The alternative universe of Government World

On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, your elected representatives on the Clark County Commission and the Las Vegas City Council probably will decide on contracts with their respective firefighter unions. In all likelihood, the deliberations will be in secret. No need for you to know why your elected officials think your firefighters need your money more than you do.

Though a blatant snub to their constituents, the secrecy will be legal under the letter of the law.

Fought this battle already -- lost Little Big Horn-style.

A year ago I sent a letter to the state attorney general asking for an investigation of a closed meeting of the Clark County School Board to see whether its secret deliberations on a teacher union contract might violate the open meeting law. The board held a 27-minute discussion behind closed doors, then came into an open session and voted without discussion to approve amendments to the contract.

Despite the open meeting law stating elected boards exist to conduct the public's business and should do so openly, the Legislature decided that on this Animal Farm some animals are more equal than others and abide by different rules, or no rules at all.

Thus, Nevada Revised Statute 288 exempts union negotiations from "any provision" of the open meeting law.

No agenda. No prior notice. No minutes. Presumably they could vote in secret. I hope I'm not giving anyone any ideas there.

In response to my complaint, the attorney general wrote that the exemption in NRS 288 "is unambiguous and unconditional."

Of course, what the statute says is that "certain proceedings (are) not required to be open or public." It never says they must be closed. Want to bet whether a single commissioner or council member, most of whom were endorsed and supported by the firefighter unions, will offer a peep of concern about shutting out the taxpayers from their contract deliberations? I'll set the over/under at zero -- and take the under.

Welcome to Government World -- a cloistered, science fictional universe where a reduction in an increase is a decrease, where the cash cow never dries up, where Robin Hood robs from the poor and gives to the rich. You only get to see it through a knot-hole in the fence called the press.

While private-sector employees are being laid off, hours are being cut, tips jingle instead of crinkle, company health insurance is being dropped, home values are halved, 401(k) funds and stock market portfolios are evaporating, taxable sales are off 21.9 percent, gasoline and utility costs are rising -- we are told the proposed firefighter contracts "save" millions of dollars because they don't increase by as much as in the past.

If we lived in this alternative universe, we could save ourselves from debt by going on a shopping spree, because the store is having a sale.

The city's proposed firefighter contract, one ratified by 97 percent of the union members, does not contain a cost of living increase in wages in its first year. City Manager Betsy Fretwell boasted that this "saves" the city $1.5 million, because in the past the city has given cost of living adjustments amounting to 3.5 percent a year. (Never mind that the Consumer Price Index has actually fallen 1.4 percent in the past 12 months. No need to "adjust" for that.)

Since the city firefighters "saved" that money, the proposal on the table would increase the amount taxpayers pay toward firefighters' retirement and medical trust funds -- to the tune of $1.75 million.

The city will take up this contract proposal Wednesday. The county will take up its firefighter contract Tuesday.

The county's proposal would extend the current contract for two years and reduce the annual COLA from 3 percent to a paltry 2 percent (Did I mention the CPI is down 1.4 percent?), "saving" $1.2 million -- this in exchange for two extra days off a year, which would only cost taxpayers $1.3 million.

In Government World, firefighters retire in their 50s, some at more than 100 percent of base pay, a few with pensions exceeding $100,000 a year, while in the real world people look at that Social Security letter they get each year and calculate that if they retire at age 70 they might collect almost enough to cover the mortgage and part of the power bill.

In the real world, when a guy comes in demanding vigorish lest your house burn down, it is a protection racket. In Government World, it is "saving" money.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press and access to public records and meetings. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell.