Personal relationship definition stalls lawmakers on ethics debate

Adrienne Packer

Wednesday, March 31, 1999 | 11:06 a.m.

Ethics bills, carefully crafted after elected officials complained that vague laws and mischievous complainants led to a year of ethics-related scandals, were finally presented to legislators Tuesday.

And quickly becoming the point of contention during the Senate Government Affairs Committee hearing was an element of the ethics law that troubled elected officials most: the definition of a personal relationship.

Three proposals submitted by the Nevada Ethics Commission, Sen. Ann O'Connell, R-Las Vegas, and Gov. Kenny Guinn likely will be melded into one with Guinn's bill the foundation of the new law.

While Tuesday's hearing was important enough to lure Guinn to attend, it quickly became clear that no law will completely satisfy lawmakers until the definition of a personal relationship is established.

Like the current state statute, one provision in Guinn's proposal says an elected official should abstain from a vote if the applicant is someone "with whom he has a substantial and continuing business or personal relationship; or any other similar commitment or relationship."

Elected officials have publicly criticized the phrase "personal relationship," asking whether it means a friend of 20 years or two years or an occasional golf partner or somebody who briefly worked on a campaign.

And on Tuesday, members of the Senate committee agreed the language is too obscure.

"This is over the line," said Sen. Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas. "Until you can define it down and tell me what I can and cannot do ... whatever constitutes a long-term relationship is up to the Ethics Commission and the people in Salem who did the witch hunt because I don't know where I am."

Guinn legal adviser Scott Scherer -- who did all the talking for the governor -- suggested scrapping the phrase from the statute. The idea was also endorsed by Clark County Commission Chairman Bruce Woodbury.

But Ethics Commission chairwoman Mary Boetsch, who presided over the county's most controversial cases last year, argued strongly against it.

"It would be counterproductive in the extreme," said Boetsch, who emphasized that people know when a relationship is influencing their decision. "Striking that language will bring the excuse that it's not a business relationship, so therefore, you can't touch me. I guarantee that will happen."

The Ethics Commission supports Guinn's bill, which primarily focuses on hiring more staff and implementing penalties of up to $25,000 for elected officials who violate the ethics code.

Although he has yet to provide funding for the positions, Guinn proposes hiring full-time legal counsel and an executive director who would toss out frivolous complaints and filter third-party questions often posed to embarrass the person under investigation during ethics hearings.

To prevent ethics probes from being used as a political tool, which was common during last year's campaign season, Boetsch suggested the Ethics Commission be allowed to offer "middle ground" rulings.

She used an example brought up by Sen. Jon Porter, R-Boulder City, who recalled an ethics ruling that was devastating to former Boulder City Councilwoman Iris Bletsch's political reputation.

Following the advice of a city attorney, Bletsch disclosed she had stock in a company that came before the City Council, but she was later found in violation of ethics codes for not fully disclosing the number of shares she held.

Bletsch did something wrong, but it wasn't a clear violation.

"When we make a determination, we have no control over what people do with them; politics have become very mean spirited," Boetsch said. "Maybe a solution is to find some middle road."

The extent to which one must disclose was another controversial point. Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said fully disclosing a relationship to the point of revealing how many shares of stock one has in a company is too personal.

That, coupled with Guinn's proposed fine schedule -- which ranges from $5,000 for an elected official's first offense to $25,000 for the third offense -- will scare people away from serving on a board, he said.

"I needn't tell you it is hard to find people to serve on these boards," Raggio said. "They get paid nothing and they already have to fill out a financial disclosure form. I know people who just don't want to serve because they don't want to get caught up in all this."

Two Nevada residents opposed the ethics bills, which were tabled by the committee after Tuesday's four-hour hearing. Janine Hansen, president of Nevada Eagle Forum, called the proposals unconstitutional and said the suggested penalties are too tough.

"These are incredible penalties to place on somebody who may have made a mistake," she said. "If you want the public to stop participating in government, this is the way to do it."