The Las Vegas city attorney’s office may have weighed in. The state Ethics Commission may have weighed in. Other pundits may have weighed in. But the final word in matters ethical can only come from the brilliant legal minds here at Various Things & Stuff, which today takes up the case of In re: Las Vegas Councilman Steve Ross. Court is now in session!

Facts

Steve Ross is, and at all times relevant to this matter was, an elected city councilman for the city of Las Vegas, representing the northwest portion of the city currently organized and known as Ward 6. He is paid $45,000 per year for that job, and his current term extends until 2009.

In his capacity as a city councilman, he is frequently called upon to deny or approve construction projects, including zoning, re-zoning, master-plan amendments, appeals of adverse decisions rendered by the city’s planning and building departments, as well as review and oversee city-financed construction projects.

Ross is also a journeyman wireman, who formerly worked for an electrical contracting business owned by his wife. In that capacity, he is a member in good standing of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a trade union. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 357, is a constituent union of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council.

On Monday, Ross stood for, and was elected to, the position of secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, a position that requires, among other things, lobbying for the union and the use of union labor in construction projects in Southern Nevada. That job pays a salary of approximately $100,000 per year.

Arguments

An elected position on the Las Vegas City Council is an office of trust and profit under the state of Nevada. As such, it requires diligent adherence to ethical behavior. Elected officials in such offices must place their personal, family and business obligations beneath those of the commonweal for the duration of their tenure in office.

Elected officials in Nevada must, by law, avoid conflicts of interest, or, at the very least, minimize them to every extent possible. (SEE, NRS 281.421)

Ross was aware of the job duties and responsibilities of an elected Las Vegas city councilman when he ran for the position in 2005. Such duties include, but are not limited to, representing the residents of his district on matters of public concern, including but not limited to building projects within his ward.

Prior to Monday, Ross had no conflicts between his elected position on the City Council and his private trade, that of a journeyman wireman, unless his wife’s company was directly involved in a project that for some reason would come before the City Council for review or approval.

Subsequent to Monday, however, Ross now faces a conflict between his interests as a city councilman and his interests as secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council.

The conflict came about as a direct result of Ross own actions, in choosing to stand for election to the position of secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council.

Therefore, Ross has violated his affirmative duty to minimize conflicts in that:

a.) He sought a position that would tend to increase conflicts, rather than avoid or minimize them.

b.) He now faces actual, rather than hypothetical or theoretical conflicts, from which he may be required to abstain, thus denying his constituents representation on the Las Vegas City Council and putting them at a disadvantage with respect to their quality of life.

For example, according to the Review-Journal (see link above), a neighborhood casino is planned for Ross’ ward, which casino will provide potential jobs for members of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council. Prior to his election as secretary-treasurer of that organization, Ross would have been able to fully participate in the debate over the approval of this project, and to represent the voices of his constituents, some of whom are vocally opposed to the construction of this project.

But now Ross’ views, whether positive or negative, may not be heard. To wit:

If he abstains from voting on the neighborhood casino project because of the direct financial interest his union may have in persuading the casino’s builders to use union labor on the project, his views — whether positive or negative — will not be heard.

If he participates in the discussion, and votes in the affirmative, he can credibly be accused of a conflict of interest within the meaning of NRS 281.481, specifically NRS 281.481(2) and NRS 281.481(3). Moreover, this will tend to cause residents of Ward 6 who oppose the construction of the neighborhood casino to conclude that Ross voted because of his position with the Southern Nevada Building Trades and Construction Council, and for no other reason, which tends to decrease the public’s faith in its government.

However, if he participates in the discussion and votes in the negative, he can still be credibly accused of a conflict of interest with the above-referenced statutes, and in addition could be in violation of the fealty expected by the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council in its newly elected secretary-treasurer.

Therefore, the only proper course of action for Ross was to abstain — for the duration of his term as an elected city councilman for the city of Las Vegas — from seeking or accepting any outside employment which would tend to increase conflicts of interest rather than minimize them. By failing to do so, Ross has failed in his statutory duty as en elected official.

Conclusion and order

City Council members are part-time lawmakers, most of whom maintain outside employment to supplement the income from their elected job. The voters of the state of Nevada have concluded it is their preference to maintain a citizen, rather than a professional, full-time, city council.

However, elected officials are obligated to minimize conflicts between their elected position and their private interests. This may, in many cases, require them to forgo a financial or occupational opportunity in order to maintain fealty to the commonweal, or, in the alternative, to resign their elected position in order to pursue such financial or occupational opportunity.

By actively seeking a position which cannot help but tend to create conflicts of interest where none before existed, and to pursue an elected position with the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, which position is financially lucrative, Ross has placed his public duties beneath his private interests. This goes directly against the stated policy of the state of Nevada.

THEREFORE, it is our finding and order that:

a.) Ross must immediately resign as secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, and seek no further position with that or any similar group, for the duration of his term as an elected member of the Las Vegas City Council, or, in the alternative, that,

b.) Ross must immediately resign as an elected city councilman for the city of Las Vegas.

c.) Any opinion in conflict with this decision and order is null and void, as it ignores the laws of the state of Nevada, self-evident ethical precepts and common sense.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Aug. 2, 2006

Las Vegas, Nevada