County guardianship system a disgrace

To the editor:

I am in a state of shock after reading the article on Clark County’s private guardianship system (“The power to help, the power to abuse,” April 12 Review-Journal). I loved Nevada for its sunshine and care of elders. I bragged about this state for retirees. Little did I know what was going on behind closed doors. Disgusting.

To think so many people here have known about the guardianship system for years and kept their mouths shut about the corruption. It took one woman to bring this all to the front and demand it be told, and finally the newspaper brought it out, too. To find not even background checks are required to become a guardian? How crazy can you get to let this take place?

I thought I was safe and tried to prepare with a will and a trust to keep my children in the know, only to find out none of this would be any good because they live out of state. I am 82 years old, on oxygen and could trip and fall, and land myself in the hospital, then find myself taken over by a guardian, and there would be nothing my children could do to control it. The county-appointed guardian could spend my money and sell my house. This keeps sounding crazier by the minute.

Now the county gives garbage excuses — they didn’t know and complaints weren’t followed up on. Did county officials not have the guts to suggest we might change the laws? Was there payoff to the people who helped to implement this? The only suggestion I could give to seniors is to move out of state. (“Reconsideration of term limits won’t happen this year,” April 15 Review-Journal). Here are a few demagogic gems: “anti-democratic,” “Those two ideas have caused nothing but trouble …,” “the state would be immeasurably improved by their immediate repeal.”

Of course, Mr. Sebelius quotes state Sen. Tick Segerblom, an advocate for repealing term limits and also the poster child for why we need term limits, given that career politicians seem to run in his family.

No thanks, Mr. Sebelius, I don’t need any career, “smart, experienced lawmakers” who through patronage stay in office and line their own pockets at the expense of their constituents.

Actually, on second thought, perhaps the term limits amendment should be changed — from 12 years to six.