Columnist Jon Ralston: An inane ethics process revealed

Friday, Aug. 23, 2002 | 4:12 a.m.

LAS VEGAS Municipal Judge Bert Brown surely did political observers and stand-up comedy aficionados a favor last week when he extended Councilman Michael Mack's engagement on the stage.

The man who made a mockery of the ethics code and escaped with his job by using the "I was in La La land" defense can be expected to commit more memorable crimes of the mouth before 2005, providing entertaining fodder for fans of political buffoonery. With surefire routines ranging from "Watch me take a can't-lose pawn shop business and turn it into a $4 million black hole" to his campaign contribution discernment motto ("I'll take anybody's money, it's all green"), Mack's repertoire for self-parody appears limitless.

Problem is, though, much of this is not funny. My guess is more than a few people have (once again) had their confidence shaken in the ethics review system, which may be duplicative and due processless but also will continue to seem as toothless and inane as a lap dance ordinance.

The average Joe surely wonders how an elected official can claim amnesia (Mack saying he forgot he owed $60,000 to a car dealer whose interests he represented on a key agenda item) and assert what his relentless attorney Rick Wright claims was naivete (code for: "My client's a fool, but why should that disqualify him from serving?") and still be in office.

Forget the question of whether it's better to have someone without a clue or someone who's venal in office. No one thinks Mack's story is credible -- he must have known about the loan and his activism in helping that car mogul, Joe Scala, is incredibly suspicious. But because prosecutors apparently couldn't find a check to Scala that Mack signed shortly before the vote and because Scala appears to be the hardest guy to find in this town besides Jon Porter, Wright established reasonable doubt.

Then again, maybe Brown was influenced by the performance of the city's lead buffoon and Mack enabler, Mayor Oscar Goodman and his tepid, pathetic attestment to Mack's character. I couldn't help but think how comical it was for a man to be a character witness who thinks it's fine to use his elected position to direct money to his wife's tony private school, who thinks the Open Meeting Law is a nuisance, whose son miraculously won a significant contract to work in Municipal Court, whose idea of humor is to make jokes about his days representing mobsters and about whacking people who don't do what he likes and who treats his elected job as promoting himself above all else.

Mayor Bobblehead's comedy act is more well-honed than Mack's. But it's an act nonetheless.

And while Goodman and Larry Brown conspired to try to destroy Michael McDonald when he was facing an ethics lashing, they did everything they could to protect Mack from himself -- no mean feat there. And only because he votes with them.

The ethic at City Hall, which starts at the top, is: If you're my friend, I'll be there for you; if not, look out.

But the embarrassment of Mack remaining in office aside -- and who doesn't think he should have resigned long ago if he had any self-respect? -- the case does revivify questions about how unethical behavior should be handled in this state.

The balancing act is a difficult one. How do you ensure the public has confidence that unethical behavior will be punished and guarantee that the rights of elected officials are not compromised?

The city Ethics Review Board was conceived after the Good Old Boys Inc. land deal in the early '90s by elected officials looking to satisfy the public's bloodlust. But it has never worked very well and has been hobbled by weak members. And, I have always chafed at the idea that a group of appointed officials -- some who nap through meetings or appear to live in the same La La land as Mack -- can actually get a politician into a criminal proceeding and have him or her thrown out of office.

Mayor Bobblehead is right that if any board uncovers wrongdoing, the district attorney is available to prosecute. And although the local, state and federal folks (the FBI has been prostrate in the face of political ethics scandals for years) are loath to prosecute, the mechanism is there.

The city ethics panel is unnecessary. And the state tribunal should serve as little more than an echo chamber to reinforce important points for voters such as prosecutor John Graves' resonating assertion that to accept Mack's story would be to believe he is "a blockhead of Olympic proportions."

Whether or not the ethics process is fixed, the fact remains: Mack is joke. And he will continue to prove that when he moves his lips. If the voters of his ward still want him, that's their problem.

The councilman has two and a half years to try to elevate his act to bobbleheaded mayor-like status. It's probably too much to ask, though, that -- should he survive until then -- the voters will have the last laugh.