Ethics report enrages Gates

Thursday, Aug. 27, 1998 | 10:44 a.m.

Clark County Commission Chairwoman Yvonne Atkinson Gates, battling a recall drive, lashed out at the Nevada Ethics Commission today after the panel issued a decision highly critical of her conduct in office.

"They're not giving us guidance," Gates said. "That's not what the Ethics Commission does. The Ethics Commission is a means to destroy people who care about this community, people who have spent years working in this community, who are trying to make a difference."

Gates said the only way to clear up confusion over recent Ethics Commission decisions is for the Nevada Legislature to review the panel's authority.

In a 30-page decision, the Ethics Commission on Wednesday again lambasted Gates and County Commissioner Lance Malone for politicizing the selection of D-Gates concessionaires at McCarran International Airport last August.

"A process that was designed to be apolitical and merit-based was rendered entirely political and cronyism-based by Ms. Gates with her little list," the written opinion said.

The panel in June found that Gates and Malone had violated ethics laws by promoting and then voting for D Gate concession contracts for friends and associates. Gates has acknowledged putting together a list of preferred concessionaires during the selection process.

Gates today said her critics were unfairly picking on her.

"How can I, as only one commissioner influence a system that has been in place for years?" Gates asked. "It's always been done that way."

Gates said she has received hundreds of phone calls from constituents who want an end to the attacks on her integrity.

"People are tired of this," Gates said. "They want me to do my job."

Gates said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. was flying to Las Vegas today as a sign of solidarity.

Waters is going to help Gates turn in the names of 500 people who want to withdraw their signatures from petitions to recall the county commissioner from office. Waters is chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The Ethics Commission's opinion, meanwhile, did not, as promised, clear up confusion over when elected officials should abstain from voting on matters relating to friends.

The panel heightened the standards earlier this month, when it found that City Councilman Gary Reese had violated the law by not abstaining on a vote involving a friend.

Reese, who had disclosed the nature of his friendship before the vote, has vowed to fight to overturn the commission's decision. A written opinion in that case isn't expected for two months.

In the meantime, the City Council and the City Attorney's Office have publicly expressed their bewilderment over the Reese decision, which they believe appears contrary to the intent of the ethics law. The council Monday suspended a busy zoning meeting over the confusion.

The Ethics Commission, in its written opinion, was critical of D Gate selection process, calling it "repugnant and reprehensible."

"In this matter, we can understand the sense of frustration and outrage expressed by several of the unsuccessful applicants because they literally never had a chance," the opinion said. "The witnesses who expressed concern that the concession-awarding process was political were sadly right: all the evidence showed just how political, and therefore unfair, the process was."

The ethics panel recommended the county conduct a "comprehensive review" of its contracting process and develop a system where county commissioners can't "taint or skew" the process.

The panel also recommended that the county install a system of safeguards to help the commissioner determine potential conflicts of interest in matters coming before them.