Editorial: Hearing was too partial

Friday, May 14, 2004 | 5:43 a.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

May 15 - 16, 2004

During a two-day hearing last week the Nevada Ethics Commission revealed as much about itself as it did about the charges against Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman. We came away realizing that the commission, which received increased funding five years ago to strengthen its role, still has a long way to go before it can be viewed as a serious arbiter of governmental ethics.

Formal ethics hearings should adhere to the demeanor of courtrooms, where judges treat those before them with impartiality. Commissioners hearing Goodman's case, however, set a subjective tone. Commissioner Mark Hutchinson told Goodman, "I don't think there's any question you've done an outstanding job (as mayor of Las Vegas)." Commission Chairman Rick Hsu supported slapping Goodman with a fine, but was quick to add, "It pains me to say that, because in the last two days I've become a fan of the mayor."

This tone of leniency found its way into the commission's decision, as Goodman cleared the hearing with what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Goodman faced a charge related to his acceptance of a $100,000 gin-promotion contract (divided evenly between the city and a private school with which his wife is affiliated), another related to his use of a donated Cadillac and another related to his appearance in a magazine promotion. They were dismissed.

On the most serious charge, however, the four commissioners presiding at the hearing did find Goodman guilty. They ruled he violated a state ethics law when he helped promote a business co-owned by his son during a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, D.C. Yet they split 2-2 on the question of whether Goodman "willfully" committed the violation, meaning the mayor walked away without a fine, and, essentially, without a mark on his official record. Goodman hosted a cocktail party where his son's product was advertised. He solicited other mayors to attend. He told his son about the conference and the opportunity for him that it represented. He allowed his name to be used on the party's invitation. He personally handed out invitations. He pitched the product during the party. He gave the company city-owned materials that were used at the party.

And there was no "willful" intent to provide his son with a benefit, as prohibited by law? It seems the commissioners focused more on Goodman's charisma than on a document introduced at the hearing, signed by Goodman when he took office five years ago, stating that he had read and understood the state's ethics laws. A nationally prominent attorney before he became mayor, Goodman should have understood what he was signing. Goodman calls himself the "happiest mayor in the world." He can now add that he is also the luckiest.