Mack wants review of ethics decision

Friday, Aug. 6, 2004 | 10:52 a.m.

Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack is taking the Nevada Ethics Commission to court -- and to task.

In a motion filed Thursday on Mack's behalf by Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic, Mack asserts that the commission's written findings in June to a November hearing is full of a "distinctly schizophrenic string of findings" that hint he broke the law.

As a result, Mack is seeking District Court judicial review of that decision even though it said that he had not violated state laws for his minimal disclosure of his partnership with a son of Mayor Oscar Goodman.

The ethics commission, however, says state law and precedent is clear: You cannot get relief when you did not get punished.

In Thursday's court filing, Mack asserts that the commission cannot write a report hinting throughout that his actions violated state law, then come to a one-sentence conclusion that he did not violate any laws just to deny him his right to a judicial review.

"While all of the board's opinions are subject to judicial review, the commission is asking the court to dismiss this one (Mack's complaint) because a petitioner must somehow have been harmed to seek judicial review," Ethics Commission Executive Director Stacy Jennings said Thursday.

Mack, who abstained from voting in the incident that led to the ethics commission hearing, was told by the commission that he should have disclosed more about his business relationship with Las Vegas attorney Eric Goodman, on Aug. 6, 2003, when Goodman's firm represented a sign company seeking relaxed rules in placing a billboard.

A court date is yet to be set for the judicial review before Judge Sally Loehrer.

In Thursday's document, Jerbic indicates that Mack was harmed by the accusations throughout the June report.

"The most relevant portions of the (ethics commission's) opinion ... are the distinctly schizophrenic string of findings which repeatedly assert that the councilman has broken the law, combined with an inconsistent and passive statement that the commission 'declines' to find that the councilman violated the law," the court document says.

"It appears that the commission desires to utilize the last statement as a device to attempt to avoid judicial review of the quality of its decision."

In the petition for judicial review, dated July 19, Jerbic said the written findings from Mack's Nov. 13, 2003, hearing are:

"In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of statutory authority ... made upon unlawful procedure ... clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probable and substantial evidence ... or (are) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion."

Jerbic is asking for a hearing and an award of court costs.

Mack referred all inquiries on the matter to Jerbic.

Jerbic, in turn, said: "We're in court on a contested matter and I cannot, ethically, comment on the record."

The state's response to Mack's petition in its motion to dismiss is that "Michael Mack is not a party who is aggrieved by the opinion of the Nevada Commission on Ethics."

The court document also criticizes the Las Vegas City Attorney's office for "regularly and consistently advising (council) members ... that a disclosure need provide no information other than a simple statement that the City Council member has an attorney-client relationship with the attorney appearing before the City Council."

The court document further says that, in August 2003, Mack also should have disclosed "sufficient information about the effect that relationship (with Eric Goodman) would have on the decision-making process so that the ... citizens represented by ... Mack would have had the opportunity they deserved to evaluate the nature of the conflict."

Ethics Commissioner William Flangas, the lone dissenter among the five members who heard the case, said at Mack's hearing that the councilman was "hiding behind legal skirts" by merely following Jerbic's advice to give a vague disclosure then not vote.

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

Mack at the time 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, Eric's brother, and a company called Hollywood Previews.

Five months before the August 2003 incident, Mack sought an advisory opinion from the ethics commission and was told that he should be specific with disclosures of potential conflicts of interest.

The March 2003 opinion stemmed from Mack's relationship with MK Squared, a public relations and advertising firm.