Ethics charge hits Herrera

Adrienne Packer

Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2002 | 11:08 a.m.

A Las Vegas resident who helped craft a new billboard ordinance has filed an ethics complaint against Clark County Commissioner Dario Herrera for voting on the new law despite his wife's involvement in the billboard industry.

Lisa Mayo-DeRiso filed the complaint after Herrera abstained from two previous votes on the ordinance, then voted on controversial, last-minute changes to the final draft of the law.

"I watched this whole thing, and it was shocking to me," Mayo-DeRiso said. "I was beyond livid."

Mayo-DeRiso submitted her complaint to the state Ethics Commission last week. A hearing date has yet to be set. Herrera did not immediately return phone calls today.

Mayo-DeRiso was a member of a county-assembled advisory committee assigned to meet with the billboard industry to create an ordinance governing placement of outdoor advertising.

The focus group was created to help strike a compromise between residents and advertising companies after previous proposals were met with heavy opposition. Herrera abstained from those votes, saying his wife worked for the billboard industry.

After meeting several times, Mayo-DeRiso said the two sides finally agreed upon the new draft.

However, during the Dec. 5 meeting, the final ordinance pitched to the board by the industry's attorney, Mark Fiorentino, was different from the copy approved by the advisory committee.

Though residents and members of the committee objected to the last-minute changes -- and Deputy District Attorney Rob Warhola raised concerns about voting on the item because of the changes -- the board voted to approve it.

Herrera, whose wife was sitting in the audience with billboard industry members, was the swing vote.

Mayo-DeRiso cites an ethics code that requires elected officials to weigh their decision to vote on whether a relative is involved in a case, whether that relative lives in the same household and whether that relative spoke to the elected official about the pending matter.

"In this case, the relative is Mr. Herrera's wife, who is a member of the same household and whose earnings is community property," the complaint says. "In my opinion, they obviously spoke about the issue because she was in the audience during the hearing, sitting with her business colleagues."

Herrera has said his vote was not affected by his wife's position. He also argued that the ordinance affected the entire county, not one company.

Warhola reportedly advised Herrera before the vote that there was no conflict of interest.