Four City Council members face hearing

Diana Sahagun

Monday, Feb. 12, 2001 | 11:04 a.m.

Four members of the Las Vegas City Council -- including the mayor -- will face an ethics hearing Thursday on allegations that they gave preferential treatment to political consultant Sig Rogich when they granted him a tavern license.

The complaint comes at a critical time. Three of the council members -- Lynette Boggs McDonald, Michael Mack and Larry Brown -- are campaigning for the upcoming municipal election. But they have maintained an air of confidence going into the proceedings.

Goodman offers similar sentiments.

"I haven't lost a second's sleep," the mayor said.

Thursday's hearing stems from a complaint filed by resident F. Victor Palermo accusing the members of giving Rogich special treatment last year when they voted to grant a tavern license for his former offices in an industrial area off Interstate 15 and Sahara Avenue. Rogich plans to sell the building.

During the ethics hearing, the board will decide whether there is enough evidence to order a full hearing.

City staff members will be called as witnesses, including former deputy city attorney Steve George, City Attorney Brad Jerbic, Acting Planing Director Bob Genzer, City Manager Virginia Valentine, Deputy City Managers Steve Houchens and Doug Shelby and other planning staff.

Some of the witnesses may be called the same day to testify before the state ethics board, which will hear a separate complaint against City Councilman Michael McDonald, alleging he was working behind the scenes to scuttle Rogich's application.

When the original tavern application was being heard by the council last year, Jerbic advised the council not to approve Rogich's building, because it was 1,500 feet from existing taverns. However, Rogich's attorney, Mark Fiorentino, successfully argued that there was enough confusion in city practices and precedent that the case should be decided on its merits.

The council members who voted in favor of the tavern license say they stand behind their votes and would vote the same way again.

Boggs McDonald maintains the application was a land-use decision. One of the taverns in conflict with the separation requirement had an expired business license. The other tavern was in Clark County's jurisdiction, the Sporting House. The Sporting House is a high-end health club with a liquor license for a bar.

She added that looking at county uses is not standard procedure for the city.

Both Brown and Mack said they voted in favor of the license, because they believed Rogich had been treated unfairly. During the application process, several different surveys were conducted to determine nearby uses -- more than usual, they said.

Brown noted the city manager began the public hearing by offering an apology to Rogich on how he had been treated.

"In 3 1/2 years I have never heard the city manager open a public hearing by apologizing to the City Council and the applicant for how poorly the staff had handled this application," Brown said.

Mack agreed, saying the entire process was muddled. Mack said he gave no special treatment, pointing out that Rogich supported another candidate when he was appointed to represent Ward 6.

"I believe the complaint is frivolous, but I do take it very seriously," Mack said. "I appreciate the fact we're held to a high standard, and I welcome the hearing."

If the complaint moves forward, Boggs McDonald said, it could set a dangerous precedent, because the city attorney is only an adviser to the council.

"Ultimately, the policy of the city is established by the City Council, not the city attorney," she said. "In every City Council meeting, there are recommendations. Sometimes we concur and oftentimes we disagree. That's the prerogative of the policy-makers. There's no way that anyone can say you have to be a rubber stamp for the city."