Comments (14) | Add a comment
Ethics commission rules against Las Vegas city councilman Ross
-
Photo by Jeff Scheid
City Councilman Steve Ross, right, confers with City Attorney Brad Jerbic during an Ethics Commission hearing at the Sawyer Building.
Tools
-
Nevada Ethics Commission member Mark Hutchison questions Rick Johnson, president of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, during a Friday hearing involving Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross. Photo by Jeff Scheid
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:15 a.m.
Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross shouldn't have voted to advance a new city hall project in December 2008 and February of this year because he had a conflict of interest, the Nevada Ethics Commission ruled Friday.
He should have abstained from votes on Dec. 3 and Feb. 18, commissioners ruled, citing evidence that the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, where Ross serves as secretary-treasurer, was pursuing a labor deal with Forest City, the new city hall's developer at the time.
"Obviously I don't agree with that," Ross said of the commission's ruling. "I believe I followed the counsel of the Ethics Commission and what I heard from my own counsel."
Commissioners voted 4-1 -- with Commissioner Gregory Gale casting the only "no" vote -- that Ross should have abstained from the votes and disclosed his relationship with the trades council at the Dec. 3 meeting.
He made that disclosure at the Feb. 18 meeting.
The commission voted unanimously that the votes at issue were not 'willful,' meaning there are no civil penalties attached. If the violations had been found to be willful, Ross could have faced fines.
Gale said he was satisfied that the trades council was not, in fact, going after a labor deal at the time.
There was some confusion on that point.
Trades council president Rick Johnson testified Thursday that he started talking with Forest City in November or December of 2008.
He returned on Friday to say he was mistaken, and provided phone and e-mail records that he said show he didn't contact Forest City until April, when he sent a draft labor agreement to Forest City.
The last time Ross voted on the city hall project was Feb. 18. He abstained from subsequent votes.
"I was incorrect yesterday," Johnson said. "We're in constant negotiations. I wasn't sure of the exact date."
Commission member Mark Hutchison didn't buy it. By Johnson's own admission, he noted, discussions of a labor agreement don't start by sending a draft agreement.
"Maybe it happened, but it'd be highly unusual," Hutchison said. "I found that testimony to be somewhat suspect. It didn't ring true to me."
Ross and Steve Redlinger, the trades council's former spokesman and lobbyist, said Johnson made a mistake in his Thursday testimony.
"He was unprepared to talk about dates," Redlinger said.
If the trades council was in discussions at the time, Ross said, "I would not have voted." In more recent votes, Ross has abstained and cited the talks between Forest City and the trades council as the reason.
The original ethics complaint was filed in February and cited the Dec. 3 and Feb. 18 votes, as well as another city hall voted on Nov. 19, 2008. It also cited Ross' votes in favor of a U.S. 95 interchange project, a casino at Kyle Canyon and a multitude of consent agenda items that allegedly benefited construction unions.
The Kyle Canyon and consent agenda items were dismissed before this week's hearing, and commissioners voted unanimously Friday to dismiss the U.S. 95 complaint.
"It's clear that Councilman Ross did violate ethics," said Tyson Wrensch, one of the three Ward 6 residents who filed the complaint. "It gives citizens like me hope that we can make a difference."
Wrensch backed Ross' opponent in this year's municipal elections and said he's been unhappy with many of Ross' votes.
"As for what's next, I don't know. We'll still be watching and we may be back here," Wrensch said, adding Ross appears to be serving two masters. "The best thing for him to do is to pick a job."
This is not Ross' first trip to the Ethics Commission. He sought an advisory opinion in 2007 to see if he could fill the trades council job while being a sitting councilman.
He was told that it's not an automatic conflict of interest, but that he'd have to be careful because the trades council represents construction unions and promotes the use of union labor.
Metaphors trotted out Friday included "stepping on a land mine," swimming in shark-infested waters, and "a swamp full of alligators."
In the future, Ross will probably issue a blanket declaration at the beginning of council meetings that he works with the labor unions. He doesn't automatically have to abstain from a vote involving a construction project, but he must be more careful, Hutchison said.
"What he didn't do is think about the downstream analysis," he said, such as the fact that a vote to approve a project one day could lead to union jobs down the line. "There are downstream ways in which your interests or the trade unions' interests could be affected."
Contact reporter Alan Choate at achoate@reviewjournal.com or 702-229-6435.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Union Hack. Enough said.
"In the future, Ross will probably issue a blanket declaration at the beginning of council meetings that he works with the labor unions"
Which leaves his ward without a vote or a champion...
The real injustice here is that Ross is not doing a good job for either master. In his role as the Boss of the Building Trades he should be on the other side of the podium lobbying elected officials and working hard to get jobs for his union workers. In case no one has told him, his unions have about a 50% unemployment rate. Instead he puts his own union president Rick Johnson who appears to be a nice, upstanding guy, on the hotseat for him! When the truth is, the union pays him hansomely to be along side Mr. Johnson in all negotiations for union jobs! The Ethics Commission ruled yesterday that he violated State ethics laws, and they gave him a harsh warning to disclose and abstain if ANY vote looks like it might have downstream potential for union jobs. So Ward 6 residents be prepared to not have a vote in all upcoming road projects, public works, any further development on the 61-acres, and much more...these are your tax dollars! What kind of public servant, who truly cares about representing his constituents, agrees to those kinds of voting limitations? Only Ross would see no problem with his trying to serve two masters. The honorable thing to do is to pick one master. In fact Commissioner Beyer asked Ross three times during the hearing. "Which job do you like best". Ross replied, "both". But it is now abundantly clear that Ross can be of no assistance to either job. He can't vote or lobby on behalf of a union that needs solid leaderhsip now more than ever, and he can't vote on behalf of the very people he asked to serve if the vote can result is any potential for union jobs.
Welcome to the "world" of Ross.