Councilman’s ethics trial is ready to begin

Diana Sahagun

Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2002 | 11:09 a.m.

In his short political career, Michael Mack rose from a Las Vegas planning commissioner to a skilled fund-raiser who faced voters in 2001 with glowing results. But the people who overwhelmingly elected him to his Ward 6 seat might not have a say in whether he keeps his position.

If Municipal Judge Bert Brown this week determines that Mack broke the city's ethics code, the councilman would be subject to removal from office.

Brown must only decide whether Mack broke the law when he voted on five occasions in 2000 and 2001 to postpone and ultimately deny a car dealership in northwest Las Vegas without disclosing he had borrowed $60,000 from a rival car dealer.

The consequence of a misdemeanor conviction has already been set by the City Council -- removal from office and possible fines or jail.

But even with a guilty verdict during a possible two-day trial that begins Thursday, Mack won't likely be removed from office immediately. District Judge Joseph Bonaventure ruled in June that Mack can stay in office while he appeals his case if he receives a guilty verdict.

Ted Jelen, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said even if Mack is found guilty but remains in office, it's possible that voters will want swifter action.

"It's conceivable that someone might start a recall suit, but that's a lot of work," Jelen said.

Jelen said if Mack were up for re-election he might face a bigger challenge. But with high voter apathy and the confusing nature of Mack's mounting debt and allegations, the average voter may feel the allegations against him are trivial, Jelen said.

"There's a moderate to high level of tolerance for minor forms of corruption," Jelen said.

This isn't the first time that a Las Vegas councilman has faced removal from office. In 2000, Councilman Michael McDonald faced removal from office by a District Court judge under a seldom-used civil malfeasance petition. A judge ruled that McDonald's actions did not rise to the level that would require removal from office.

In Mack's case, the Las Vegas Ethics Review Board ruled in February that he knowingly violated the ethics code when he voted on five occasions to postpone and ultimately deny a car dealership proposed by John Staluppi Jr. without disclosing he had borrowed $60,000 from a rival dealer to cover his mounting debt.

Unlike the board's actions in the McDonald case, the members directed the board's attorney, John Graves Jr., to instead prosecute Mack in Municipal Court.

District Judge Sally Loehrer had already ruled that Mack's actions did not rise to the level of removal from office.

Much of this week's trial is expected to mirror what was stipulated during the ethics case. Frank Maione and Mike Bellon -- who filed ethics complaints against Mack -- and Staluppi have been called to testify. In their ethics complaints, they alleged that Mack tried to broker a deal between Staluppi and Joe Scala, a rival car dealer.

City Attorney Brad Jerbic, who met with Mack after his June 6 vote to deny Staluppi's dealership, has also been called to testify. Mack has said he did not discover until after the vote that he had an outstanding loan from Scala, at which time he met with Jerbic and asked for the item to be reconsidered so he could abstain.

Others called to testify include Scala, two of Mack's accountants and an employee of his First Class Pawn & Jewelry store.

Mack said he is confident heading into the trial.

"I'm looking forward to putting it all being me and I'd love to see it be behind me by this weekend," he said.

Mack said he expects to hear similar testimony that was stated during his ethics case, and added that he wasn't uncomfortable having his accountants and a former employee testifying for the prosecution.

"I have faith in the system and I know we have a good judge hearing the case and I believe in the process," he said.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said last week that his prayers were with Mack.

When asked whether he agreed with Bonaventure's ruling, Goodman relied on his experience as a former criminal defense lawyer for an answer.

Goodman said he once represented a mayor who was found guilty of ethics violations and was immediately removed from office. It wasn't until after the verdict that Goodman learned of alleged jury misconduct. By then it was too late.

"The damage had already been done," Goodman said. "I would hate to see someone who shouldn't be found guilty ... suffer the same kind of disability."

Attorney Frank Cremen, who represented the ethics board in the McDonald case, said there is extreme pressure on a judge that would have a hand in removing an official from office -- something usually left to the voters.

But it wouldn't be precedent-setting by a municipal judge.

Any public officer in the state who is convicted of a felony is removed from office, he said.

In Cremen's case, the judge would have directly removed McDonald from office, an action that had never been taken before.

Cremen said even though Brown won't be doing the removal -- just determining guilt or innocence -- the pressure is still on.

"I would like to think that if a judge assigned such a case, a judge is going to do (his) job," Cremen said. "Is it difficult for them? I would assume that it is. The judge is well aware of the consequences of his decision."