McDonald must face ethics trial on March 20

Diana Sahagun

Tuesday, March 6, 2001 | 1:59 a.m.

District Judge James Mahan will not throw out a malfeasance charge against Las Vegas City Councilman Michael McDonald, putting the councilman's trial two weeks away.

On March 20, Mahan will hear arguments and decide whether the findings in December by the city's Ethics Review Board -- that the councilman broke ethics laws -- rise to the level of malfeasance.

If the judge decides the charges are with merit, McDonald could be removed from office.

The city's ethics board last year found that McDonald violated city ethics laws on two occasions.

McDonald was found to have lobbied for the sale of the Las Vegas Sportspark to help his boss out of a bad investment. The board also ruled he purposely tried to block a tavern license request by political consultant Sig Rogich.

The state's ethics commission, which heard almost the identical case last month, found McDonald violated the law but split on a decision on whether his behavior was willful.

Attorney Bruce Judd, representing McDonald and filling in for attorney Richard Wright, asked Monday to have the case dismissed, arguing that the ethics statute doesn't apply.

The petition filed by the city's ethics board relies on Nevada Revised Statue 283.440 -- the removal of certain public officers for malfeasance or nonfeasance.

Judd argued that the statue doesn't apply because in 1912 Nevada voters approved a broader amendment that allows for the removal of municipal officers -- in the form of a recall.

Judd maintained that the court system is not the proper forum to remove a public official, and that the amendment gives the voters the power. A recall effort by former City Councilman Steve Miller was unsuccessful when it failed to collect enough signatures to remove McDonald last year, Judd added.

"The recall method is the method to remove a councilman," Judd said.

Lastly, Judd argued that the court proceedings were "contrary to the spirit of democracy" because they give a judge the power to remove an official -- not the voters who elected the official.

Frank Cremen, special prosecutor for the ethics board, said if the 1912 amendment supersedes the state statute, no one bothered to tell Nevada Legislators as late as 1999. In 1999, Legislators made extensive amendments to the state's ethics commission, including increasing membership from six to eight, accelerating the hearing process, and stiffening penalties for infractions.

Cremen said the city's ethics board relied on the statute and while the members could have filed a misdemeanor charge, the board instead saw the conduct so serious that it forwarded a petition for the councilman's removal from office.

"In May 2000 Michael McDonald began pushing and pushing hard for the city to purchase Sportspark. It wasn't just discussing, it was promotion. It's pretty aggressive conduct," Cremen said.

The judge said in denying the dismissal that Nevada law allows citizens to recall a public official, but also allows for a different method, through the court system.

"The net effect is you're out of office," Mahan said of the two statues. "One is to say the citizens can do it or the other you can be removed under the statutory scheme.