The Nevada Commission on Ethics goes to Washington

On Monday, the Nevada Commission on Ethics announced that it will appeal a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision to the United States Supreme Court. The 5-1 decision ruled that a "catchall" provision in the state ethics law was unconstitutional, because it was too vague.

Nevada justices, in a 5-1 opinion, said a “catchall” provision in the law that extends defined voting prohibitions — such as in matters involving family members, business partners or employers — to any other “similar” relationship was vague. 

“This catchall language fails to adequately limit the statute’s potential reach and does not inform or guide public officers as to what relationships require recusal,” the opinion said.

A more robust explanation of the case here.

We'll be sure to keep you up to date on how the appeal turns out.

Coroner’s inquest to be broadcast live?

An encouraging idea from Commissioner Sisolak:

The coroner’s inquest into the July 10 fatal shooting by Metro Police of West Point graduate Erik Scott at the Summerlin Costco could be shown on the county's cable channel.

Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak, who also sits on Metro’s Fiscal Affairs Committee, wants fellow commissioners to vote on the idea at their next meeting Sept. 7. [...]

"I think it’s important for people to be able to see the inquest and make up their own minds," Sisolak said. "It will either ease their feelings or they won’t like it. But I don’t see how openness and transparency can be a bad thing."

Well said. Police transparency doesn't get as much attention as, say, governmental transparency but it is every bit as important.  Hopefully this will help clear up some of the lingering questions people may have about the inquest process and any potential biases that may exist within it.

Ethics panel clamps down on judges

Recent judgments by a judicial ethics panel are limiting the ability of judges to get involved in elections.

In the past two weeks, the panel has barred judges from holding "meet and greet" events for judicial candidates and from having political campaign signs in their yard.

The panel ruled that having "meet and greet" events and campaign signs would constitute an improper endorsement of a candidate by a sitting judge.

The panel's opinions raise interesting questions on what exactly constitutes protected political speech and what limits, if any, can be applied to that speech when it deals with judges.

Does a citizen lose his or her right to engage in political speech upon becoming a judge?  Is the image of impartiality so important that certain core rights can be abridged?

Why do we demand our judges become blank slates once elected?  They certainly had political opinions before becoming judges, and they certainly have them while serving as a judge.

The idea behind prohibiting judges from making candidate endorsements is a fear that they will be seen as "political."  Yet does muzzling a judge make him or her any less political?  Of course not.  Judges still have political opinions. They just can't express them now.

A judge could be absolutely silent on candidate endorsements and still be a partisan hack in the courtroom, just as a judge could be a proud partisan and be the epitome of fairness in the courtroom.

Making a candidate endorsement does not make a judge any more partisan or "political."  Rather, the endorsement is simply an outlet for what the judge already believes.

TransparentNevada helps creation of salary report

By now you've probably heard about Clark County's report on wages and pay raises that compares the employee salaries in Clark County to salaries in Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and six other regional entities. The report finds, unsurprisingly, that local government employees have been paid quite well in recent years. For example, from their cost of living adjustments alone, Clark County firefighters have had a 46% bump in pay over the past decade, which easily surpasses the consumer price index rate of 31% during the same period.

While there is plenty of interesting information in the report, I want to draw your attention to one important aspect of it that hasn't gotten too much notice these past few days.

Where did the county get much of the salary information it used to create the report?

They got it from TransparentNevada.

Instead of the Clark County Comptroller going to each local government and regional entity and getting information from them, he was able to get all he needed right from TransparentNevada -- and that same data is available to every citizen in Clark County.

While TransparentNevada has often been used by the taxpaying public to learn more about how their money is being spent, it is a gold mine of information for public officials too. One advantage of using our data is that when it is published on the site, we make sure the comparisons are between similar categories. Because each jurisdiction calculates things a bit differently, it can be tough to make sure you're making accurate comparisons. With TransparentNevada, we've already done that hard work for you.

So thank you, Clark County, for using TransparentNevada. We're glad you found it useful and hope other counties will begin following your lead.

NV Supreme Court rules ethics provision unconstitutional

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled last week that a provision in the state ethics laws is unconstitutionally broad and infringes upon the First Amendment rights of free speech for public officials.

The ruling was made after Sparks City Councilman Michael Carrigan challenged his censure by the State Ethics Commission that followed his vote on a matter involving a company his friend and campaign manager worked for.

According to Nevada's "Ethics in Government" laws, if a public official is engaged in one of four specifically prohibited relationships, they must abstain from voting. These include common sense things such as a public official can't vote for matters involving a family member. Additionally, there is a fifth provision that includes anything "substantially similar" to the four specific relationships but still not explicitly listed. Carrigan was censured under this fifth "catchall" provision.

Carrigan argued the act of voting by a public official is an expression of free speech. Because it is free speech, any attempts by the government to limit it must be "narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest."

The Court agreed and ruled in favor of Carrigan. Because votes made by public officials are expressions of free speech, the government has the burden to prove any limitations on that speech are narrowly tailored and serve a compelling government interest. So while the Court agreed with the State Ethics Commission that having an honest state government is a compelling government interest, the Court found the language to accomplish that goal was not "narrowly tailored." The catchall provision, in the eyes of the Court, is too broad and hence infringes upon the free speech rights of public officials by restricting their ability to vote on matters.

So what does this all mean? The obvious is that the State Ethics Commission will no longer be able to rely upon the catchall provision in issuing censures in the future. It might have the effect, as Jon Ralston argued Monday, of further de-fanging an already toothless Ethics Commission.

It'd be nice to think that public officials won't use weaker ethics laws to skirt conflict of interest rules, but I'm not holding my breath.

Reid and Sandoval unfortunately agree

In an otherwise platitude-filled and substance-light Q&A session published by the Las Vegas Sun, gubernatorial candidates Rory Reid and Brian Sandoval unfortunately found agreement on one issue: keeping public employee union negotiations out of the view of the public.

In particular, they oppose the initiative launched by Gov. Jim Gibbons requiring local governments to negotiate with unions in public.

Reid and Sandoval both note the public is already able to view and comment upon contracts before they're approved. Reid calls the initiative "politically motivated" while Sandoval calls it "unnecessary."

Both candidates should reconsider their opposition. Taxpayers' right to see where their money is being spent begins before the final approval of a contract. It exists throughout the entire process. The public should be in the loop from proposals to negotiations to final approval.