The Nevada Commission on Ethics on Wednesday released its written opinion affirming a decision made in November that Las Vegas Councilman Michael Mack did not break any ethics rules when he declined to vote on an issue that involved the law firm that was helping him in a business venture.
Mack followed the advice of the city attorney's office when he abstained from voting on an Aug. 6 agenda item in which Eric Goodman, the mayor's son, represented a sign company seeking relaxed rules in placing a billboard.
Mack said that Goodman did legal work for a business venture, but he did not describe the venture. The city attorney's office advised him that it was sufficient to disclose the attorney-client relationship, and no further disclosures were necessary.
The commission disagreed with that assessment, stating in the opinion released this week that the issue "is not the personal relationship between a public officer and his or her attorney (or doctor or priest). Rather, it is the action that is being taken by the public officer and how that action affects that attorney (or doctor or priest) given the context of the matter before the public body."
The opinion blames the city attorney's office for advising council members that merely stating the attorney-client relationship is sufficient disclosure, advice that "appears to have created an environment in which members of the Las Vegas City Council believed they were compelled in such matters to act in accordance with advice and instruction from the Las Vegas City Attorney's Office."
While the commission found Mack did not violate the law, it also stated that "it will not hereafter under circumstances substantially similar to those discussed herein tolerate disclosures or assertions that fail to meet the requirements of NRS 281.501 and the standards of the Commission's published opinions."
City Attorney Brad Jerbic said that his office would comply with the commission directions. However, he said, some further, detailed guidance was in order.
For example, he asked, if someone was getting a divorce, but did not want to make the issue public, should they be required to disclose those facts in abstaining on an unrelated matter involving their lawyer?
archive