No one in charge at agency appears to care about 94 missing computers

Say I walk into an office supply store after hours and haul off 94 new computers.

It's not like I stole a stapler or absconded with a ream of paper. By one estimate, it's approximately $200,000 worth of merchandise that has just disappeared. It's a loss that's bound to be noticed.

Say you're the store owner. You walk into your place of business and discover the missing computers.

What do you do?

Obviously, the first thing is to call the police and report the burglary. Then you'll probably check your invoices and pray your insurance will help offset the loss.

Either way, as the store owner, you're in for a hassle and a headache. You'll fill out a crime report, complete insurance forms and maybe even hire a private investigator to interview your employees. Even if insurance covers the theft, the loss has a financial impact on your business. Chances are good you'll have to work overtime to make up the difference.

That's what you do in the real world.

But that's not what happened when 94 new computers came up missing from the Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services Professional Development Center. As near as I've been able to determine, the only thing that happened was the employees who were supposed to receive new computers never got them.

It's what happened after the computers were discovered missing that has me wondering whether the state attorney general's office plans to meaningfully investigate the theft. It also begs the question of just how competent the structure of supervision is inside the Welfare Division.

After all, the missing computers aren't a secret. Their theft was repeatedly mentioned in anonymous letters filed by current state employees who are complaining about their supposedly hostile work environment. It appears that starting in February everyone from Gov. Jim Gibbons' office on down has received copies of the detailed and incendiary missives. I have obtained copies of the letters and have confirmed their source.

The letters accuse Division of Welfare Administrator Nancy Ford and Deputy Administrator Gary Stagliano of incompetent supervision and single out Stagliano for particular criticism. Ford was unavailable for comment, and Stagliano said the rules of his job precluded him from speaking on the subject. It was the same line used by the attorney general's office.

Here's the problem with not commenting on a substantial theft. It doesn't bring the computers back.

If 94 state computers can be stolen or otherwise misappropriated without the police being notified, then how will we lowly taxpayers have any confidence that Welfare Division supervisors are doing their jobs and not, as they stand accused, spending their days bullying the hired help?

It's a good question. The authors of the anonymous letters asked others.

"Where is the money coming from for the replacement?" they wrote. "A police report was not filed. Insurance claim was not billed due to the high deductible for claims. Did Nancy and Gary get approval for the replacement or take the money from our budget?"

While we're asking, was the person in charge of the computers reprimanded? Was that person's supervisor interviewed?

It would be easy to write off the whistle-blowers' concerns by acknowledging that such allegations fall under the umbrella of a confidential personnel matter, but the incident of the missing computers is more than that. If the facts are as the insiders have outlined, then it's a real-world crime that demands an investigation. Police reports are still public documents.

A simple call to police would seem like a logical starting point. That is, if anyone in authority at the division cares enough about the disappearance of approximately $200,000 in taxpayer-funded equipment to pick up the phone.

Short of a criminal investigation, then at the very least there should be a dated paper trail that shows employees, supervisors and administrators were aware of the missing computers and weighed their options before deciding not to report their absence to the authorities. Again, decisions reduced to paper (or e-mail for that matter.)

A simple AG's investigation would generate such documents -- if they exist. If they don't, then substantial changes are called for inside the state welfare department.

Here's the worst part.

Remember that business?

You really are the owner, but so far it appears no one has been minding your store.

John L. Smith's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.