New ethics laws throw Mack proceedings into confusion

Diana Sahagun

Thursday, Aug. 30, 2001 | 9:48 a.m.

New ethics laws continue to perplex the city's Ethics Review Board, as demonstrated Wednesday when all but one portion of a meeting was halted, unnecessarily as it turned out.

The one portion allowed pertained to City Councilman Michael Mack. A two-member panel of the board, whose business was unaffected by confusion surrounding the new laws, ruled that two complaints filed against Mack warrant a full hearing.

The hearing must be held within 30 days, although no date was set Wednesday.

The business of the two-member panel -- which had the power to decide on its own about the Mack complaints -- was supposed to be simply a portion of a full meeting of the board. But all other business was stopped after City Attorney Brad Jerbic noted a new state law that took effect July 1.

The law, Senate Bill 329, prohibits certain boards from taking action without affirmative votes from a majority of the whole board, regardless of abstentions or absences.

All other board action was halted after Jerbic told Chairman Earle White Jr. that a new law approved by the council earlier this month had changed the board's makeup from five to seven members, to reflect the number of City Council members who each get to pick an ethics board member. The council increased to seven members when two new wards were created in January 1999.

Jerbic said the new law approved by the Legislature meant the board must have four affirmative votes -- a majority of "all" the members, not just those present -- to approve any item, even though the other two members have not yet been appointed.

At Wednesday's meeting, only three members attended. One was excused and one member was absent. With a five-member board, only three votes are needed to take action on an item.

But Jerbic's interpretation meant that four out of the five sitting members must vote yes to pass any item.

Hours after the board adjourned, however, Jerbic said that he had reread the state law and had subsequently determined not all appointed boards fall under SB329.

The ethics board, he said, is among the boards unaffected by the new state law.

Under this interpretation, the business of the whole board could have proceeded in addition to the business of White and Vice Chairman Robert Fleming, who sat on the two-member panel that decided to go forward with the complaints against Mack.

The two complaints were filed by Attorney Anthony Sgro, who alleges that Mack voted to deny a car dealership in the northwest proposed by John Staluppi Jr. to appease a rival car dealer who had loaned him $60,000.

Richard Wright, who is representing Mack, said Wednesday the board shouldn't have considered the complaints at all because a similar complaint is still pending before the Nevada Ethics Commission.

Another portion of the new city law that expanded the ethics board membership states that if a similar complaint has been filed with the state Ethics Commission, then the city's board must waive jurisdiction.

Sgro did file the same complaint with the Ethics Commission, but later asked to have it withdrawn. The commission, however, has not yet met to decide on that request.

Wright said that because the state complaint is still pending, Mack could possibly be tried by two ethics boards on the same allegations. Duplicate proceedings, he said, result in inconsistent rulings and violate the intent of state law.