Emergency hearing called in Mack case

Diana Sahagun

Tuesday, May 7, 2002 | 11:13 a.m.

Rumors that Las Vegas Councilman Michael Mack was boasting that his pending ethics case would be dismissed because he had mutual friends with Municipal Judge Bert Brown were serious enough for the judge to call an emergency hearing Monday.

Brown called an impromptu hearing late Monday in response to a call from political commentator Jon Ralston. Ralston, who writes a column for the Sun and hosts "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" on Las Vegas ONE, reported in his daily e-mail newsletter Monday that Mack had allegedly told city officials that Brown would "take care" of him in the pending ethics case and said the two had mutual friends.

The judge said he had not discussed Mack's case with anyone and that he had not yet determined how he would rule.

"The fix is not in," said Brown, who called the hearing to air the rumors.

Richard Wright, Mack's attorney, said he had not heard the rumors and said any statements might have been mischaracterized. Wright has said from the start that the case would be dismissed because the city lacks jurisdiction, something he said Mack may have repeated.

The hearing was another turn in what has become a long-running case that could ultimately lead to Mack's removal from office if he is convicted of a misdemeanor. In February, Mack was guilty of violating the city's ethics code on five occasions when he voted against a northwest car dealership without disclosing he owed $57,000 to a rival car dealer.

Attorney John Graves Jr. was directed by the Las Vegas Ethics Review Board to prosecute the misdemeanor charges.

Brown gave Graves and Wright the option of filing an immediate motion asking the judge to remove himself from the case, but both attorneys said there was no reason for the judge to be off the case because of rumors.

Graves also filed a motion opposing the dismissal of the criminal complaint, arguing that Wright had misinterpreted state statute when he argued that the city had no jurisdiction to adopt an ethics code that makes it a misdemeanor for violations of the city's ethics code.

Graves argued that state law does allow conflict of interest charges to be punishable by a misdemeanor.

He added that the city had the power to adopt an ethics board that would "complement" the Nevada Ethics Commission, which has similar duties.

"Local ethics committees know better how to handle local ethics disputes and opinions better than a central (Nevada Ethics Commission) with tentacles which reach across the state of Nevada," Graves wrote.

Graves argues that Wright's position is weakened because Wright did not argue that the city's ethics board had no jurisdiction during the hearing when Mack was found to have ultimately violated the city's ethics code five times.

Brown is scheduled to rule on the motion to dismiss on May 28.