Columnist Jon Ralston: Councilman finally exposed

Saturday, Nov. 11, 2000 | 3:49 a.m.

Jon Ralston, who publishes the Ralston Report, writes a column for the Sun on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or by e-mail at ralston@vegas.com

TO UNDERSTAND why Councilman Michael McDonald's behavior was so egregious, listen to the defense he produced at his ethics hearing this week. I paraphrase: "Even though I have a conflict, it's copacetic for me to set up meetings and try to influence the outcome of agenda items -- so long as I don't actually vote on them."

The logic here is so twisted, the brazenness so astounding as to leave one breathless. It reminds me of the hypocrisy and disingenuousness exhibited by local government officials on certain controversial zoning items in their wards or districts. The ploy is to wink and nod at the developer, let your colleagues know that you have to vote against it but you didn't mind if they vote for it. Then you pander to the protesters at the meeting but, alas, you are the only vote against the project.

The McDonald standard, though, is not just phony -- it's manifestly unethical. And that anyone would suggest you need an ethics code to tell you that you shouldn't be using your government job to help your friends or your employer misses the fundamental point. And thanks to the ethics review board, no matter what his ultimate punishment, McDonald has been exposed as tendentiously (and very clumsily) using his elected position to try to help his boss, Larry Scheffler, bail himself out of a bad investment in the Las Vegas Sportspark and to stymie Sig Rogich's topless bar conversion project.

The city ethics panel said clearly and loudly that elected officials who think their public performance on issues -- emphasis on performance -- is all that matters should think again. "You cannot be publicly withdrawn from (a) matter and then be running up and down the halls making phone calls and whatnot to do something else with respect to that matter," Chairman Earle White declared at the end of the hearing last week.

Indeed. McDonald did not dispute most of the facts of Sportsparkgate and Toplessgate. But he and his attorney, Rick Wright, argued that it was all right for him to be advocating positions behind the scenes so long as he was abstaining on the votes at the meeting. Does this strike anyone else as a loony standard?

Toplessgate is the less striking of the two cases. Whether he was just trying to hurt Rogich because they had a falling out or was doing it to help his pal Rick Rizzolo, a competing topless bar owner, is not relevant. But he had declared a conflict and still tried to hurt Rogich behind the scenes.

That, though, is not nearly as unconscionable as his actions in Sportsparkgate. After Scheffler invested money in the facility, mainly to assist his friend and ex-partner Linda Fernandez, the prime investor, McDonald began to act to help make the pair whole. And he advocated behind the scenes at one time for a scheme that would give Scheffler and Fernandez their equity back in Sportspark by having the city buy them out. There was no benefit to the city in so doing, but there was plenty of financial advantage for his boss and his friend who had gotten themselves into a financial jackpot.

So on repeated occasions, through phone calls and meetings with city officials, McDonald used his elected position to try to funnel taxpayer money to his employer. But as long as he promised to abstain when it came onto the agenda, his argument goes, that was fine.

No clearer case has ever come before an ethics panel of an elected official behaving improperly and so deserving of public opprobrium. Whether or not criminal charges are filed, McDonald has been exposed, through his own heavy-handed and arrogant actions, as an elected official who is willing to exploit his position to help his private interests -- in this case, his employer.

And this, unlike some cases, has nothing to do with the proverbial "appearance of a conflict of interest" standard that can be murky. This is an actual conflict and a case where an elected official tried to set a new standard for ethical conduct that cannot be sustained by anyone with common sense.

There are greater issues here that should not forever be glossed over: the inevitable conflicts between part-time elected officials in a small town masquerading as a big city, the quality of elected officials when they are paid a pittance compared to the private sector, and the governor and the Legislature flushing ethics laws down the toilet.

But for now, the city ethics panel sending a message that abstaining publicly while advocating privately will not be condoned will have to do.