Ethics panel to appeal ruling on Gates

Adrienne Packer

Thursday, Sept. 16, 1999 | 12:06 p.m.

The Nevada Ethics Commission is expected Friday to appeal a Washoe County judge's decision to overturn a ruling that a Clark County commissioner illegally helped friends secure airport concession contracts.

Seemingly putting an end to the 15-month-old case, District Judge Jerome Polaha ruled two weeks ago that state ethics laws that Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates was said to have violated were unconstitutionally vague.

Polaha's decision was applauded by Atkinson Gates and her attorney, Daniel Polsenberg, but the ruling has since been disputed by state officials and ethics experts.

Scott Scherer, general counsel for Gov. Kenny Guinn, is encouraging the Ethics Commission to appeal Polaha's decision and said the ethics laws were not so vague that politicians wouldn't know they were doing something wrong.

"They were broad enough to apply to the conduct," Scherer said.

The Atkinson Gates case goes back nearly two years when McCarran International Airport administrators were considering Disadvantaged Business Enterprise applicants for the airport's new D concourse.

Most Clark County commissioners were asked to recommend applicants they felt were most qualified -- Atkinson Gates was the only board member to submit her recommendations in writing. Among the applicants Atkinson Gates recommended were Michael Chambliss and Judy Klein. Atkinson Gates had known Chambliss for 17 years, and he worked on her campaign for commissioner. Klein is an active member of the Democratic Party who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Atkinson Gates, according to the judge's ruling.

Atkinson Gates voted for Chambliss and Klein without disclosing her relationship, which caught the attention of government watchdogs who filed complaints with the Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission ruled that Atkinson Gates should have disclosed or abstained because she had "a commitment in a private capacity to the interest of others." It also said she granted Chambliss and Klein "unwarranted privileges."

Polsenberg said the state law related to commitments in a private capacity is too vague.

He added that the law adopted by the 1999 Legislature -- which will go into effect Oct. 1 and has no bearing on the case -- is clearer, but still doesn't include the type of relationship Atkinson Gates had with Chambliss and Klein.

"She couldn't even be charged under the 1999," he argued.

In his ruling, the judge wrote, "It is interesting to note that, in the 1999 legislative session, the Legislature again refused to define this statute to encompass all types of relationships."

The 1999 law says a "commitment in a private capacity to the interest of others" means a commitment to a person who is a member of the household, who is related by blood or marriage, who employs him or a member of the household, with whom there is a continuing business relationship or "any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar."

The same problem that existed in the old ethics law exists with the new: the law says nothing about helping friends.

During the last session, Guinn encouraged the Legislature to add "personal relationships" to that section of the law. Lawmakers, however, believed it would be difficult to enforce because Nevada is a small state where politicians know a lot of people.

Scherer said it likely will be addressed during the next legislative session.

"We'll make changes to improve it a little bit," Scherer said. "It's been a process of compromise. We can come back and work on it."

Scherer, along with other critics of Judge Polaha's ruling, also disagree with the decision on whether Atkinson Gates granted unwarranted privileges to Chambliss and Klein.

UNLV Ethics Professor Craig Walton said unwarranted privileges were granted because of the 66 applicants, Klein and Chambliss were awarded two of the 13 available concession spaces.

"It's unfair; the others weren't even looked at," Walton said. "That's cronyism."

Polsenberg said unwarranted privileges were not granted because Chambliss and Klein were both qualified applicants. Further, he said, the law says elected officials cannot give unwarranted privileges to himself, members of the household, any business entity with which the official has significant pecuniary interest or any other person.

"They're defining very close relationships," Polsenberg said. "It can't be somebody who just worked on your campaign."