Editorial: Wrestling with political hi-jinks

For a candidate running for office, a complaint filed against him with the state Ethics Commission is the political equivalent of a scarlet letter.

Whether it has merit or not, the impression left with voters is that the candidate was engaged in wrongdoing. The accusation is almost impossible for voters to ignore because it gets significant media attention and often is used in an opponent's campaign ads. The charges ultimately can inflict fatal damage to a candidate -- even if the accusation is never substantiated.

During the course of a campaign, it's not uncommon to see candidates charge each other with ethical lapses, which voters usually chalk up as just the usual give and take in politics. But a complaint filed with the state Ethics Commission sounds weightier and seems more legitimate because it carries the imprimatur of an independent government agency.

An ethics complaint can be a powerful weapon to wield against an elected official. And it can take months for the Ethics Commission to address a complaint after it is filed. This can be particularly devastating during a campaign, as questions linger about the candidate's competency for the office.

Many of these complaints are bogus. When Clark County Commissioner Paul Christensen was running for re-election in 1996, an ethics complaint was filed with the Ethics Commission by "Helena Lockridge" -- the problem was that Helena Lockridge didn't exist. It was a fictitious name used by a political operative of one of Christensen's opponents in the primary, Brooks Compton.

Las Vegas Mayor Jan Laverty Jones, a candidate for governor, has had seven ethics complaints filed against her -- and each time the Ethics Commission has absolved her of wrongdoing. The most recent complaint was filed by Steve Miller, a bitter enemy of Jones who was defeated by Jones in the mayor's race in 1991.

It's obvious that the process is being abused. The question is how to eliminate the hi-jinks. Should a complaint be dismissed simply because it is filed close to an election? Setting an absolute cutoff time, such as the last day of candidacy filing, might seem reasonable to some. But this also presents a difficulty because it suggests that candidates filing for office don't have to worry about these charges being addressed during an election, even if they have merit.

All of this creates a dilemma for the state Ethics Commission. Members are there to render impartial, unbiased decisions based on the facts they have. But the board, a part-time body with a relatively small full-time staff, rarely makes swift decisions after a complaint is filed.

This is not the easiest situation to resolve. It's important that every person has the right to file an ethics complaint and that each complaint should be judged on its merits. At the same time, gadflies and sleazy political hacks abuse the process in an effort to inflict damage, whether it's for retribution or political gain. For now, greater attention should be placed on the front end of the process, as soon as a complaint is filed. If a complaint has no merit, then the commission should dismiss it quickly.

When the Legislature reconvenes in January it needs to address this issue with an eye on the long term. If it requires more staff to ferret through these complaints and gather more facts for the commissioners, then state legislators should give this serious consideration. In addition, it's important that the Legislature tackle the issue of whether the Ethics Commission should establish a higher threshold that would allow commissioners to immediately dismiss complaints without merit.

A properly run Ethics Commission can be instrumental in making sure that elected officials act in the public interest. But it's dangerous if an ethics board does not decisively throw out illegitimate allegations, eroding the public's faith in the commission.

archive