Should taxpayers get the bill for political ambition?

It's nothing new in the political arena. Politician 'A' serves in an elected position, sees an opportunity to advance to a more prestigious political position and announces a bid to seek it.

But there is one catch: Politician 'A' has sworn a public oath, one that is legally binding in all governmental matters, to serve that same public, but now wants to depart the position with years left on the term.

There's a potentially high cost to the public for that personal ambition: The possibility of a special election.

That scenario played out twice in Southern Nevada over the past few weeks, once in Henderson and, most recently, in North Las Vegas, with the taxpayers dodging fiscal bullets.

In June, Henderson City Councilman Andy Hafen, a Democrat, and North Las Vegas City Councilwoman Shari Buck, a Republican, were elevated to the mayor's offices of their respective municipalities. Each had to resign their council positions to accept the new jobs, creating vacancies on their councils.

Those positions had to be filled to represent the people who were, however briefly, without representation. This is typically done via a special election, triggering a process that can be quite costly. Henderson, for example, estimated its cost at $180,000, whereas North Las Vegas' special election likely would have been somewhat cheaper based on population estimates.

In Henderson and North Las Vegas, each city council faced a choice: a) appoint a bona fide resident from that district to serve the remainder of Hafen's and Buck's terms, or b) hold a special election. Each council chose the first option, with Henderson's appointing UNLV administrator and former Henderson Planning Commissioner Debra March to Hafen's Ward 2 seat, and North Las Vegas' appointing community activist Richard Cherchio to Buck's Ward 4 seat.

This first option, however, is manifestly less democratic than the second. And what if each city council had chosen the more democratic route of a special election? Should we the people ask the departing incumbents to reimburse the city, the taxpayer, for some percentage of the total cost of this special election? I think this is a question worth asking.

Those who would object that this constitutes a fine for incumbents who seek higher office should consider the following: These are politicians who swore a public oath to faithfully execute the duties of office, and freely chose to prematurely terminate those duties.

These elected officials swore an oath, not a mere utterance or casual off-the-cuff remark, but a solemn promise -- legally binding -- to serve faithfully in office. In part, this course of action may call into question the original oath, where it often reads "I will bear true faith, allegiance ...", "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion ... discharge the duties of the office of which I am about to enter." Did the candidate plan on leaving the original office mid-term to seek higher office and thereby violate part of an oath?

Second, the vast majority of elected officials have significant "war chests" to help them seek higher office. A quick look at OpenSecrets.org or the secretary of state's office can confirm who has what. It would not be unreasonable to ask that some percentage of this war chest go to pay for at least part of the cost of a special election. Requiring candidates to pay reasonable sums for parts of the election process is commonplace, from filing fees to recounts (which also recently occurred in Henderson and Las Vegas), to fines for late filing and even data mining.

Political ambition itself is not necessarily an inexcusable goal, nor is seeking a higher office. And although it did not occur in the recent cases in Henderson and North Las Vegas because the remaining city council members chose appointments, and not special elections, would it be the responsible act for those same mid-term elected officials seeking a different office to offset some portion of the special election costs that the public will bear because of political ambition?

For the moment, we have to vet whether the Henderson City Council's use of Robert's Rules of Order for parliamentary procedures will stand up to criticism of the secret ballot process used to narrow the field of candidates seeking appointment.

But then, should the ambitious pay -- or the public?

Martin Dean Dupalo is an instructor in UNLV's Department of Political Science.