Jon Ralston on why Nevada politicians have a different outlook on ethics than regular folks

Sunday, Aug. 5, 2007 | 1:16 a.m.

The first section of the state's ethics law is so cogent that it should render all that follows redundant:

"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this State that:

(a) A public office is a public trust and shall be held for the sole benefit of the people.

(b) A public officer or employee must commit himself to avoid conflicts between his private interests and those of the general public whom he serves."

Period. End of story. If only.

Is this really so hard for politicians to understand ? The voters have conferred a public trust and you must be committed - it bears repeating: committed - to avoid conflicts with your private life. And, yet, it is serially violated.

Las Vegas Councilman Steve Ross is far from the first to flout that declaration by actively seeking, as opposed to, as the law says, avoiding a job that poses inevitable conflicts. By winning the helm of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, which actively pressures and negotiates with just the kind of people Ross regulates, he is following in a hoary tradition, especially on the Las Vegas City Council.

This is the venue whence his predecessor, Michael Mack, tried to sell his business to those who needed his vote. It is the place where Michael McDonald took money from a strip club owner - again seeking a job that created a conflict in contravention of the ethics law. And, of course, it is the fiefdom of one Oscar Goodman, whose mayoral mischief has included trying to help his son's fledgling business and of not barring his lawyer-sons from appearing before the council, thus creating a conflict for himself and a sticky situation for his colleagues.

But this is not just about Ross or the Las Vegas City Council. It is about many government bodies, especially the Legislature, in a state where the common law sanctions incest, where it is understood that coziness is next to godliness.

Some of this is inevitable with a system that employs part-timers at the state and local levels. But what continues to astonish me is that despite what seems obviously wrong to normal folks and despite that clear admonition atop the state's ethics statute, elected officials continue to thumb their noses at the law and their constituents.

Why? Because they can.

At least most of the time. G-Sting was about a lot of things, many of them sordid and small-time. But as much as it was about avarice and brazenness, it also was about part-time elected officials who weren't making as much money as they wanted to in their public jobs, so they sought other compensation to keep them in the lifestyle of which they had become envious.

It's intoxicating: Many of those who want their vote and are their new, situational friends have fancy cars, golf course memberships, vacation homes. Whether they decide to emulate them by criminal means or merely unethical methods, the root problem is the same.

So what's the solution?

The answer clearly is not the state Ethics Commission, which has been populated by well-intentioned folks but has neither the tools - nor often the fortitude - to do what's necessary. It also risks becoming a joke - some will say more of a joke - if it continues to rubber-stamp obviously unethical decisions, if it green lights ventures such as Ross' that common sense tells voters are questionable.

I have said for years that most of these situations are not gray - Mack selling his wares, ex-Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates trying to do business with casinos. Even state Sen. Bill Raggio, one of the greatest legislators in history, never should have served on health care and gaming boards. Nor should others have agreed to be on corporate boards: Does anyone think these companies chose these elected officials for any other reason than their titles?

Those, too, violate that seminal precept outlined at the beginning of the state ethics law. And that's why my sympathy for these part-timers has limits. They can't help what they did before they were elected; but to consciously create conflicts after they are seated is malice aforethought.

But a disinterested electorate - and people here pay less attention and don't vote in greater numbers than most places - allows this to continue. So what to do?

Disclosure is paramount, but so are better salaries and better staff. It's probably a $10 million to $20 million fix. But it is broken, and it's about time.