Editorial: Abstaining requires a ‘full’ disclosure

Monday, Aug. 11, 2003 | 8:49 a.m.

In recent months Las Vegas Councilman Michael Mack has been compensating for past failures to disclose conflicts of interest. Whenever he has needed to abstain recently, which is quite often because of the considerable client list attached to his personal public relations business, he has gone into lengthy detail.

But he made an exception last week when he abstained on a billboard zoning item that was being represented by attorney Eric Goodman, son of Mayor Oscar Goodman. Mack said he was abstaining because of a "personal venture" in which Eric Goodman is representing him. He did not elaborate, even when pressed by Sun reporter Ed Koch.

State law, however, requires disclosure of "sufficient information" when abstaining. As pointed out Sunday by columnist Jon Ralston in the Las Vegas Sun, the state Ethics Commission has ruled that to mean revealing enough information to allow the public to decide whether an abstention is warranted.

We have no idea what Mack means by "personal venture" and neither could the public. The city's legal department has determined that Mack does not owe the public any more information. Our reading of the Ethics Commission's rulings leads us to believe just the opposite. The commission has clearly written that public officials have the responsibility not only to disclose relevant information but also to disclose "the effect those commitments can have on the decision-making process ..."

Mack's refusal to fully disclose why a personal commitment prevents him from casting a public vote does a disservice to his constituents. Elected officials should be clear and forthright, not murky and secretive.