Ethics board decision may take a while

Erin Neff

Friday, Oct. 22, 1999 | 10:56 a.m.

Mayor Oscar Goodman got his first feel Thursday for the Las Vegas Ethics Review Board that will rule on his concern about appointing city employees to the City Council.

Although the ethics board set a special meeting for Nov. 4, it might need more than one meeting to render an opinion. Given that it took board members 15 minutes just to set the date for the special meeting, it could be December before the City Council gets an opinion.

Goodman raised his concern at Wednesday's City Council meeting, saying the two new appointments might constitute a conflict of interest.

The City Council then voted 3-2 to hold off on the appointments in order to seek an opinion from the appointed ethics board, which Goodman, elected in May, has never before dealt with.

The question is whether a city code requiring a two-year cooling off period for former city employees to act as lobbyists applied to the employees seeking appointment to the council.

Lawrence Weekly and Orlando Sanchez, who are both city employees, are considered the leading candidates for the appointments.

City attorney Brad Jerbic handed the ethics board a letter spelling out the question they are to consider.

"Would the appointment of a current city employee to a seat upon the City Council create a circumstance where performance of the new duties would constitute a violation of Las Vegas Municipal Code Sec. 2.51.06?" Jerbic's letter asked.

Even after Jerbic informed the board Thursday of the time constraints the council is facing to make the two appointments by Jan. 1, some board members suggested they hold their special meeting in December or January.

"We have to get this done," White reminded board members who were announcing upcoming vacation plans and days they had doctors' appointments.

City Clerk Roni Ronemus said if the ethics board comes to a determination about the issue at its Nov. 4 meeting, it would leave her enough time to include the board's decision on the Nov. 17 City Council agenda.

Councilmen Michael McDonald and Gary Reese -- who voted against Goodman's request to hold the appointments -- had hoped to reconsider the item in two weeks.

The opinion handed down by the review board will be binding, as it pertains to a future action by the council.

During his weekly press conference Thursday, Goodman said he sought the opinion both from a legal and philosophical standpoint. Legally, he was concerned about the city code.

Philosophically, he said, he had concerns about former city employees being asked to make a decision or approve the budget of a department for which they recently worked.

"It could cause a conflict of interest," Goodman said. He added that such a conflict might result in both favoritism or negativism.

"It always bugged me in my prior life (as a defense attorney) when people on the Gaming Control Board left and went to work for the casinos," Goodman said. "It's the same kind of bothersome philosophical issue." Analysis