THE R.V.:

Taxicab Authority plays fast and loose with open meeting law in administrator pick

Cabs wait in line to pick up passengers coming into McCarran Airport Monday, November 8, 2010.

VEGAS INC Coverage

Click to enlarge photo

Richard N. Velotta

Having covered the Nevada Taxicab Authority for years, nothing it does surprises me anymore.

The five-member board is arguably one of the most important tourism industry policy-makers because its representatives are on the front lines greeting tourists when they arrive in Las Vegas. Taxi drivers can deliver a great first impression as ambassadors to the city or they can set the tone for a bad trip.

The state board that regulates Clark County’s 16 taxi companies has been operating without an administrator since last fall when a frustrated Gordon Walker left the agency.

With a new state administration coming on board with the election of Gov. Brian Sandoval, it made sense to delay selection of an administrator.

In the meantime, a new chairman, Ileana Drobkin, and a new member, Joseph Hardy, were appointed to the authority. They joined John Marushok and Joshua Miller, who had less than two years’ experience on the board, and Robert Forbuss, the most experienced member.

Forbuss then cited health reasons for leaving the board and former State Sen. Dennis Nolan was appointed in his place.

Today, the majority of the board has less than six months’ experience and longest-tenured members have never been through the process of hiring an administrator.

And what a process it is.

The board is required to interview candidates for the job in a public meeting.

Earlier this year, the board decided that a list of 12 applicants wasn’t extensive enough and requested that the job be reposted statewide to get more people to consider.

More applications came in and the final list had 70 names.

At the Taxicab Authority’s April 5 meeting, the agenda included “discussion with the following individuals concerning their qualifications for the position of administrator of the Taxicab Authority” and then listed the 70 applicants.

The candidates were directed to a room out of earshot of the board meeting. Can you imagine? Seventy candidates in business suits, waiting in a room for their chance to dazzle the board with their ideas on how to lead the Taxicab Authority.

Meanwhile, everybody in the board room was thinking, “If they take five minutes with each candidate, we’ll be here for almost six hours.”

When that item came up, Drobkin asked her colleagues to name their top candidate for the job. Each board member ticked off his favorites. Then, she asked for their No. 2 picks. Then their No. 3 picks. Because there were some duplications, the list ultimately had 10 finalists.

Imagine the reaction of the 70 people in suits in the separate room when told that 60 of them, after waiting an hour, could go home without even having an interview. One of the 60 took the time to enter the public meeting and tell Drobkin what he thought of the process. Then, he stormed out.

Next came the really tricky part – interviewing the candidates individually in the public meeting without them hearing each other’s answers. That, of course, would be impossible.

All the candidates were brought into the meeting. When Drobkin said the candidates would be sent back to the room and interviewed one by one, I couldn’t take it anymore and told her I felt that process would be a violation of the open meeting law.

She consulted briefly with the assistant attorney general that advises the board and told the candidates that she couldn’t force them to leave, but she asked them to anyway as a “professional courtesy.” Then came the moment of truth – would the candidates stay en masse or would they capitulate? I guess if you want a job badly enough, you’ll do anything, including allowing a public board’s chairman to play fast and loose with a state law.

One of the candidates apparently had second thoughts about what he was getting himself into and left. The board eventually interviewed nine candidates, asking each the same questions.

In the end, the board voted to forward the names of David G. Day, a managing partner of AMW Construction Supply, Phoenix, a former managing partner of DCS Construction Supply in Las Vegas; Charles D. Harvey, the stimulus director for the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act working in Sandoval’s office; and Jose G. Troncoso, who worked as the vice president of security and surveillance at Primm Valley Resorts until July 2010, and was a former U.S. marshal in Las Vegas and chief of police of the North Las Vegas Police Department.

The head of the Nevada Department of Business & Industry is expected to choose the new administrator from that field.

The new administrator will have some big issues on his plate in the coming months, like recommending for or against rate increases, balancing the needs of the riding public, cab company owners and drivers and the complicated issue of long-hauling passengers.

Hopefully, he’ll also have time educate the board about abiding by the spirit of the open meeting law.

Business

Share