State commission: Las Vegas councilman violated ethics laws
However, commission unanimously rules violations were not ‘willful’
Friday, Dec. 11, 2009 | 6:51 p.m.
Sun Archives
- Ross keeps voting despite warning (2-22-2009)
- An affront to ethics in the City Hall vote (2-20-2009)
- Councilman Steve Ross has no conflict on the new City Hall – but union boss Steve Ross’s members are putting out press releases on it (2-19-2009)
- Ross rival doesn’t like plan for new city hall (1-27-2009)
The Nevada Ethics Commission today ruled that Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross broke state ethics laws because he voted over the last year on a city hall project while a construction union he leads was negotiating a labor deal on the project for its members.
Ross, who is secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, should not have participated in votes taken on the project on Dec. 3, 2008, and on Feb. 18 this year, the commission ruled on a 4-1 vote.
However, the commission also unanimously voted that Ross's violations were not "willful."
The commission said that Ross violated the law the first time by not disclosing at the Dec. 3 city council vote that he had a conflict of interest because he was working for the trades council.
At that time, the trades council was in negotiations for a labor contract with the developer of the project at that time, Forest City, according evidence presented at the hearing.
After that Dec. 3 vote, Ross had received an opinion from the ethics commission warning him that he was possibly violating the state ethics law. But, on the advice of his attorney and the city attorney, Ross again voted at the Feb. 18 meeting on the project instead of abstaining.
At that time, Las Vegas City Attorney Brad Jerbic told Ross he could vote because the project had not “gone to contract” or received final approval from the City Council.
Since that time, Ross has abstained from voting on the project, although he has voiced his support of the project.
Last week, the city council approved the project and preliminary construction work is expected to begin on it in January.
Discussion: comment so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
- Surprise links, negotiated deals addressed by commissioners
- Motorcycle accident claims life of man in northeast valley
- Hope and change and … what’s missing?
- New York mayor has the right idea
- We don’t need a CEO in charge
- Paying our own way
- Country has ‘given’ citizens a lot
- Jerry Tarkanian: Mike Moser impresses yet again on a day to remember former Rebel greats
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.



"...However, the commission also unanimously voted that Ross's violations were not "willful."..."
DID HE VOTE WHILE HE WAS "ASLEEP"...?
HIS VOTE WAS "INVOLUNTARY"...?
THE VOTING BUTTON MYSTERIOUSLY PUSHED UP AGAINST HIS HAND ALL BY ITSELF...?
And it was an Ethics Commission unanimous vote? What brain-less planet does this esteemed Commission think we're on?
And how much tax money pays this guy Brad Jerbic's salary for him to give ludicrous "ethics" opinions, i.e. "it's ok fer votin' this time, 'cause I 'specilize in murky gray stuff, and oh yeah, 'cause I said so, too."
I must be an iDiOt if I'm writing tax checks to all these governmental-type flub-ists.
(helpful definition, ludicrous: amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity...)