Legislation raises question about what a majority is

Adrienne Packer

Friday, Aug. 24, 2001 | 10:53 a.m.

A state law preventing elected boards from taking action without affirmative votes from the majority of the entire board may not apply in all cases, Las Vegas attorneys said.

Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic, on behalf of the Nevada League of Cities, is asking that a District Court judge review Senate Bill 329, passed by the Legislature this session, and issue a clarification.

Jerbic said the state Legislature made changes in many chapters of the Nevada Revised Statute, which included adding the new law requiring the majority of an entire board to vote. But, he said, the new language was left out of the chapter that addresses ethics.

"Legislators had a chance to change it, but they did not," Jerbic said. "Now there are potential conflicts."

At issue is whether an elected official abstains from a vote because of a conflict of interest, whether the board is reduced or whether the vote is nullified because the entire board is not present.

Jerbic said the attorneys with the League of Cities are concerned that city councils will not be able to vote on items such as bond issues or follow court orders because a member is forced to abstain under the ethics law.

"We're talking about abstentions for legitimate conflicts of interest," Jerbic said. "If you're prohibited from voting for whatever reason under ethics laws ... we can think of those scenarios very quickly."

Brenda Erdoes, an attorney with the Nevada Legislative Council Bureau, said her organization is looking at the Senate bill and ethics laws to determine whether there is a conflict.

Michael Stewart, a research analyst with the Legislative Council, says the new language supercedes the older law.

"If a piece of legislation changes a statute, that will be the governing new language once the new legislation becomes effective," Stewart said.

But the confusion among local government attorneys is because the new law failed to address abstentions due to ethical concerns.

Attorney Mary Anne Miller, who represents Clark County commissioners, said she agrees with the city attorneys' analysis of the laws. Miller said the commission hasn't encountered an occasion when the new law would apply, but she would advise the board to respect the spirit of the Senate bill.

"Hopefully, we won't have to come down to an important decision that comes down to the statute until it is clarified," Miller said.

The bill was designed to prevent boards from passing major projects with few votes. In 1998, for example, the Clark County Commission approved a Las Vegas Strip golf course after four of the seven board members abstained.

Neither Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, nor Assemblyman David Parks, D-Las Vegas -- the authors of the bill -- could be reached for comment.