State to decide on Mack ethics hearing

Diana Sahagun

Monday, Aug. 20, 2001 | 10:57 a.m.

The Nevada Ethics Commission will have a key role in determining whether a two-member panel of the city's ethics board on Aug. 29 will hear two complaints filed against Las Vegas Councilman Michael Mack.

A new change to the Las Vegas Ethics Review Board, approved by the council this month, states that if an identical complaint has been filed at the state level, the city's board will not hear the case.

Attorney Anthony Sgro, who is representing the two businessmen who filed the ethics complaints, withdrew the identical complaints at the state level Thursday morning so they could be heard by the city's ethics board the same day.

The city board delayed action on its complaint until Aug. 29, but it may not get to rule at all, if the state board does not agree to withdraw the complaint.

A spokeswoman for the Nevada Ethics Commission said Friday that the full commission must vote whether to accept the request.

The commission's next scheduled meeting is Sept. 20, though the board chairman could schedule a special meeting to hear the request to withdraw the complaints. A date for such a meeting has not been set, the spokeswoman said.

Mack is facing allegations that he tried to broker a deal between rival car dealers Joseph Scala and John Staluppi Jr. Staluppi sought to build a new dealership in northwest Las Vegas outside an area designated for car dealerships. Scala owns the land in Town Center that holds that designation.

Mack is also accused of voting in June to deny the Nissan dealership proposed by Staluppi, because he was catering to Scala, who had given Mack a $60,000 loan.

Mike Bellon, a consultant to Staluppi, and Frank Maione, a partner of Staluppi, filed the ethics complaints.

On Thursday a two-member panel of the city's ethics board dismissed two similar complaints filed against Councilman Larry Brown, saying there was no evidence showing he tried to broker a deal.

The two-member panel, though, decided to reconvene Aug. 29 to decide whether a full hearing should be held into the Mack matter. The panel also wanted to hear from the state commission as to whether the complaint was still in effect.

During the city's ethics board hearing Thursday, Mack's attorney, Richard Wright, argued that the board should not hear the complaints, because they still stand at the state level.

And Wright said Friday he intends to make the same argument Aug. 29, adding that Sgro is playing games by filing serious ethical complaints and then taking them back.

"To me, that just demonstrates that their motives are not to have a resolution of the ethics behavior or the litigation, but to further their own goals," Wright said. "You can't bargain away ethics complaints. That's extortion."

Sgro said Thursday that the city hearing should go forward, because he plans to file an amended ethics complaint this week that includes new evidence against Mack. Sgro added that Wright's accusations about extortion are an effort to save the councilman from going through the hearing.

"He has a very difficult task, having to defend Councilman Mack," Sgro said. "And he's got to do whatever he can to try to create the illusion that there's no substantive evidence. Mack's only hope is that he can delay and postpone this as much as possible."