it comes to personnel records and personnel investigations. Unlike in CCSD v LVRJ, the subject of records requested is not an elected official, therefore, the balancing test favors confidentiality in this matter.”

In October, Lipman asked Logsdon to specify what records were being withheld. “We are concerned about the County’s continuing obfuscation of even the basic information of what records are being withheld.”

Logsdon responded that there are two confidential investigation summaries and records of 12 interviews.

In late October, she estimated it would take six weeks to review and redact communications related to the investigation.

Then in early December, she estimated the review would take another four weeks.

When Lipman asked for an explanation of why it was taking so long, she said the county was reviewing 2,500 emails that could be related to the investigation. And she expected the review would take another six weeks.

Lipman said about the county’s delays, “I think they are engaging in an effort to withhold as much information as they can and to delay providing records as long as they can, and I think they’re doing it in a way that is contrary to the law.”

Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook said the dispute puts a spotlight on a key shortcoming of the Nevada Public Records Act.

“If government officials dig in and can’t be persuaded to release public information, then a requestor’s last alternative is to file an expensive lawsuit,” Cook said. “In Southern Nevada especially, governments flagrantly misrepresent what the law says and requires and effectively say, ‘So sue us.’ And when governments lose in court, as they usually do, they initiate costly appeals at the public’s expense. So taxpayers lose twice. They’re denied information about the government they fund, then are stuck with hefty legal bills to try to keep that information secret.”

The “What Are They Hiding?” column was created to educate Nevadans about transparency laws, inform readers about Review-Journal coverage being stymied by bureaucracies and shame public officials into being open with the hardworking people who pay all of government’s bills. Were you wrongly denied access to public records? Share your story with us at whataretheyhiding@reviewjournal.com.

Contact Mary Hynes at mhynes@reviewjournal.com or at 702-383-0336. Follow @MaryHynes1 on X.