Columnist Jon Ralston: Moncrief’s luck running out

Friday, Aug. 6, 2004 | 4:56 a.m.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the Ralston Report. He can be reached at (702) 870-7997 or at ralston@vegas.com.

WEEKEND EDITION

August 7 - 8, 2004

Councilwoman Janet Moncrief was struggling to be heard during Wednesday's City Council meeting.

"Excuse me, your honor," she implored.

Mayor Oscar Goodman, appearing puzzled, looked around and declared, "I hear you. I don't see you."

Clearly frustrated, Moncrief snorted, "I'm the only woman on this council."

For now, at least.

Less than 24 hours after that meeting ended, Moncrief was indicted on five criminal counts, creating the real possibility that she may soon become neither seen nor heard by Goodman, her colleagues or her constituents.

This is a story with short-term ramifications -- the councilwoman's possible removal from office, the blackening of the ethics cloud over City Hall -- and long-term implications, too -- the all-too familiar cycle begins anew, with a local government official under siege and the entire system painted with a broad brush.

Three of the seven current members of the council have either been indicted or adjudged to have behaved unethically. And over at the county, of the seven commissioners in office in 2002, four of those have either been indicted or stung by the state ethics tribunal.

You say it is unfair to compare ethics violations and indictments? Perhaps. But the issue of proportionality here is important. Moncrief basically is accused of phonying up campaign records, which is not to be minimized. But is that worse -- morally or legally -- than Councilman Michael Mack continuing to auction himself to city supplicants for a consulting fee?

Even if the allegations against Moncrief are true, are they worse than the spectacle of a City Council that regularly sees mayoral sons come before it seeking approvals and a strip club, Treasures, that decided Mack and Ross Goodman were its best choice to hire as a PR man and lawyer, respectively?

That mysterious odor downtown isn't emanating from Fremont Street, folks; the real sewer is on Stewart Avenue.

Moncrief's indictment on four counts of filing false documents and one of perjury has been expected for months. But it is by no means a certainty that she will be convicted, especially because of the witnesses against her and also because she has hired a nonpareil criminal defense attorney in Rick Wright.

It was clear early on in her 2003 council campaign that Moncrief was being at best aided and at worst manipulated by a band of ne'er-do-wells including Bob Stupak, the ex-casino boss; Tony Dane, the campaign operative; Chris Christoff, a longtime government critic; and the ubiquitous Steve Miller, the ex-councilman. She may have closed her eyes as this help was piling on to defeat incumbent Michael McDonald, or she may have been complicit.

But the trouble she is in now recalls that old aphorism about lying down with dogs and thus getting fleas. In this case, the buzz over her campaign practices has been created by Miller & Co., and hell apparently hath no fury like a bunch of gadflies scorned. After Moncrief refused to hire Miller, he suddenly felt the impulse to come clean and expose all of the alleged dirty tricks in the campaign to defeat McDonald.

Now Miller and some of the others are the star witnesses for the prosecution against Moncrief. That sound you heard is of Wright salivating at the prospect of cross-examining these folks, whose credibility would fit in a thimble.

But whether or not Moncrief is convicted, her days are numbered. I don't think she likes the job very much anyhow as she seems almost invisible to her colleagues and simply doesn't look like she's having a good time.

The vultures have been circling her ever since word of her legal troubles leaked months ago. Former Planning Commissioners Marilyn Moran and Steve Quinn are said to have an interest should Moncrief leave -- either voluntarily or forcibly.

And what of McDonald, who some say would love to return but has the problem of being named as a subject of that federal corruption probe that ensnared those county commissioners? One wag wryly suggested McDonald could run on the slogan:

"Re-instate Michael McDonald. Not a Target. Just a Subject."

On the other hand, he appears to be doing quite well as a development consultant and probably doesn't want the pay cut or the hassle.

Meanwhile, imagine how Moncrief and McDonald feel watching Mack, who continues to have a wonderful time using his public position to help his private business. The latest disclosure is that his company, Mack Consulting, is negotiating with Clear Channel Outdoor on behalf of clients. This comes while Clear Channel has been involved in a rancorous dispute with the city over a contract for the city's centennial celebration next year.

Mack, who consistently has refused to reveal his clients, doesn't seek to avoid conflicts, as the law requires; he seems to seek them out. And Moncrief might have screwed up some campaign finance forms and then tried to cover her tracks? Where is the proportionality here? She's dead politically and Mack may be headed for re-election next year?

Only one day before she was indicted, at that council meeting, Moncrief was having an unusually active performance as the council approved many new projects in her ward. After one impressive presentation for some new high-rises in Moncrief's area, the mayor turned for the formal approval motion to his colleague and declared: "Councilwoman, you're a lucky lady."

Well, that didn't last long.