Editorial: Who’s minding the store?

Every now and then, particularly when it comes to taxpayer money, there comes a story highlighting so many failures that the biggest failure of all can get lost in the shuffle. Such is the case with Clark County consultant Tom Akers.

As reported Monday by the Review-Journal’s Ben Botkin, Mr. Akers borrowed $22,500 from Emerson Kruger. It’s been almost a year since Mr. Akers received the first two installments on that loan, and Mr. Kruger has yet to be repaid any of it. But the loan is only part of this fiasco.

Mr. Kruger met Mr. Akers while attending a series of free classes called the Business Opportunity and Workforce Development program. It’s a county endeavor overseen by Mr. Akers and intended to teach small and minority-owned businesses how to bid for and obtain county contracts.

Mr. Akers must qualify as an expert in this area given that he himself succeeded in landing a two-year $227,000 county contract to direct the classes.

Imagine that.

But shortly after those classes ended in April 2015, Mr. Akers started shaking down Mr. Kruger for money. Email records and text messages show that Mr. Akers said he’d help Mr. Kruger’s scooter rental business, Las Vegas Scooter, secure a McCarran International Airport contract in exchange for a $50,000 loan. That solicitation fell through, so Mr. Akers agreed to a $22,500 loan and promised to pay it back in full by the end of 2015.

But the end of 2015 came and went, Mr. Kruger is still owed $22,500 — and he didn’t get the county contract.

It gets better — or worse, if you’re a taxpayer.

Mr. Akers told Mr. Kruger that his failure to repay the loan was tied to an IRS levy on his county account. Indeed, Mr. Botkin found that public records show the IRS sent the county a levy for nearly $38,000 in November 2015, seeking back taxes owed from 2009 and 2012. Further, a separate levy was filed against Mr. Akers for $65,831 in October 2015 in connection with a lawsuit over unpaid rent for offices he used prior to moving into county property. And the county itself sued Mr. Akers in 2014, seeking $58,000 in unpaid back rent on office space, but agreed to drop that action and keep Mr. Akers on as a consultant if he would put his entire monthly consulting fee — $9,500 — toward paying off the debt, which the county says he has now fulfilled.

If you find this hard to follow, join the crowd. But let’s cut to the chase: Why was Clark County paying Mr. Akers anything in the first place?

Given Mr. Akers’ history, how does the county justify his current two-year, $227,550 consulting contract, which — as Mr. Botkin noted in a January report — is the most recent in a line of business arrangements since 2007? The current deal expires June 30, and the county says it doesn’t plan to renew. Thank goodness for a rare fit of common sense amid this ethical quagmire.

This whole arrangement wreaks of an obvious juice job. County officials say they will now have their own staff members conduct the training, which raises the question of why that wasn’t their approach in the first place.

In the irony of ironies, the “business opportunity” classes were also intended to teach good business practices, including cash-flow management. It appears there are a few folks down at the Clark County Government Center who would do well to learn such concepts themselves.