McDonald lawyer offers 4 reasons for dumping case

Diana Sahagun

Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2001 | 11:04 a.m.

Attorney Richard Wright has filed a motion in District Court to dismiss the malfeasance charge against Las Vegas Councilman Michael McDonald, arguing that the ethics rule doesn't apply.

In the motion filed late Monday, Wright argues that the case should be thrown out for four reasons -- that the statue is too narrow, that it does not apply to council members, that the allegations do not rise to the level of malfeasance, and that the complaint lacks the proper signature.

District Judge James Mahan, who is hearing the civil malfeasance petition against McDonald, has said arguments will be heard on a Tuesday or Wednesday before the March 20 hearing date.

The petition filed by the city's Ethics Review Board relies on Nevada Revised Statute 283.440 -- the removal of certain public officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance.

No elected official has ever been removed from office using that statute.

In the motion to dismiss, Wright maintains that the voters amended the Nevada Constitution to add a section dealing with the removal of elected officers, which is more broad than the original statute.

Wright believes that there may be methods to remove the councilman from office, but unless he committed a crime, the method of removal should be left to the voters in the form of a recall.

He points out that a recall effort by former City Councilman Steve Miller failed when there were not enough signatures collected.

Wright also argues that the statute does not cover the councilman because it does not specifically mention municipal officers. Instead, the statute was intended to be used against state and county officials.

"The court should not proceed under a removal statute which does not cover McDonald," he writes.

Wright also maintains that the complaint should be dismissed because it only alleges McDonald lobbied the city to buy the Las Vegas Sportspark to help his boss out of a bad investment. There is no allegation that the councilman would have profited in any way from the sale, Wright argues.

The allegations that McDonald lobbied and discussed the sale with city staff do not rise to the actions of malfeasance, Wright says.

Wright also says the complaint should be thrown out because it was not signed by Ethics Review Board Chairman Earl White. It was instead signed by Frank Cremen, who is special counsel for the ethics board.