Editorial: Sorting out new ethical standards

AS the political seas swell with legitimate -- and bogus -- ethical complaints, public officials are upset over a controversial state Ethics Commission decision.

The Ethics Commission found earlier this month that Las Vegas City Councilman Gary Reese violated ethics laws when he did not abstain on a vote involving a friend. Reese, following the advice of the city attorney, disclosed his friendship before he voted.

Local elected officials and the government attorneys who represent them were taken aback by the Ethics Commission decision, contending that it runs contrary to state ethics laws. Feeling gun-shy in the wake of this ruling, the Las Vegas City Council shelved a zoning meeting last Monday, citing uncertainty over what constitutes an ethical violation.

While it's easy to understand the fears of Las Vegas City Council members, it was an overreaction to cancel the meeting. Local governments still must push forward and conduct the people's business, using their best judgment, as they wait for more clarity from the Ethics Commission.

Members of the Las Vegas City Council and other public officials were hopeful in advance that a written Ethics Commission opinion Wednesday, regarding the County Commission's awarding of airport concessions, would offer guidance on what is ethical behavior when voting on official business.

But the opinion, touted beforehand by the Ethics Commission as offering a road map for ethics, fell far short. If anything, the lack of guidance created even more confusion among public officials.

A written opinion on Reese's case isn't anticipated for about two months. Worried by the Reese decision, the Las Vegas city attorney has asked the state attorney general to determine whether the Ethics Commission went too far in saying Reese violated ethics laws. The attorney general said she would respond as soon as possible.

It's encouraging to see higher ethical standards adopted for public officials. But these standards must be consistent, and the Ethics Commission's rulings must be released in a timely fashion. Anything less creates paralysis among elected officials, who fear voting on legitimate matters because they are familiar with someone appearing before them.

As long as the Ethics Commission retains the sweeping authority it has now, the 1999 Legislature needs to give it more staffing, and a concurrent requirement that it issue opinions expeditiously. Dragging out hearings and decisions, especially on bogus complaints, only heightens public cynicism in government, even when it is not warranted.

archive