Gates challenges ethics rule in court

Adrienne Packer

Friday, Oct. 2, 1998 | 11:27 a.m.

Months after being the focal point of a state Ethics Commission probe, Clark County Commission Chairwoman Yvonne Atkinson Gates counter-attacked, taking legal action against the high-profile board.

Gates' attorney Daniel Polsenberg is challenging the ethics panel's August opinion, which was widely criticized after it failed to offer elected officials guidance on when to abstain from voting on issues involving friends.

Polsenberg said the panel's opinion was based on a statute that is unconstitutionally vague. The attorney is requesting the court toss the ethics statute out or provide a clearer definition.

"We want to get a determination from the court that the statute is unconstitutional, so they will pass a better one," Polsenberg said Thursday. "The constitution requires that statutes are better than murky."

If newly appointed District Court Judge Mark Denton sides with Gates, the ruling that she violated ethics laws could be overturned and the function of the Ethics Commission could be restricted.

The commission could appeal the decision in Supreme Court or asked the Legislature to rewrite the vague clauses of the statute. Regardless of the outcome, Polsenberg is confident new laws will be written in 1999.

The Ethics Commission's debated ruling dates back to June, when it determined that Gates and fellow county commissioner Lance Malone violated ethics laws by promoting, then voting for friends applying for concession space at McCarren International Airport's new D terminal.

In August, the ethics panel released its finding, which did not clearly state when elected officials should disclose relationships or abstain from voting on issues that involve friends.

The Ethics Commission's long-awaited opinion blasted Gates and Malone, but it never provided specific guidelines for government officials who lately have become too skittish to vote on certain projects.

"The courts could throw out the findings of the Ethics Commission entirely or the court could say, 'Here's what the statute really means,' " Polsenberg said. "We filed a petition for judicial review. All it means is 'Please take a look at this case.' In my legal opinion, that statute is bad."

Polsenberg said if a statute prohibits a behavior, but doesn't clearly say what that behavior is, it should be deemed unconstitutional.

"The Commission admits that the Legislature 'could have,' but did not, 'specifically design those types of interpersonal interests or relationships,' which would trigger the application of the statutes," Polsenberg wrote in the lawsuit filed Monday.

Polsenberg said his and Gates' intent is not to derail the Ethics Commission.

"We're not trying to put them out of a job; the Ethics Commission serves a very important purpose," he said. "We'll probably go to Supreme Court (on an appeal) no matter who wins. We'll get direction either way."

The lawsuit asks that Gates be reimbursed for her costs and attorney fees incurred. It also requests the commission chairwoman be given further relief, but does not elaborate.