New law to force boards’ majority vote

Adrienne Packer

Thursday, May 31, 2001 | 11:07 a.m.

During the last three years some of Southern Nevada's most significant projects and controversial measures were approved by local governments with less than a majority vote, frustrating residents who opposed the action.

On Wednesday Gov. Kenny Guinn put an end to that scenario.

Guinn signed Senate Bill 329, which prohibits city councils and county commissions from taking action without affirmative votes from the majority of the entire board -- regardless of absences or abstentions.

On boards comprised of elected and appointed officials, the law requires only the majority of members present.

Clark County commissioners have approved a handful of contested proposals with less than four votes in favor.

Four board members abstained from a vote concerning 155 acres along the Las Vegas Strip in 1998. A project proposed by developer Billy Walters -- now Bali Hai golf course -- won over two other bids.

Two commissions, citing conflicts of interest, ducked out of the vote on a union-written, controversial ordinance that prohibited Wal-Mart from building Supercenters in the county. The measure passed 3-2.

And last year the board voted 3-1 to approve a Spring Valley neighborhood casino strongly opposed by residents.

Commission chairman Dario Herrera said he doubts the new law will have a significant effect on the board.

With a commission often involved in political battles over personal interests, Herrera said his primary concern is the law makes it easier for board members opposed to an issue to kill it.

"It obviously gives a greater amount of power to a minority of county commissioners because all of the sudden you have just a few less than the majority to stifle any vote," Herrera said.

Commissioners will have to be more mindful when slipping into the backroom for breaks, and Herrera will have to ensure the board has a quorum if a member is absent or has a conflict.

But Herrera said the law won't necessarily reduce the number of abstentions.

"If my colleagues or myself have a conflict on a particular issue, we'll still disclose and abstain," Herrera said. "What it does to the proposal depends on what the circumstances are."

The Clark County Commission isn't the only board that has had only a few members left to vote after other abstained.

In 1998, the fear of ethics complaints reached an ultimate high on the then-five-member Las Vegas City Council when four council members abstained and a request to rezone downtown property passed 1-0.

Mayor Oscar Goodman said in the future the bill would not affect the city council because the board now tends to be more unified.

Recently two members had to abstain on a vote on the future of MASH Village because they served on the board of directors of the facility. Under the new law, the item would have died because there was not a majority vote, Goodman said.

The Henderson City Council has not had problems in the past with members abstaining, but Mayor Jim Gibson agreed that the new law will put more pressure on boards to balance abstentions with obligations.

"What it is saying for elected officials to do is to make sure they analyze their obligation both to disclose and to abstain with great care in certain circumstances so that they don't stifle the ability to do business," he said.

Gibson also warned that the new law could be overly constraining and thwart the board's best intentions. In a case where two members of his five-member board were absent and a third abstained, a project that promised to be good for the community could be defeated, he said.

"The game that will have to be played will be to postpone things until a majority of the board is present."

Sun staff writers

Jeffrey Libby and Diana Sahagun contributed to this report.