Ethics case against constable dismissed

Adrienne Packer

Monday, May 24, 1999 | 10:13 a.m.

The case that prompted state ethics commissioners to recommend time limits be added to Nevada's new ethics law ended Friday when Henderson Constable Earl Mitchell narrowly escaped punishment for a statement he made against his opponent last year.

David Burress, who lost to incumbent Mitchell, filed a complaint with the Ethics Commission in January saying he lost votes because Mitchell told newspaper reporters that Burress would have to lay off deputies if he made the constable job a full-time position as he proposed.

The article that included Mitchell's statement was published Oct. 27 and Burress said he had no time to publicly offer a rebuttal before the election Nov. 3.

State law prohibits candidates from knowingly making false statements about their opponents, but Ethics Commission Chairwoman Mary Boetsch said the law is not effective if the questionable statement is reported after the election.

"The purpose of this law was to nip them in the bud when they happened, not hear about them two or three months later," Boetsch said, adding that she hopes the new law will require candidates to file a complaint with 10 days of the comment.

During the campaign for constable, Burress said he planned to work full time so he can be more accessible to the public. Mitchell told reporters that if Burress worked 40 hours a week, he would reduce the workload for deputies and lay-offs would occur.

Mitchell told Boetsch that he made the statement assuming that Burress would attempt to make as much money as other full-time constables in Clark County. The Las Vegas constable makes $72,000 a year and the North Las Vegas constable makes $66,000.

Burress, however, said he never mentioned how much money he would make. He said he would be perfectly content earning between $20,000 and $30,000.

After hearing testimony from both men, Boetsch emphasized that comments made during campaigns are political speech and protected by the First Amendment.

"The political arena is not for the faint of heart or the thin of skin," she told Burress.

Then she warned Mitchell that by making assumptions about Burress' plans should he take office, he came close to violating the law.

The man critical to the case, a constable's deputy who told Mitchell that Burress informed him he would indeed lay off deputies, was not at the commission meeting Friday. Ironically, the two men who specialize in subpoenaing witnesses -- Burress and Mitchell -- failed to subpoena the deputy.