Local docs critical to chancellor’s care
To the editor:
I would like to respond to Libby Hoover’s Thursday letter regarding my husband, university system Chancellor Jim Rogers, and his upcoming surgery for bladder cancer.
The cancer was discovered during a routine test by an excellent Las Vegas urologist. Jim subsequently underwent various tests at a local radiology facility to determine the extent of the problem and the options for the best outcome. He and his local general practitioner (who will be traveling with us) consulted with bladder cancer specialists around the country, most importantly a world-renowned research specialist at The Nevada Cancer Institute.
They all agreed that Dr. Eila Skinner at the USC School of Medicine was the surgeon he should see because she performs more of these complicated operations than anyone in the country.
What we have learned from this experience is that the practice of good medicine requires knowledge, skill, practice, and above all, wisdom and judgment. Jim has the optimum chance for successful surgery, full recovery, and a fulfilling life because our wonderful Las Vegas doctors exercised the latter.
Beverly Rogers
LAS VEGAS
Voting record
To the editor:
In Molly Ball’s Wednesday story (“Conservatives seek support in LV”), former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay suggested that had Rep. Jon Porter received the support of a group like the one he intends to found, the congressman would not have voted for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Does that mean Rep. Porter changes his positions to expedite his political desires?
As reported previously, Rep. Porter’s support for President Bush has drastically diminished since he now has a most credible opponent for his 3rd Congressional District seat. Is this known as the chameleon process during a campaign?
Earle Malkin
LAS VEGAS
Real savings?
To the editor:
A Jan. 25 Review-Journal headline claimed that repealing project labor agreements (PLAs) on public construction projects “could save millions” and increase competition. The article quotes Kara Kelley of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce as saying PLAs probably add 30 percent or 40 percent to a project’s cost that could be better used for other projects that would benefit Southern Nevadans such as highway improvements.
The evidence does not support Ms. Kelley’s conjecture. A recent study by labor economists Dale Belman from Michigan State University, Matthew Bodah of the University of Rhode Island and Peter Philips from the University of Utah examined the impact of PLAs on costs of construction and the number of bidders, among other things. They found no difference in construction costs attributable to PLAs.
The researchers compiled information on 108 school projects in the New England area, 10 of which were built under a PLA. After holding constant other differences in the school construction projects that could affect total cost — such as the size and location of the school and whether it is an elementary school or high school — the authors found no statistically significant difference in construction costs for schools built under PLAs.
The article also quotes Warren Hardy, president of Southern Nevada’s Associated Builders and Contractors: “One thing that’s a fact is it’s [repealing the PLAs] going to increase competition.” The evidence compiled by Mr. Belman, Mr. Bodah and Mr. Philips suggests otherwise.
In a study of 164 school projects in San Jose, 21 of which were built under PLAs, the researchers found that the number of bidders was no different for PLA and non-PLA schools. The number of bidders appeared to be more sensitive to the general level of construction activity in the area than whether the project was covered under a PLA.
There is no guarantee that experiences with PLAs in New England and San Jose will be applicable to Nevada. But the evidence that is out there does suggest that getting rid of PLAs will not save much money or increase competition.
Jeff Waddoups
LAS VEGAS
THE WRITER IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN UNLV’S DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS.
Free speech
To the editor:
I had an interesting experience after reading Nat Hentoff’s First Amendment column in Tuesday’s Review-Journal (“The right from which all others flow”).
The First Amendment really is in trouble, and while I know there isn’t much I can do about it, I decided I’d take a couple of minutes and call Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign and ask them to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy’s “hate thoughts” bill.
The interesting part is in the response I got. I will not say I was brushed off. That would not be accurate. Perfunctory would be the next best description.
Neither staff member had read the article and neither one expressed any interest in it. Both told me they would “pass on my concerns,” but neither one asked for my name or contact information.
I know these folks are busy and I don’t expect them to fall all over themselves, but Nat Hentoff is a name they should know, and it just seems to me a little more inquisitiveness about the article was in order.
The greatest threat to the First Amendment may not be in the blatant attacks on it by people such as Sen. Kennedy, but the near total indifference to it by his colleagues and their staffs.
I felt worse about the fate of the First after the phone calls than I did after I read the article.
KNIGHT ALLEN
LAS VEGAS
