Brown cleared of ethical wrongdoing

Diana Sahagun

Friday, Aug. 17, 2001 | 11:10 a.m.

The city of Las Vegas Ethics Review Board Thursday cleared Councilman Larry Brown of an allegation that he tried to broker a deal between two rival car dealers but more hearings may await Councilman Michael Mack.

Mack still faces charges relating to his vote to deny a car dealership in the city's northwest proposed by John Staluppi Jr., who says the denial favored a rival car dealer who had loaned $60,000 to Mack. Mack said he used the loan to shore up finances at his struggling pawnshop.

Attorney Anthony Sgro, who has brought a civil lawsuit against Brown and Mack seeking their removal from office, said that because the board cleared Brown he is considering dropping him from the suit.

A two-member panel of the ethics board reconvenes Aug. 29 to determine whether a full hearing should be held in the Mack case. Sgro said he will attend that meeting armed with new evidence of unethical conduct against Mack.

"We're going to make good use out of these next two weeks," Sgro said.

Thursday was a full day for the two councilmen, who faced a District Court judge in the morning regarding Sgro's lawsuit, and the ethics board in the afternoon.

Their private attorneys had different strategies in handling the ethics board hearings. Brown's attorney, Stan Hunterton, had asked for a speedy hearing. Mack's attorney, Richard Wright, had argued to delay or dismiss the proceedings.

Brown was cleared after the two-member panel took testimony from him and Mike Bellon, who filed the ethics complaint on behalf of Staluppi. Hunterton argued there was no evidence supporting the accusations against Brown.

The board agreed that there was no evidence showing Brown had brokered a deal between rival car dealers Joseph Scala and Staluppi.

Since June, when allegations were lodged against Mack and Brown, after they voted to deny the Staluppi dealership, Brown has been trying to distance himself from his colleague's legal issues.

Mack is facing allegations of having a financial relationship with Scala and catering to him when he voted to deny the dealership. In addition to the $60,000 loan, Mack also acknowledged Wednesday that he had taken a $2,660 in-kind campaign contribution from Scala during his campaign run this year.

Brown, though, has not reported receiving any gifts from Scala and said he has never met him or Staluppi.

Brown met Bellon May 29, when he was invited to a meeting in Mack's office, but said he attended so he could explain his feelings about Town Center, which groups all car dealerships into one area. Brown maintains that he voted to deny the dealership because it went against the intent of Town Center. The dealership was being proposed for Rancho Road.

After the ethics hearing, Brown said he had been painted with the same brush that is being used on Mack, but said he knew he would be cleared because the allegations against him were personal, not factual.

"My problem with this complaint was that they made stuff up," he said. "I understand Bellon is representing Staluppi, but what he's done is gone beyond business, it's personal."

Wright had a different strategy during the ethics hearing. He argued that the panel should not hear the complaint because it had also been filed with the Nevada Ethics Commission, and therefore did not offer any testimony from the councilman.

Part of the nearly two-hour ethics hearing was confusion over whether the board had jurisdiction to hear the complaints. Changes to the ethics board were approved by the City Council this month, with one stating that the board must dismiss the hearing if the complaint were already filed with the Nevada Ethics Commission.

But Sgro told the board that he had withdrawn the ethics complaints at the state level Thursday morning.

The board decided that because Sgro had withdrawn the complaint, it could hear the cases. Ultimately, the panel decided it needed more time to determine if a full hearing should be conducted on the allegations against Mack.

Chairman Earle W. White Jr. struggled with the new changes, saying it was unfair that the new laws were retroactive to current cases.

Mack had no comment following the hearing.

The criminal lawsuit, which seeks the councilman's removal from office, stalled in District Court Thursday.

After hearing arguments from attorneys, Judge Sally Loehrer postponed a hearing date due to several technicalities.

Part of the malfeasance statute requires that a hearing be set within 20 days of the case being filed. Before Loehrer made her ruling, Sgro and Wright agreed to waive the 20-day requirement. The complaint was filed July 2.

Hunterton, though, said he was unwilling to waive the 20-day rule, saying Brown wanted to have the case heard as soon as possible. He also argued that there should be separate hearings for Mack and Brown.

"I don't want my client to go through the time and cost of a two to three day hearing when I don't believe there is any evidence against him," Hunterton said.

Ultimately, Loehrer decided that the 20-day window had not yet begun and said she would not set a hearing date until two documents are filed: a court-issued citation, alerting the councilmen of the upcoming court dates, and a financial statement from Sgro showing the expected out-of-state costs for his clients.

Sgro said following the hearing that Staluppi is looking at other parcels on Rancho Road for a new-car dealership, but a recently approved moratorium on new car dealerships could prove an obstacle. When the council denied Staluppi's dealership in June, it also set a 60-day moratorium on all new dealerships in the northwest so that an ordinance could be drafted that would forbid them from opening outside the Town Center limits.

The moratorium was extended by the City Council Wednesday, until November.

"I have always maintained that all John Staluppi wants is a car dealership," Sgro said.