Open evaluations

Back in 2005, state Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, sponsored a new law that requires the public evaluation of top county employees, as well as city officials, schools superintendents, university presidents and the university system chancellor. Those who serve at the pleasure of an elected body ought to have their performance reviews conducted in a public forum, Sen. Care figured.

But now the Nevada Association of Counties -- an outfit that lobbies on behalf of county officials -- has decided this "experiment in open government" has gone on long enough. They want the 2009 Legislature to repeal that law, once again allowing closed-door evaluations of county managers, fire chiefs and other top at-will employees.

"My board certainly respects and believes in open government," says Jeff Fontaine, executive director of the association, by which we must understand him to mean, "But not when it applies to them."

"It's just this particular case with this aspect of the open meeting law," Mr. Fontaine continues. "While they felt in theory it may be good, in practice it sometimes creates an environment where boards are put in a position they can't be as forthright and honest in their evaluation of their top at-will employees."

It's easy to understand this way of thinking. In a military hierarchy, for instance, it's traditional for the colonel to back up the captain and his decisions in front of the troops, on the theory that it would diminish respect and therefore the pattern of unquestioned obedience to let the enlisted men witness a difference of opinion among the higher ranks.

It's an easy and tempting comparison. But it's fatally flawed.

Nevada's voters and taxpayers are not "troops." We're in charge. Those in government have powers only because those powers have been delegated to them, voluntarily, by us.

These public officials, in turn, accept this form of employment -- with salaries and benefit and retirement packages far in excess of what most taxpayers can ever hope for -- knowing full well the "down side" is that they're servants of the public, that their conduct in office will be constantly subject to public scrutiny, comment and review.

This tendency to "make nice," "not to rock the boat," etc., tends to filter right down the line. Again and again we've seen investigations track back to inspections not conducted, required changes not made, at which point, what happens? Does the county or city manager or schools superintendent wade in -- disciplining, demoting or firing as necessary?

Sometimes. But far too often the long-suffering public is told "the contract" makes that impossible.

Instead, you taxpayers can keep paying the bills, as the miscreants on the public payroll get a slap on the wrist and a warning not to let it happen again.

Praise and raises all around are nice, when deserved. But often, a little more tough talk is in order. And that has to start at the top -- in the open.