Panelist airs his concerns on ethics process

Adrienne Packer

Monday, April 23, 2001 | 11:36 a.m.

Although William Flangas, a rookie on the Nevada Ethics Commission, declined to "second-guess" his colleagues' decision to clear Clark County Commissioner Erin Kenny, he said he believes some politicians who have appeared before the board acted unethically, but slipped away without being admonished.

Flangas is hardly oblivious to critics' opinions of a board often referred to as "toothless."

"The law says you have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt," Flangas said. "Ethics is a matter of personal conscience. You can be marginally legal and overwhelmingly unethical.

"There is strong sentiment for a more effective commission," he said. "There is somewhat of a cynical and unforgiving attitude for recent decisions. That's my personal opinion."

Flangas sat on the Ethics Commission's two-person review panel on two recent cases involving Kenny and Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald.

The panel recommended full hearings for McDonald, who was accused of influencing a zoning process, and Kenny, who was accused of offering job advancements in exchange for documents damaging to colleague Mary Kincaid-Chauncey. Both were cleared by the full commission.

Flangas couldn't participate in either hearing; state law prohibits members of the review panel from sitting in on the full commission proceedings.

That, Flangas said, is only one flaw in the state statute that prevents the board from being as effective as it could be and allows elected officials to slip away from charges.

Flangas, a lifelong resident of Nevada, took his concerns to the state Legislature's Government Affairs Committee last week. He encouraged its members to allow the board to figure intent into decisions and to allow review panel members to participate in the full hearings.

The review panels are most familiar with the case and only bring more knowledge to the commission, he said. Concerns that the review panel members would stubbornly stick to their initial decision despite additional testimony should be allayed, because there are eight board members.

No perfect law can be written that covers every possible violation, he said. The board should be permitted to stick to the statute but also be allowed to consider intent and purpose.

"Perhaps there is too much legalese and not enough reality," Flangas said.

What's more, allowing panelists to participate would ensure a fuller commission vote. Only four ethics commissioners considered Kenny's case last week; the two review panel members were sidelined and two other board members were absent.

Flangas said the Ethics Commission will be only as effective as the law allows. He doubts the Legislature will make any major changes.

"The reality is some freewheeling politicians bring shame and disgrace to the political process and this stains the work of honest, well-meaning public officers," Flangas said. "In short, what (critics) are saying is send a message that business as usual is not acceptable."