Ethics panel comes under fire

Diana Sahagun

Friday, Oct. 19, 2001 | 10:04 a.m.

The Las Vegas Ethics Review Board, created in the 1990s to identify public officials who abuse their power, is itself coming under scrutiny for failing to make a deadline required by law.

But no one is sure who is to blame.

What is known is that two ethics complaints filed against Councilman Michael Mack in June, alleging that he tried to broker a deal between rival car dealers, have disappeared.

But not because they lacked merit.

The complaints are no longer being considered because the board missed a key 30-day deadline -- Sept. 29 -- to hear them. On Thursday, during the board's regularly scheduled meeting, members warmly introduced their newly appointed member and chatted about their backgrounds.

Still, they ignored the Mack complaint.

After the 20-minute hearing, board Chairman Earle White Jr. told the Sun that, because he failed to schedule a hearing within 30 days, John Staluppi Jr. will have to refile the complaints.

Staluppi filed the complaints after Mack led the vote to deny his Nissan dealership along Rancho Road. Days later, Mack disclosed that he had an outstanding $60,000 loan from a rival car dealer who owns land inside Town Center.

If the complaints are refiled, White would have to schedule a series of meetings before the complaint is even heard.

There are few answers as to why White failed to schedule a hearing and the legal ramifications. White refused to answer questions Thursday as to why he failed to call a special meeting within the 30 days.

White abruptly left the meeting room and stepped into a City Hall elevator.

Even the city attorney's office, which helped draft the ethics code, has remained silent. The city attorney's office has declared a conflict of interest and can't advise the board. Therefore, it can't comment on the situation. Lacking direction from city attorneys, the board was able to chart its own course, which led to the complaint being dropped.

Mayor Oscar Goodman, who was in Washington several days this week, said Thursday he was unclear in regard to why the hearing was not scheduled before the deadline. He did say, however, that when he learns all the facts they will weigh into his decision whether to reappoint White as chairman when the issue comes before the council Nov. 7.

Much of the confusion was caused by new ethics rules adopted by the City Council in August. The rules were retroactive and therefore applied to the Staluppi complaints.

At the board's Aug. 16 meeting, William Henry, the city's senior litigator, said that although he had a conflict he still was capable of reviewing the changes and answering general questions.

Henry gave a lengthy presentation about the new rules. He told the board about the 30-day rule and concluded his presentation with, "Are there any questions, or anything else I can do for you?" White replied, "No."

The board continued with the meeting and scheduled a special session Aug. 29 to hear the Mack complaints. A two-member panel of the board reviewed the complaints and determined that there was just and sufficient cause to hold a full hearing.

The board could not schedule a hearing, however, because only three members were present -- four are needed for a quorum of the seven-member board. Without a quorum the board could not hire special counsel to advise them.

White, through, did have the authority to schedule a special meeting in which the board could have voted on a hearing date regarding the Mack complaint.

Attorney Anthony Sgro, who represents Staluppi, blames the city attorney's office for throwing the board into a state of confusion and advising its members on some matters but not others.

"The city attorney's office really put one over on the ethics commission," he said. "If you have a conflict of interest, why are you advising them at all? I put the blame squarely on the city attorney's office because they did everything they could in an effort to delay and cause this thing not to go forward."

Sgro said he would file a new ethics complaint by close of business today, but he resented the fact that his client has to restart the process.

Questions abound as to how the matter would proceed, because the city's ethics code -- which requires a hearing to be heard within 30 days of a determination of just and sufficient cause -- says nothing of the implications if the deadline is passed.