Authority trying to change subject

In late 2007, as the Nevada Policy Research Institute was gearing up a broad transparency-in-government initiative, the opportunity arose for the institute and other state-based think tanks to obtain national funding to pursue state and local investigative reporting projects.

Key facets of the transparency initiative in 2008 eventually would include the Nevada Piglet Book, which documents local and state government waste, and the TransparentNevada.com Web site, which together involved more than 100 public records requests.

As the investigative reporting opportunity presented itself, the question became: What part of Nevada government most needed sunlight? And one candidate seemed a natural: the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, which consumes a massive amount of taxpayer money -- some $284 million last year -- while operating free from any genuine oversight.

Thus the institute decided that, in the interest of open government, the convention authority warranted a closer examination. And, sure enough, much of the documentation provided in response to the public records requests -- available along with the institute's detailed report at www.npri.org -- suggests even more public scrutiny is needed.

Sadly, but predictably, as details of convention authority finances have come to light, the strategy of its officers -- and of some of its allies in the media -- has been to try to shift focus away from the substance of the institute's findings and onto the institute itself.

Some have suggested that because the Nevada Policy Research Institute counts Las Vegas Sands Corp. among its supporters, that must mean, ipso facto, that the institute must have undertaken the project solely at the direction of Las Vegas Sands Chairman Sheldon Adelson, a vocal critic of the authority.

The institute receives support from Las Vegas Sands. Company President and Chief Operating Officer Bill Weidner sits on the institute's board of directors, and The Venetian has in recent years hosted the institute's annual dinner. Yet anyone familiar with the Nevada Policy Research Institute would immediately recognize the absurdity of the charge that the institute, through its convention authority transparency project, is doing any one man's bidding.

For starters, the institute has existed for nearly 18 years as a public policy outfit devoted to the pursuit of responsible government in Nevada. That the institute today would scrutinize a government entity such as the convention authority is entirely consistent with its mission since its founding, years before Mr. Weidner was a supporter. To put it simply: This is just what we do.

Second, this project was supported by national funding. To our knowledge, the source of the national funding has no connection with Nevada at all, but is simply interested in supporting the cause of government transparency.

Some are asking: Why doesn't the Nevada Policy Research Institute disclose its donors in order to "clear the air"? The reason is simple: Those who contribute to the institute do so with the understanding that they can, if they choose, remain anonymous, and the institute has an ethical obligation to respect that. Donors alone decide whether they want to go public.

Furthermore, there is a practical reason why the Internal Revenue Code does not require nonprofit, 501(c)3 organizations like the Nevada Policy Research Institute to disclose funding sources: Anonymity encourages charitable giving. Those who wish to contribute to nonprofit organizations certainly would be more reluctant to do so if they knew their contributions were going to be publicized.

Consider: In the days following the release of this project, multiple private investigators visited the institute's offices requesting our financial statements and claiming to be working for "the other side." Some of our board members have been approached with broad hints about retaliation if the institute's look into convention authority financing proceeds. Public disclosure of our donors would open virtually every one of them to similar intimidation tactics.

Some critics have thrown hypocrisy charges at us, in that we champion open government yet won't release our own donor information. This is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison. The Nevada Policy Research Institute is a private organization, whose donors give their support voluntarily. No one who does not agree with its mission is compelled to give us money.

The convention authority, however, is a public entity, which citizens are forced to fund through taxation. It is thoroughly disingenuous to equate support for open government with an obligation to abrogate the rights of average citizens to a personal zone of privacy.

Efforts to make this story about the Nevada Policy Research Institute ought to be recognized for what they really are: attempts to change the subject. This tactic is typical of those, particularly in government, who have been caught engaging in questionable practices and want to avoid difficult questions.

Nevada's citizens should beware this red herring. For despite its recently released "LVCVA Accountability Report," which consisted primarily of bland, non-denial denials, the convention authority still has failed to address the central questions that the Nevada Policy Research Institute's report -- relying on the convention authority's own public documents -- raises. Nevadans should not let them get away with it.

Steven Miller is vice president for policy at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.