Columnist Jon Ralston: Sure sign of Mack: ‘For sale’

Friday, Aug. 8, 2003 | 4:49 a.m.

By joining the Station Casinos board, Boggs McDonald has to face questions about cashing in on her public profile and whether she should cash out of elective life for a private career. Fair enough.

But that's about one company -- albeit a dominant political and economic player. By contrast, Michael Mack, as I first pointed out months ago, continues to use his council seat as a billboard to solicit business for which he has no credentials. He might as well sit down at each council meeting with a simple sign above his nameplate: For sale.

Mack also is being enabled by a city attorney's office that is flouting a standard set by the state Ethics Commission for disclosure of private interests, with a notable and suspicious example coming at last week's council meeting. Mack continues to hawk himself -- a failed pawnbroker with no other discernible skills -- as a PR man to various city supplicants, without fear that his compliant colleagues and a disinterested media will call him on it.

Mack already has had to reveal "work" he has done for the Horseshoe casino -- which he regulates as a councilman; Triple Five, a massive development company whose principals have interlocking interests across the valley; and Treasures, a new strip club on Industrial Road.

Mack has declined to release his list of clients, through a PR/marketing firm, MK Squared, that employs him. But at last week's meeting he disclosed MK Squared has done work for Poggemeyer Design Group, a large outfit that has done work for local governments and contributes heavily to political campaigns.

Now why would that company hire Mack? Could it be that he had an arms-length relationship, that his partners at MK Squared solicited the business to give him an out, albeit a weak one?

Mack declined to comment last week. But this was as blatant as can be.

Poggemeyer principal Larry Carroll said he was chatting with Mack at a community function earlier this year about problems with his marketing and "Michael mentioned he had started this PR company and maybe he could help."

How generous of the councilman.

Carroll's company had two items on the agenda Wednesday that caused Mack to abstain, including one that awarded Poggemeyer an $815,500 design contract. Carroll said the relationship with the councilman only lasted a few months and is now terminated. But, he added: "In hindsight, maybe it wasn't a good move on my part."

On his part?

Mack brazenly solicits business from a guy whose company needs city contracts. It amazes me that alarm bells aren't clanging from Stewart Avenue to the federal building.

But there's more. On another item, Mack revealed that the lawyer before the council, Eric Goodman, son of the mayor, was representing him on a "personal venture," whatever that means. He said no more and when I tried to find out details, Mack said through a city spokesman that the city's legal department indicated he had met the standards of disclosure mandated by the ethics commission.

That is simply not true and shows that the city attorney's office either does not understand the standard or is covering for an elected master.

The law says that an elected official must disclose "sufficient information" when declaring a conflict.

Common sense tells you that saying the conflict surrounds a "private venture" is too vague. But Mack and common sense have been estranged for some time. What's the city attorney's excuse?

The Ethics Commission clearly outlined the standard four years ago when County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury asked for some clarification. The opinion argues that details must be provided by elected officials to allow the public to decide whether an abstention is warranted. Here's the language that sets the standard Mack and city legal authorities are ignoring:

"More specific disclosures will inform the public of private commitments which are affected by a particular matter (and votes which benefit a private commitment), while leaving the decision to abstain in the hands of the public official or employee."

Later in the compelling opinion, which commends Woodbury for making specific disclosures regarding his law firm, the language reads: "The burden, therefore, is appropriately on the public officer or employee to disclose private commitments and the effect those private commitments can have on the decision-making process, and to make a proper determination regarding abstention where a reasonable person's independence of judgment would be materially affected by those private commitments."

It's a wise opinion that rings true: More disclosure rather than less.

But not for Mack or his legal advisers on Stewart Avenue. The councilman at first declared he was going to vote on the Goodman the Younger item, then a few minutes later said the city attorney had advised him he should abstain. But why? What is the conflict?

We still don't know and he won't tell. Mack also has said he will not divulge his client list, saying the public will learn when he declares conflicts at meetings.

And no one seems to care that a councilman is auctioning himself to those he regulates for a business he has no training in and whose only qualification is his elected title.

I think Boggs McDonald needs to rethink whether she can juggle her public and private balls or will have to let one drop. But Mack's decision is simple: He should resign immediately to pursue his burgeoning public relations career, or he should jettison all those clients he is securing only because of his elected title.