Thursday, Feb. 1, 2001 | 11 a.m.
Michael McDonald's attorney thinks there's a reason a state statute being used to try to oust the Las Vegas city councilman from office has been so rarely applied.
And attorney Richard Wright said Wednesday he thinks there is even grounds to dismiss the case against his client because the statute does not specifically mention municipal officials.
On Wednesday, District Judge Jim Mahan set a March 20 date for a hearing on a civil malfeasance petition filed on behalf of the city's Ethics Review Board.
The petition relies on Nevada Revised Statute 283.440 -- the removal of certain public officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance.
But Wright said since the statute makes specific mention of "the governor or the board of county commissioners," he does not think it can be applied to McDonald's seat on the city board.
"Is that (statute) even an available remedy to the ethics board?" Wright asked. "Whether the statute can even apply to a municipal office is in question."
Frank Cremen, the attorney representing the ethics board, filed the petition with another part of the statute in mind. That section states "any person now holding or who shall hereafter hold any office in this state ... who refuses or neglects to perform any official act in the manner and form prescribed by law, or who is guilty of any malpractice or malfeasance in office, may be removed therefrom..."
Wright said he would file his petition for dismissal Feb. 12. Mahan said arguments on any petitions filed in the case would be heard on a Tuesday or Wednesday before the March 20 hearing date.
Mahan has already overruled the statute in one regard. On Wednesday he said he would not force the hearing to occur within 20 days from the filing of the petition -- as prescribed in the statute -- because he said that could infringe on McDonald's due process rights.
"The court has a problem saying Councilman McDonald you must go to a hearing within 20 days," Mahan said. "I'm going to give you sufficient time."
The civil malfeasance petition has never successfully been used to remove an official from office.
And since the hearing will not be a jury of peers, Mahan will make the final decision on whether McDonald is removed from office for violating city ethics laws.
The ethics board found McDonald guilty of breaking laws twice -- once when he lobbied the city to buy the Las Vegas Sportspark to help his boss out of a bad investment and again when he worked to stop a tavern license request by political consultant Sig Rogich.
The Sportspark incident is the crux of the civil case.
archive
