Lawyers argue over Goodman ethics ruling

Dan Kulin

Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005 | 10:07 a.m.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman's appeal of a state Ethics Commission decision is heating up with dueling legal briefings from lawyers representing the state on one side and Goodman on the other.

The lawyers are arguing over the commission's ruling, the court's ability to overturn it and whether the commission's decision infringed upon the mayor's right to free speech.

A hearing before District Judge Mark Denton has not been scheduled yet, and additional legal briefings are expected before a hearing date is set.

Goodman is appealing the commission's May ruling that he violated ethics laws by using his elected position to help his son's business.

The mayor hosted a cocktail party on Jan. 22 in Washington, D.C., for iPolitix, a company that was partly owned by his son, Ross Goodman. The mayor was in Washington then for a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting.

The commission found that by telling his son about the conference, allowing the mayor's name and city title to be used on the invitation to the cocktail party, handing out some invitations, and telling other mayors about iPolitix, Goodman secured for his son a benefit that would not otherwise have been available had he not been the mayor's son. But the commissioners were split on whether the violation was willful, which meant there was no finding of a willful violation of the law and no fine for Goodman. A July 18 filing by the mayor's lawyer, Puoy Premsrirut, who works with the mayor's other son, Eric Goodman, claimed the commission's ruling was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary. Premsrirut also wrote that the decision did not follow precedent and that the ruling infringed upon the mayor's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The filing reiterated Goodman's earlier defense that he could not have given his son any advantage because the mayor had no! power over the other mayors who attended the cocktail party.

Premsrirut also argues that the commission erred in its judgment because it ignored the fact that the January conference was publicized, as was its agenda, which mentioned that the conference was looking into new technologies for politicians, and that Ross Goodman and his iPolitix partners tried to arrange an event through conference personnel.

The argument that the commission's decision infringed upon the mayor's right to free speech is a relatively new one in this case.

The legal filing said: "Mayor Goodman is free to share public information with any constituents, including his son Ross Goodman who is also constituent of Las Vegas, as his law office is located in downtown Las Vegas. Mayor Goodman is also free to invite other mayors (over whom he has no jurisdiction) to a cocktail reception, as he has at prior Conference of Mayors gatherings. If the violation stands as determined, public officers would be deterred from sharing public information with constituents and assembling with colleagues. Ross Goodman, by virtue of being the son of the Mayor, should be afforded no less rights or access to information than any other constituent of the City of Las Vegas."

An Aug. 26 response from the Attorney General's Office said "a district court may not reverse an agency's decision because it believes that the agency failed to meet its burden of proof. Instead, it may only reverse an agency's decision if substantial evidence, or evidence that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," does not exist in the record."

The state also referred to testimony from the May Ethics Commission hearing to bolster its arguments, and support the findings of the commission.

Regarding whether Ross Goodman was helped by his father in knowing about the conference, the briefing said, "During the hearing Ross Goodman stated, "I think they (attendees of the cocktail party) came initially because of my dad." "

Also, Ross Goodman said the conference was brought to his attention by " the mayor of Las Vegas."

Scott Kapp, a business partner of Ross Goodman's, told the commission that having the mayor's name on the party invitation "might have helped. If someone, if a mayor is looking at the invitation and sees that it is hosted by Mayor Goodman, Oscar Goodman, if he is friends with him or knows him, yeah, that may sway him to come, versus his name not being there."

On the freedom of speech issue, the Attorney General's Office argued that the commission found the mayor violated the law by giving his son information that the mayor "received because of his official position as mayor, and that information gave his son a privilege or advantage."

"Further, the Commission's analysis does not forbid the (the mayor) from discussing his son's company or a public conference. However, it does forbid him from soliciting for his son's company while on city business at a conference where the only reason he was invited was because of his position as mayor. The Commission's decision does not create a chilling effect on Petitioner's free speech, it is simply a closely drawn law to limit his speech under certain circumstances to prevent corruption in government."

City spokeswoman Diana Paul said the mayor would not comment on the case.