Another ethics complaint filed against Maxfield

Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 | 9:44 a.m.

A complaint, the second in as many months, has been filed against Clark County Commission Chairman Chip Maxfield with the state Ethics Commission.

The complaint dates to a July 2003 County Commission meeting at which Maxfield was the swing vote to allow a 196-unit condominium complex to be built near the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Pebble Road. Some residents from a surrounding rural preservation district had argued forcefully against the required zone change for the 14-acre property.

Before the 4-3 vote, in which Commissioners Bruce Woodbury, Rory Reid and Mark James, who represented the district at that time, voted no, Maxfield disclosed that his son was engaged to the daughter of developer Jay Bingham, who owned an interest in the condominium project.

County counsel Rob Warhola told Maxfield that the potential conflict did not bar Maxfield's participation in the vote. He issued a written opinion backing up his argument a week after the vote.

"Since your son is not married to Mr. Bingham's daughter at this time, you are not currently related to Mr. Bingham by blood, adoption or marriage," Warhola said in the written opinion.

Warhola said even after the marriage, which has since taken place, there would not be a conflict that would require Maxfield to abstain. He said Nevada case law does not extend to an elected official's in-law's family.

He said Maxfield would not have to abstain from an issue unless it could directly benefit Jay Bingham's daughter.

The distinction failed to convince those who submitted the complaint to the Ethics Commission.

"His family financially benefited from our loss," a group called "the citizens of Paradise township" said in a statement accompanying the ethics complaint.

"Our rural preservation district's character was forever altered, and we cannot accept the loss of our neighborhood lightly," the statement said.

The dissenting three votes argued at the time that rural preservation districts needed to be protected against higher-density development. The Clark County planning staff had recommended against the zone change from rural to high-density housing.

One neighbor, Bruce Waggoner, filed a lawsuit. District Judge Ken Cory dismissed that suit in March.

Maxfield said the ethics complaint is politically motivated.

"I absolutely did nothing wrong," he said. "In fact, I did what I always said I would do, which is to disclose whenever there is a potential conflict.

"I consulted the district attorney's office, which said not only that I could vote on the issue but said it was not necessary to disclose ... This is obviously politically motivated by my opponent. ... It is an abuse of the laws and the very nature of the ethics commission."

Bill McGinnis, who with neighbor Jody Menendez filed the ethics complaint, said the timing of the complaint is not directly related to Tuesday's election.

McGinnis said he and Menendez were responding to quotes in local media from Maxfield that said he supported adherence to the county's master land-use plans.

McGinnis said those quotes prompted him to respond "because he was the deciding vote. ... This whole neighborhood has really gone to pot since then."

McGinnis, a Clark County School District employee who has lived in the neighborhood for almost 20 years, said he did not file the complaint to try to help Maxfield's Democratic challenger, Deputy District Attorney Jerry Tao.

"We really haven't been involved in Mr. Tao's campaign," McGinnis added.

Tao did not return phone calls seeking comment. A campaign aide, Kevin Ross, said he was not aware of the second ethics complaint.

Waggoner, who filed the lawsuit against the county for the decision three weeks after the zoning decision, is not a party to the ethics complaint but is listed as a potential witness.

Waggoner's lawyer, Scott Smith, said his client was contacted by a private investigator on the issue but declined to actively participate in the complaint.

A separate ethics complaint was filed against Maxfield in September.

In September, a developer with a history of conflict with Clark County and residents near land he owned filed a complaint with the ethics commission alleging that Maxfield, following a denial of a requested zone change from residential to business in 2001, discouraged companies from doing business with Lovett.

The complaint alleged that Maxfield was acting in retribution for developer Brent Lovett's testimony in a construction-defect lawsuit affecting Maxfield's former civil-engineering company, Southwest Engineering.

Lovett has ongoing litigation against the county related to his operation of numerous businesses from the residentially zoned site at Buffalo and Alexander roads. On Oct. 18, Lovett filed a federal suit against Maxfield alleging that Maxfield, acting in retribution for his testimony in the construction-defect case, voted against the rezoning at Alexander Road and Buffalo Drive.

Maxfield has noted that those opposing the proposed zone change for the property included many residents of the area, the city of Las Vegas, the Clark County planning staff, the town advisory board for the area, and all of the other voting commissioners on the issue.

Tao had used the Lovett complaint and lawsuit to back up his contention that Maxfield has used his position to coerce, intimidate and harass a local businessman and backed up his contention that Maxfield is the target of a "federal racketeering investigation."

The suit does not refer to any racketeering issues, and federal officials have said they are not conducting an investigation into Maxfield.