June 2017 was a very good month for Las Vegas City Councilwoman Michele Fiore.

On the 13th, Fiore narrowly defeated Kelli Ross to win election in Ward 6. She celebrated the victory with champagne, but her party was just getting started.

Within days, fortune again smiled upon Fiore, this time in the form of campaign contributions from a variety of sources who do business with the city. To no surprise, that generosity included a flurry of $5,000 checks totaling $30,000 from ubiquitous attorney and City Hall lobbyist Jay Brown.

We know this because, in keeping with Nevada law, Fiore on Jan. 16 filed the appropriate Contributions and Expenses report with Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske’s office. Fiore didn’t fall short of the statute.

Nor did her new council colleague Steven Seroka. After he knocked off incumbent Bob Beers in a bitter fight in Ward 2, a parade of contributors stepped up to bolster the victor’s campaign coffers. That included $30,000 from trash behemoth Republic Services and related companies, and $15,000 from the City Hall lobbying veterans at Kaempfer Crowell.

A scandal? Hardly. But most of the public had to wait six months to find out about it.

From all appearances, the council newbies met every element of the law. But that’s just the problem. While a candidate must file multiple C&E reports during the campaign, in the case of the council races there’s a six-month lapse between Election Day and the time that final report is due.

And half a year is a long time to collect contributions, make new acquaintances and rekindle old friendships at City Hall. The Las Vegas City Council isn’t unique. Members of the Clark County Commission and other local government elected officials enjoy similar holidays from scrutiny because, when not in an election year, an annual report is all that’s required.

City Council members, for example, can collect checks from those who come before them without the nosy press or skeptical constituents knowing for months -- long after decisions have been made and contentious votes are no longer newsworthy. A lack of timely transparency only fuels suspicion.

Take the controversial 4-3 vote in November to repeal the city’s attempt to ban the sale by pet stores of dogs from breeders in favor of those from animal care and rescue facilities. There were credible arguments on either side of the issue, including the facts that it wouldn’t really eliminate puppy mills and that the ordinance only targeted pet stores in the city.

But when Fiore joined Seroka, the soon-to-be disgraced Ricki Barlow and Mayor Carolyn Goodman in the majority, it was sure to grab the attention of pet lovers and animal rights activists. One of the stores due to be affected by the ban had been represented by the indefatigable Mr. Brown.

Brown obviously knows how to play the game. I suspect he wrote the rules. (Rumor is when he receives a key to the city, it actually fits all the locks.) A lot of longtime City Hall watchers would simply call this politics as usual. Nothing to see here.

But without the improved transparency that comes with increased campaign finance reporting, the public, press and pet lovers are left baying the moon.

City Councilman Bob Coffin says fundraising is a political reality and not nearly as suspicious as it sometimes seems. Although he suspects not as many voters are as interested in the ebb and flow of contributions as journalists might think, he likes the idea of greater reporting if only to increase the public’s confidence in the process.

“I wouldn’t object to that,” Coffin says. “Although monthly is probably too often, something more than annual makes sense. Reporting is a good thing.”

It doesn’t, he notes, do anything to slow the flow of so-called dark money into campaigns from sources tucked behind limited liability companies. “Remember,” Coffin adds, “only the honest stuff gets reported.”

Although a new law set to take effect Jan. 1, 2019 mandates quarterly reporting by candidates in an election year, the annual requirement remains for the remainder of the term. That made me wonder whether, perhaps, the secretary of state’s office lacked the capability to process more C&E reports.

But that’s not the case.

Deputy Secretary for Elections Wayne Thorley says that thanks to its use of the AURORA Campaign Finance Disclosure system, there’s no problem handling increased filings.

“Whether they file a report once a day or once a year, the system can handle that,” Thorley says. “The AURORA system allows candidates and public officers to file required reports with our office without having to send something through the mail or fax it. The system is available 24/7. They can file at 2 in the morning or on a Sunday afternoon. It doesn’t require someone to be on the secretary of state’s end to receive it. A change in the filing schedule is not going to have an impact on us from a technical standpoint.”

It would, however, create the need for the secretary of state’s office to increase the number of personnel devoted to ensuring candidates actually comply with the filing requirements. Sounds like money well spent to me. Right now the office devotes just one full-time position to compliance for all of Nevada.

There’s nothing illegal about the annual reporting lapse, but the political optics are awful. The perception of pay-to-play is hard to deny.

The state’s technology is sound. It appears the only people preventing an improved campaign finance system are those who benefit most from those long stretches of time between filing deadlines.

It’s something that should leave taxpayers howling for real-time reporting transparency.