Columnist Jon Ralston: Baring truth behind Rogich deal

Saturday, Feb. 10, 2001 | 12:03 p.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 by e-mail at ralston@vegas.com

I'M NOT SURE where Gary Reese and Lawrence Weekly will be Thursday. But I know where Mayor Oscar Goodman and the other four Las Vegas City Council members will be: facing ethics complaints.

Everyone knows the seriousness of the state Ethics Commission hearing on Michael McDonald -- a city ethics tribunal already found him guilty of trying to help his boss bail out of a failing investment in Sportsparkgate. The state surely will ratify the local action after rehashing all the testimony. This one is obvious.

But the other case, involving consultant Sig Rogich's attempt to facilitate the erection of a topless bar where his old offices stand, has been overlooked because of accusations that McDonald encouraged the complaints against Goodman, Michael Mack, Lynette Boggs McDonald and Larry Brown -- all of whom he considers his enemies.

That's almost surely true -- that McDonald either actively or passively had the complaint filed. But for those of us who remember what happened last April, McDonald's motivation can't detract from the facts of the case, which are almost as obvious as Sportsparkgate.

The city ethics code does not say anything about whether Rogich had friendships or consulting relationships with any of the council members, or whether his clout played a role in their decision. It says, quite simply: "Special Treatment. No public officer or employee shall grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage to any citizen beyond that which is available to every other citizen."

Did Rogich receive that kind of preferential nod from the council? There is no doubt.

You cannot paper over that fact by pointing to McDonald's ginning up the complaint or City Manager Virginia Valentine's apology to the council before the meeting about staff's handling of the application. Does anyone think that was the first time that a council member had tried to influence a staffer's decision on an application? Give me a break.

But what was different here was the evidence adduced at the hearing on Rogich's licensing last April clearly showed that in the past, similar applicants had been denied. (I'm no attorney, but I wonder if any of them would have a case now against the city?)

Rogich's attorney, Mark Fiorentino, expertly muddled the issue at the hearing. But what was much more significant was the unusually passionate presentation by City Attorney Brad Jerbic, who addressed the issue of locations near the Rogich property but outside city limits that should be used to disqualify the spinmeister's application.

"There's certainly never been an attempt that I'm aware of, before the council or any other governing body of the city, to argue that jurisdictions outside city limits don't count ... Staff has recommended that and no one has challenged it." Jerbic went on to talk about the "manifest intent" of the code. And while he acknowledged that staff may not always have identified county locations, when they did -- as happened in the Rogich matter -- they counted them. And, he added, "That is a very different argument than stating that we deliberately ignored them or we know about them and don't count them when we're considering applications."

Jerbic then took the further step of questioning Deputy Planning Director Bob Genzer about how staff has acted in the past. The exchange was telling, and yet ignored by the four who voted for Rogich:

Jerbic: "Are you aware of anytime, in your 27 years of experience with the city, where a city staff member, when a county location was identified, made a decision to not count that county location because they believed the code didn't require it?"

Genzer: "No."

Q.E.D. folks.

Larry Brown and Michael Mack didn't even explain their vote for Rogich. Mayor Oscar Goodman and Lynette Boggs McDonald hung their hats on the city's inconsistent discovery of county locations, which, as Jerbic pointed out, was not the point. When they did find them, they were denied.

Let's face it: The council voted for Rogich because of who he is and because they were so furious that McDonald had mucked around in it. That's the truth, whether anyone likes it or not.

Just because McDonald helped staffers discover the legally conflicting locations, does that mean Rogich should have obtained his license and now be allowed by the council to sell his office to topless bar operators in Houston who have been scathingly reviewed by Metro (special treatment redux in the works?)?

I guess that's for the ethics review board to decide Thursday.