Columnist Jon Ralston: On how the lesser of two believables kept Clark County’s commissioner out of hot water

Friday, Jan. 13, 2006 | 8:32 a.m.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face with Jon Ralston on Las Vegas ONE and also publishes the daily e-mail newsletter RalstonFlash.com. His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or through e-mail at ralston@vegas.com.

As Clark County Commissioner Lynette Boggs McDonald declared victory Thursday after she was absolved of wrongdoing by the state Ethics Commission, she had to consider herself fortunate to have faced such putrid opposition.

We may never know if then-City Councilwoman Boggs McDonald, reacting as many spouses might have, tried in 2003 to save her husband's job by any means necessary, even calling a couple of legislators who were then city employees. But what we do know is that those legislators -- then-Assemblyman Wendell Williams and Assemblyman Morse Arberry -- were so lame in front of the ethics panel this week that the panel had no choice but to clear Boggs McDonald.

"I'm not convinced he spoke with any authenticity at all," Commissioner George Keele said of Williams. "All of us are concerned about the veracity of his testimony," added Jim Kosinski, describing it as "vague and contradictory." And Chairwoman Caren Jenkins characterized Williams' testimony as "tortured" and "simply not helpful."

Translation: He appeared to be lying. Or as Boggs McDonald's attorney John Mowbray put it, "Other than getting his name right, none of his testimony can be corroborated."

Commissioner Rick Hsu pointed out that some of Williams' story actually was verified by other witnesses, but none provided the necessary nexus to show Boggs McDonald had tried to influence the outcome of a bill that could have threatened her husband's state position.

It's not so much that most of the board was certain Boggs McDonald was innocent. And many who know her would say the fiery commissioner might have acted out of anger or pique. But Williams and Arberry, her chief accusers, came across as such prevaricating dissemblers that they completely undermined the case.

Arberry's role here is especially egregious and is much worse than what Boggs McDonald was accused of doing.

Arberry told commission Executive Director Stacy Jennings during a pre-hearing interview that Boggs McDonald had tried to sway him. Here's what her report said:

"Arberry stated that Boggs McDonald telephoned him after the adjournment of the 2003 legislative session to express her anger about the enactment of SB 446 and the reorganization of the State Treasurer's office. She explained to Arberry that Treasurer Krolicki wanted to hire someone with less experience and less education than Steven McDonald to replace Mr. McDonald. Boggs McDonald allegedly urged Arberry to contact Treasurer Krolicki in an effort to save her husband's job."

But when he testified this week, Arberry, who had hired criminal defense lawyer Rick Wright, denied saying certain things, insisted he had not opened his mail and found a staff memo recapping his testimony and had what Commissioner Rick Hsu called "a selective lack of memory."

Hsu described Arberry as "completely unhelpful," and Kosinski said it is "hard for me to believe anyone running such a (mortgage) business would fail to open his mail."

It comes down to this: Arberry either was lying when he was interviewed by Jennings or he was lying when he appeared before the commission, covering with the lawyerly "I don't recall" dodge.

Williams is irrelevant now, having been ousted by voters. But Arberry remains chairman of one of the Legislature's most powerful committees. That an elected official can be allowed to behave in such a manner and still be embraced by his caucus and voters is a travesty.

The process was standard Ethics Commission paradoxical fare -- inane and thoughtful, mind-numbing and thought-provoking. Commissioner Bill Flangas, as he too often does, read a prepared statement that showed his mind was made up long ago to find Boggs McDonald violated the law.

Keele set a standard for long-windedness that will not soon be equaled, oscillating between halting legal analysis and musings that sounded like he was on a bad acid trip. Rookie Commissioner Randall Capurro was very tentative, at first indicating he thought there was a violation, then going along with the majority.

And that's half of them -- how would you, as an elected official, like to have your fate decided by those folks?

On the other hand, Jenkins was a breath of common sense, Hsu was his usual sober, lucid self and Kosinski has a straightforward, no-nonsense style. But it's clear that the bar has to be set higher for some of these appointments or else the credibility of their decisions will suffer even more than they already do from a public that has a hang 'em high mentality even when those before the potential executioners shouldn't necessarily be strung up.

archive