Ethics panel clears Mack

Friday, Nov. 14, 2003 | 11:22 a.m.

Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack should have disclosed more about his business relationship with Mayor Oscar Goodman's son during a council meeting this summer, state ethics commissioners said Thursday.

However, because Mack followed the advice of the city attorney's office to abstain from voting on an Aug. 6 agenda item in which Eric Goodman represented a sign company seeking relaxed rules in placing a billboard, the panel ruled 4-1 Thursday that Mack did not break state laws.

Still, three panel members said Mack should not have been so vague and instead should have elaborated about his relationship with the younger Goodman so that Las Vegas voters would have better understood why he abstained over the potential conflict of interest.

One commission member, dissenting voter William Flangas, accused Mack of "hiding behind legal skirts" by merely following Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic's apparent decision for him to simply disclose and abstain.

"Michael Mack violated the spirit and intent of the law," Flangas said, calling Mack's terse attorney-client privilege claim a "squishy disclosure."

More than one board member criticized Jerbic's advice. Board members also disagreed with Jerbic's apparent policy that attorney-client privilege is absolute, noting that each vote -- and the circumstances surrounding them -- should be treated separately.

The advice also did not take into account disclosure for Mack's business association with Ross Goodman, Eric's brother, who also is a lawyer with offices at the same address as Eric Goodman.

Mack maintained that had he disclosed more about the relationship with Goodman's firm, it could have put him at a competitive disadvantage in negotiations on a private venture to create a multi-media video disc magazine with Ross Goodman and a company called Hollywood Previews.

"I've never been criticized for giving conservative advice," Jerbic said after the meeting. "I am anxious to read the commission's final report."

Jerbic said he never told Mack he couldn't expound on why he was abstaining. During his testimony, Jerbic said that when Mack disclosed that Goodman was his lawyer, Mack did what was required under state law.

"We will be having a vigorous staff discussion on this (abstention matters)," Jerbic said, noting that attorney-client relationships are predicated on confidentiality. "The question is how much (disclosure) is enough?"

Ethics Commission Chairman Thomas Sheets said he "struggled" with how to vote on Mack's case.

The rule of thumb for elected officials is when in doubt abstain, Sheets noted. Sheets said he disagreed with Jerbic's advice that resulted in Mack giving limited disclosure.

"There ought to be more (disclosure)," Sheets said. "More disclosure helps voters decide whether you are doing your job."

But Sheets also said he found "no willful effort to violate the statute." And he said Jerbic gave "good advice" when he told Mack he should abstain.

Commissioner Jim Kosinski also said he did not see the disclosure of merely attorney-client privilege as a "blanket disclosure" and was concerned that the board's decision not send a message that Mack's disclosure was sufficient. However, he too did not see the action as rising to the level of a crime.

"I'm not prepared to find that Mr. Mack violated provisions of ethical standards," Kosinski said.

Commissioners Merle Berman and George Keele also voted in Mack's favor.

Commission Vice Chairman Rick Hsu and Commissioner Caren Jenkins could not participate in Thursday's hearing about Mack because they served on the two-person committee that ordered the hearing take place. Commissioner Lizzie Hatcher missed Thursday's meeting because she is a lawyer and was in District Court representing a client.

Mack actually faced two allegations at Thursday's ethics hearing -- one that he did not disclose enough about his relationship with Eric Goodman, and another that his decision to abstain after he indicated he would vote deprived his constituents of a voice.

While testifying, Mack mused, "sometimes I'm afraid to push the green button, red button and yellow button (yea, nay and abstain)." Afterwards, he said he was exaggerating.

During testimony, Mack discussed specifics that he had not disclosed either at the council meeting in August or since then.

One of them was that even though he had referred to Eric Goodman as his lawyer at the council meeting, he said Thursday that his attorney-client relationship was not with Goodman but with one of Goodman's law partners, Puonyarat K. Premsrirut. Mack said that was why he initially tried to go ahead and vote after disclosing the potential appearance of conflict.

"I thought the disclosure was adequate," Mack testified Thursday.

After the hearing, Mack said, "I'm just glad to get this behind me."

Mack's attorney Richard Wright, in his closing statement, questioned why the commission, without a complaint having been filed, decided to initiate the matter -- the first time it had taken such a step.

"The beating he (Mack) has taken over this is severe," Wright said, noting that the commission's action is sure to be used by Mack's opponents in future election campaigns to paint a picture that Mack's act was egregious.

"There was no violation. He acted properly."

The board members said the main reason they took action was to determine if Mack violated an advisory opinion he had sought from them months prior to the August incident.

In March, Mack had received the advisory opinion that said he should be specific with disclosures of potential conflicts of interest. The opinion stemmed from Mack's relationship with MK Squared, a public relations and advertising firm.

Wright argued that the commission had gone forward with the hearing based on newspaper columns critical of Mack's alleged lack of disclosure. He argued "newspaper articles are not credible evidence" on which to pursue a matter.

Mack's co-counsel Bruce Judd told the ethics panel that there have been numerous instances where other public officers from city council members to state legislators abstained without giving much explanation, yet they were not brought up on ethics violation charges.

The council agenda item that sparked the controversy was a request from Orion Outdoor Media to place a billboard closer to residential property and adjacent billboards at Sahara Avenue near Paradise Road than what is permitted under city code.

Mack said Thursday he was surprised to see Goodman representing the billboard company and that he had no advance notice that Goodman would be there in that capacity.

Mack disclosed his attorney-client relationship with Eric Goodman but decided on his own it was OK to vote because, he said, he had had no contact with Eric Goodman about the proposed video disc deal.

Later in that meeting, Jerbic, who was not present but had been contacted by a deputy city attorney about Mack's intention to vote, sent word to Mack not to vote because of the potential ethics violation.

The agenda item passed 5-0 with the mayor abstaining because Eric Goodman is his son.

archive