Boggs McDonald cleared quickly by ethics panel

Diana Sahagun

Friday, June 22, 2001 | 11:19 a.m.

Good news came quickly for Las Vegas Councilwoman Lynette Boggs McDonald, who was cleared Thursday by the Nevada State Ethics Commission regarding a complaint that had been filed about a trip she took two years ago to Notre Dame.

But it took nearly three hours for the commission members to clear a complaint against North Las Vegas Mayor Michael Montandon. A resident had accused him of conflict of interest.

After her 30-minute hearing, at which the commission voted 5-1 to dismiss the complaint, Boggs McDonald left with a sense of relief.

Montandon, however, said he left with a case of the "newbie" jitters. It was the first time he had ever been before an ethics panel and while the complaint was ultimately dismissed, he underwent criticism for his failure to disclose a business relationship before voting on a development project.

Boggs McDonald was exonerated in the last of three complaints filed against her by acquaintances of her political opponent in the City Council primary race, Mark Solomon. Two residents filed the complaints 30 days before the election to the city and state ethics commissions and the Nevada Secretary of State Election Division. But the councilwoman will likely never be given the chance to face her accusers because they didn't attend the hearings.

Attorney John Mowbray, representing Boggs McDonald, wanted the state complaint dismissed because of the past rulings in her favor, but the commission wanted to send a clear message to the public.

"In situations like this, it's more important to the community to consider a case on its merits," said chairman Peter Bernhard. "If we simply dismiss it, it may taint her and the public might believe there was another technicality ... and that she really got away with something."

As the only witness, Boggs McDonald testified that she accepted a trip to Notre Dame in 1999, which was paid for by Station Casinos, to meet with fellow alumni as it related to her campaign run this year.

She disclosed the donation as a campaign contribution. Bernhard said because Boggs McDonald reported the trip she was not required to disclose her relationship with Station when she voted on items relating to the company in the following years.

Commission member William Flangas voted to cite Boggs McDonald, saying she expressed bad moral and civic judgement by taking a junket.

"This is a classic example of a candidate who grabbed at the opportunity for a free ride," Flangas said. "The casino made an investment for future favors."

After the hearing, Boggs McDonald said the trip had political and social aspects, and gave her the chance to discuss the upcoming election and future elections and seek campaign donations. She said the ethics complaints have been a hardship on her and her family.

"My family taught me a good name is more valuable than silver and gold and to have my name trashed is something I took very seriously," she said.

Next month, Boggs McDonald plans to introduce a bill to the City Council that would tighten rules pertaining to the city's ethics board. One proposal would be that only Las Vegas residents can file ethics complaints. Her two accusers live in Henderson and Clark County.

In Montandon's case, the commission peppered him and his former business partner, Shawn Lampman, with questions and struggled over whether Montandon was guilty of an ethics violation.

The members said they were split on whether Montandon used his position to get a "sweetheart" real estate deal with Lampman. Although they ultimately voted that Montandon did not knowingly violate any ethics laws, they chided the mayor for not disclosing his relationship with Lampman when he voted in favor of a project in September 2000 that would have benefited the real estate agent.

Montandon and Lampman became friends and eventually business partners in 1999, when they formed a limited liability company to purchase 10 acres in Moapa. Lampman fronted Montandon the $90,000 share of the property he wanted to purchase. The mayor ended up not purchasing the property and the money remained with Lampman, but Lampman did not charge Montandon interest or any other costs. Lampman said he loaned the mayor the funds because of their friendship, not Montandon's public title.

"How can the public be protected when a person in a public office, like the mayor, gets an investment opportunity with no money down, no risk, and it's done because he's a 'friend?' " Bernhard said. "Does this implicate the public interest, when Lampman is a real estate agent with business in the community?"

Another commissioner said while he believed the pair's explanation of the land deal, it did not exactly pass "the smell test."

Commissioners also questioned whether Lampman loaned the money for altruistic reasons or because he had a controversial project coming before the council. Lampman was involved with a project that would have located a Station casino on the Craig Ranch Golf Course.

The commissioners ultimately ruled 4-2 that there was not enough evidence to find there was a continuing business relationship between Lampman and Montandon when the item relating to the casino came before the council. The commission voted unanimously that there was not enough evidence to prove Montandon knowingly used his position to gain privilege.

The mayor's accuser, Chris Grant, said after the hearing that he plans to file a formal complaint against the two in court.

Looking back, Montandon said he should have disclosed the relationship. But he added that he voted on what was best for the city.

"The fact they had all these questions for three hours makes me cognizance of everything the public expects of me," he said.