Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2005 | 10:10 a.m.
Former Las Vegas Councilman Steve Miller and reitree Robert Rose filed a complaint Monday with the state Ethics Commission alleging the mayor broke the law by not disclosing his past ties to developer Billy Walters.
Mayor Oscar Goodman has served as an attorney for Walters, who has come before the City Council on numerous occasions and currently has an issue facing the city on the Royal Links Golf Club.
But before voting on a Walters issue five years ago, Goodman received an opinion from City Attorney Brad Jerbic, who said the mayor did not have to disclose ties that no longer existed.
Miller disagrees and said Goodman should reveal the past ties to Walters before voting.
"Disclosure is not up to the city attorney," Miller said. "He should be disclosing, disclosing, disclosing."
However, local ethics expert Craig Walton said the mayor appears to have done nothing wrong because the business relationship is not ongoing -- a key point in the state ethics law.
Goodman represented Walters in the 1980s while Walters was embroiled in the criminal charges stemming from his involvement with the sports betting group known as the Computer Group. Walters was never convicted of any wrongdoing.
Walters said that around 1988 or 1989, attorney Richard Wright took over as his attorney, and he and Goodman haven't had a professional relationship since. But Miller, a councilman from 1987 to 1991, said Goodman hasn't adequately disclosed the past ties in connection with Walters-related agenda items.
Walters is offering the city $7.2 million to lift a deed restriction on the Royal Links Golf Club, which Walters purchased from the city in 1999. The deed restriction prohibits residential development on the land, which is next to the city's sewage treatment plant.
Council action on Walters' request has been delayed while the city takes another look at the potential impact of allowing homes next to the plant and the value of the deed restriction, and while police wrap up an investigation into why there were two versions of an earlier report on the impact of allowing development there.
Goodman was unavailable for comment Monday, city spokeswoman Diana Paul said.
Walters said the complaint from Miller and Rose was "laughable" considering the city attorney's advice six years ago.
"I think he (Miller) is frustrated and wants to be mayor," Walters said.
During the April 19, 2000, council meeting, the council was deciding whether to allow Walters' company sell its interest in the billboards at the Desert Pines Golf Course, which Walters leases from the city.
Before a vote on the matter, Goodman asked Jerbic if there was a problem if he participated.
According to a transcript of the meeting received from the city clerk's office, Jerbic said the city's ethics board has reviewed similar situations and "where there's been a professional relationship that terminated over two years ago, they have found no conflict exist. And that being the case here, no conflict exists with respect with you and Mr. Walters."
Miller has also cited two legal documents from the mid-1980s as evidence of Goodman and Walters' close ties. The documents appear to create a trust and then later dissolve that same trust.
Walters said the documents reflect him using his house as collateral for Goodman's fee.
"I didn't have a lot of money back then," Walters said.
Walton, president of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics and a former UNLV professor, said the state law refers to a public official having "a commitment in a private capacity" to someone with business before them. If the mayor and Walters have no more business together, then there wouldn't be a commitment at this time, Walton said.
"Legally it would seem that he's all clear," Walton said of the mayor.
Walton said the mayor could disclose the past relationship, which would be in the spirit of the law, but said he's probably not required to make such a disclosure. d be disclosing his past ties to Walters.
Stacy Jennings, executive director of the state Ethics Commission, said she is prohibited from confirming or denying the existence of a complaint.
Jennings said if a complaint was filed sometime this week, it would probably be about six months before there was a decision on whether to hold a commission hearing on the matter.
archive
