Ross abstains on several city council items involving union jobs

By Dave Toplikar

Published Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 | 11:37 a.m.

Updated Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009 | 12:27 p.m.

It seemed like Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross was being extra cautious today.

On the heels of a Nevada Ethics Commission ruling last week that he violated state state laws last year and earlier this year, Ross today made it crystal clear he wouldn't vote on matters that might involve construction jobs for the labor unions he leads.

Ross, a top leader of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, had gotten himself into trouble with the state ethics panel for voting on projects last December and February involving a new city hall.

Last week, the five-member ethics commission ruled on 4-1 vote that Ross, who represents Ward 6, violated state law for not abstaining on those items during votes on Dec. 3, 2008, and on Feb. 18 this year.

But in a unanimous vote, the commission also ruled those violations were not "willful," partly because Ross said the city attorney and Ross' own lawyer had given him the go-ahead to participate, despite being warned.

Although Ross had been routinely abstaining from items since February, he read a lengthy statement today explaining that he was "disclosing" and "abstaining" on several items.

First, Ross disclosed his position as secretary-treasure of the trades council.

"One of my jobs in that capacity is to help secure work for union workers who are members of the trades I represent," Ross said. "Because the council awards a number of construction contracts and the labor unions may later become interested in jobs provided by these contracts, I'm making this disclosure."

Ross continued, "If the trade unions take an active interest in any particular contract or ... are competing for jobs on a contract awarded by the city of Las Vegas, I will also abstain from a vote on that contract.

"Let me be clear. Almost every construction contract awarded by the city of Las Vegas goes through a competitive bid process per Nevada Revised Statutes 338, which requires an award of contract to the lowest responsive and most responsible bidder. The law does not favor union or non-union. If the construction contract awarded under NRS 338 (and) the award is unchallenged and the trades council is not involved in securing jobs for the project, I will disclose, but not abstain."

He explained that he was "disclosing" on three agenda items, which involved constructing bus turnouts to pick up and drop off passengers along several streets, but he was still voting on them. The council later unanimously approved those items.

However, Ross said he was "disclosing and abstaining" on another routine item, which involved the rejection of low bidders for a new city park to be built adjacent to the Neon Boneyard, located on the north and south side of McWilliams Avenue east of Las Vegas Boulevard North.

Ross said the Neon Boneyard park project "involved the potential for dispute between union and non-union labor." After Ross' statement, the commission unanimously rejected the bid on that item because the two contractors did not meet the bid requirements the city set out for the $1.88 million project.

Ross also brought up a routine item that further advances the funding for the new city hall project, which the council approved earlier this month.

"Members of the labor unions I represent are seeking a project labor agreement for that project," Ross said. "And the Southern Nevada Trades Council is actively involved in negotiations for a project labor agreement that will result in union jobs. Therefore, your honor, I am also disclosing and abstaining from that item."

The commission unanimously approved that item, with Ross abstaining.

During last week's ethics commission meeting, Ross was found to have violated the state ethics in government law twice on Dec. 3, 2008. The commission found that he failed to disclose his position with the union and failed to abstain on the vote the city council took on city hall on that date, according to Yvonne Nevarev-Goodson, ethics commission counsel.

Ross also violated the ethics law a third time on Feb. 18. With some 300 union members in the city council chambers, he disclosed his position with the trades council. But he then asked the city council to rule on whether he could vote on the matter. At the advice of the city's attorney, he went ahead and voted, which the commission found violated the law.

However, none of the violations was considered willful, because Ross was acting on the city attorney's advice, so there were no sanctions issued against Ross, Nevarev-Goodson said.

For willful violations, the commission can levy a fine up to $5,000 for the first violation, up to $10,000 for the second violation and up to $25,000 for the third.

Also, if the commission has determined a person committed one or two willful violations, it could refer the matter to a court to determine if that person should be removed from office, she said. If three or more violations were considered willful, the matter would definitely be turned over to a court proceeding, she said.