Editorial: End the doublespeak

Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2003 | 9:06 a.m.

During their Aug. 6 meeting, members of the Las Vegas City Council voted on an issue involving the placement of a billboard. This routine variance request resulted in news when Councilman Michael Mack first indicated he would cast a vote, then abstained on the advice of City Attorney Brad Jerbic. As required by law, Mack also disclosed the reason for his abstention. But he was vague, saying only that he had some sort of business relationship with Eric Goodman, son of Mayor Oscar Goodman and the attorney for the billboard company.

Jerbic defended Mack's enigmatic "disclosure," saying that nothing more was required under state law than to reveal the existence of a relationship. But members of the Nevada Ethics Commission last week ruled that Mack should have been more specific, that he should have elaborated on his relationship with Eric Goodman. But then, in a 4-1 vote, the commission ruled Mack did not break the state's disclosure laws.

He should have been more specific, but he broke no law. What message does this send? That vagueness, while unfortunate, is permissible? We see a strong need for the Ethics Commission to hold a series of workshops on all of our disclosure laws, including those covering campaign finances. It should focus on ways that the laws should be rewritten by the Legislature, to ensure fuller and more specific disclosures. Otherwise, we'll keep going down this road, where an action is decidedly wrong -- but not so wrong that it's actually a violation. Until there's reform, we'll continue to hear "disclosures" that reveal next to nothing.

archive