Columnist Jon Ralston: Will ethical idiocy ever end?

Saturday, Jan. 27, 2001 | 10:43 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 by e-mail at ralston@vegas.com

IT'S A HAZARD of the profession: Cover politics and government too long and cynicism intrudes all too often.

I have yet to find a vaccine for the affliction. But as hard as I try to persuade myself -- and thus the public -- that most people in government, elected and otherwise, mean well, work hard and do good, I am constantly thwarted not by venality but by a much more prevalent disease: clueless-ness. People do the dumbest things. And when they are in government, those synapse disconnects can metastasize, in the minds of the media or the official's enemies, into ethics issues and, sometimes, a political and legal morass.

Last week a couple of stories brought home the sad dearth of common sense in local government along with the reality that a culture of incestuousness and "everybody does it" mentality continues to relegate Las Vegas and Nevada to backwater status. In case you missed them, a quick recitation of the facts:

Story No. 1 -- Dale Askew, the Clark County manager for nearly four years, has during that time served as the resident agent for corporations run by Guy Hobbs, the former county budget director. A resident agent doesn't do much, and Askew apparently took no money. But during that time, the manager has been a relentless advocate for Hobbs to get county and local government consulting contracts. I think this is just smart people acting as if they lost a digit on their IQ -- after all. Askew is listed on the secretary of state's website, so they didn't attempt to conceal anything. But do you think a cynical public, or Askew's political enemies, will be satisfied with that explanation?

Story No. 2 -- Three Las Vegas city officials, including the man in line to become planning director and the deputy public works director, are in a land deal with major developers. Yes, the property is in Mesquite. But the developers, including the ubiquitous Randy Black and the equally omnipresent engineering consultants VTN Nevada, have business before the city, some of which is settled by these folks administratively and never appears on an agenda.

I'm willing to believe that Black et al. were never granted any special favors by the city staffers. But do you think the public will buy that? What could they have been thinking? And is this just the tip of the iceberg -- are there more deals with other local government officials and developers? Talk about cynicism: If anyone wants to believe that local government essentially is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Southern Nevada Homebuilders, this is compelling evidence.

You don't need an ethics inquisition to figure out whether these kinds of situations should exist or not. The county's top administrator should not have any kind of business relationship with a consultant. And city planning and public works officials should not be in business with people they regulate. This is not rocket science, it's common sense. And now these folks, who work in a political environment, have created a perception problem for some very sensitive elected bosses.

The stories also come to light against an unfortunate backdrop, with two city ethics cases already casting a dark shadow and involving slightly more than plain idiocy. City Councilman Michael McDonald faces a District Court complaint for his actions in helping his boss make a deal with the city -- his advocacy continuing even after he was warned about the obvious ethical sludge he was wading into, thus meeting any reasonable person's standard for willful behavior.

Goodman and three council folks will have to explain how their granting spinmeister Sig Rogich's request to help transform his office to a topless joint didn't rise to the level of special treatment, especially after City Attorney Brad Jerbic declared at the meeting that city law "prohibits this application from being considered by this council." That seems willful, too, and slightly more than just a case of overruling a staff recommendation.

The intersection of all of this comes at the point where clumsiness, arrogance and incestuousness collide. Askew and Hobbs were at best careless and at worst officially exposed for their too-cozy relationship. The city staffers were at best greedy and ignorant and at worst corrupted by the business relationships. McDonald was at best totally out of line and at worst unfit for office. And Goodman and the other three were at best trying to rid themselves of a nettlesome application and at worst genuflecting to Rogich.

And you wonder why I have a hard time finding an inoculation for my cynicism.