Columnist Jon Ralston: Ethic rules weren’t meant as secret code

Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2001 | 9:28 a.m.

Jon Ralston, who publishes the Ralston Report, writes a column for the Sun on Sundays and Wednesdays. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or through e-mail at ralston@vegas.com

"The City Council finds and declares that the proper function of democratic government requires that public officers and employees be independent, impartial and responsible to the people; that government decisions and policy be made within the proper channels of the governmental structure; that public office not be used for personal gain; and that the public have confidence in the integrity of its government."

-- City of Las Vegas ethics code

IT'S THE LAST CLAUSE that really gets me. But apparently the Silly Septet doesn't get it.

As the City Council moves today to postpone the ratification of a new planning director after revelations about his investments with developers and engineering companies, the significance of this insidious incursion by the private sector into key government agencies seems lost.

And while city officials initially thought Deputy Planning Director Bob Genzer (not to mention Deputy Public Works Director John McNellis, who also has investments) had not violated the city's ethics code -- a closer look at the code indicates they may be wrong. And while City Manager Virginia Valentine has been looking into drafting a policy to prohibit this kind of nonsense, the problem doesn't seem to be that the code doesn't address it -- the problem is the code isn't enforced.

This is typical for a city government that has passed several ethics bills with great fanfare -- Mayor Jan Jones led the way after she was elected shortly after the Good Old Boys Inc. land deal scandal a decade ago -- but then doesn't follow through. Remember that the city has a law that supposedly forces lobbyists to register with the clerk's office -- but some don't, and when this is discovered, nothing happens.

So when it is discovered that Genzer, McNellis and plans checker Chuck Turk have been in bed with developer Randy Black, VTN Nevada and others, the infestation has been concealed beneath the veneer of an ethics code that seems to be more ornamentation than stricture.

The code actually makes sense. Just so there's no misunderstanding, here's exactly what the key conflict of interest provisions say: "No public board member, officer or employee having the power or duty to perform an official act or action, related to a contract, transaction, zoning decision, or other matter which is or may be the subject of an official act or action of the City, shall knowingly: (1) Have or thereafter acquire an interest in such contract, transaction, zoning decision, or other matter, except as otherwise stated in this Chapter, except that this Subsection shall not apply to any public board member, officer or employee who shall disclose his or her interest and who shall disqualify himself or herself from consideration of such contract, transaction, zoning decision, or other matter; or

(2) Have an interest in any business entity representing, advising, or appearing on behalf of, whether paid or unpaid, any person involved in such contract, transaction, zoning decision ..."

Genzer and McNellis have the power to influence land-use decisions and to guide contracts to engineering firms. Genzer is in a partnership that includes Black and VTN principals -- an investment in Mesquite. McNellis is in that deal and one in northwest Las Vegas with other prominent developers.

And this -- what is that quote again? -- helps the "public have confidence in the integrity of its government?"

Yes, Genzer and McNellis and Turk disclosed these investments in forms mandated by the city. But how could they not have had the common sense to realize this was a bad idea? And why did it take this for city higher-ups to suddenly begin perusing all these forms to see what else is out there?

And questions linger: Did Genzer and McNellis notify their bosses when their land deal partners were before the city? Did they recuse themselves when any decisions could have affected Black, VTN and the others? Should this be forgiven when compared to their long-term service?

The elected officials are having a typical reaction. All of them were supportive of Genzer becoming the planning director. But now they all, especially those on the ballot, want to look as if they are the high priests of ethics. They are cutting and running and exploiting the situation for political purposes as fast as they can.

City officials can't very well create a specific policy, just as you can't write specific cases into the law, lest you create a Guidebook for the Unethical, with all the loopholes delineated. After all, this has to do with enforcement and common sense; the code is tough.

Or, put another way: It's not the policy, stupid. It's the stupidity, stupid.