The County Commission has endorsed a sweeping set of proposals from a citizen task force designed to strengthen ethics laws and policies among elected officials and government employees.
The board in mid-November supported the bulk of the 12 recommendations from an ethics task force that had been convened in May. The next step will be for county staff to come back to the board with specific ordinances, resolutions or policies that would implement the various elements of the plan. County officials anticipate that those could be forwarded to the board and approved by January or February. Other elements will require changes in state law.
Here is what the Commission endorsed:
Cooling Off Period: The task force recommended that this provision of the county ethics policy be clarified to remove any loophole in application and added an enforcement measure. It suggested that any county official, for a period of twelve months following the end of his or her service to the county, not represent or act for others before Clark County government, including any employee or agent of the county. The only exception is for county officials who leave to work for another government agency, so long as they limit their representation to the affairs of that government agency. To enforce this provision, the task force recommended that if a county official violates this section, the board could increase the cooling-off period an additional six months for each violation. The task force recommended that this provision of the county ethics policy be clarified to remove any loophole in application and added an enforcement measure. It suggested that any county official, for a period of twelve months following the end of his or her service to the county, not represent or act for others before Clark County government, including any employee or agent of the county. The only exception is for county officials who leave to work for another government agency, so long as they limit their representation to the affairs of that government agency. To enforce this provision, the task force recommended that if a county official violates this section, the board could increase the cooling-off period an additional six months for each violation.
Sanctions: The task force recommended that for elected officials, in addition to any existing and available sanctions, the county should ask the state legislature to change Nevada law so that these rules may be enforced by the state Ethics Commission. It also sought authority for the state commission to enforce rules by using a set of escalating fines. The task force recommended that for elected officials, in addition to any existing and available sanctions, the county should ask the state legislature to change Nevada law so that these rules may be enforced by the state Ethics Commission. It also sought authority for the state commission to enforce rules by using a set of escalating fines.
Public Disclosure of Conflicts and Abstentions: The task force recommended that the county manager make available at least monthly to the public and to the media a report of all conflict disclosures and abstentions by county officials. The disclosures would specify each officials disclosures and whether or not those disclosures resulted in abstentions. The task force recommended that the county manager make available at least monthly to the public and to the media a report of all conflict disclosures and abstentions by county officials. The disclosures would specify each officials disclosures and whether or not those disclosures resulted in abstentions.
Effect of Abstention: The task force recommended that if county officials abstain from matters, then they will not participate in those matters in any way, including by voting, discussion, persuasion or otherwise. If the officials are not board members, then their supervisors shall designate persons to act in their place on the items of conflict. If the official is the county manager, then the assistant county manager with supervisory responsibilities in that area shall act in the managers place. The state Ethics Commission staff advised the county that this recommendation conflicts with Nevada law, which allows a public officer to "otherwise participate." Because of this, county staff advised that board members live by these rules while seeking a change in state law, which the board agreed today to do. The task force recommended that if county officials abstain from matters, then they will not participate in those matters in any way, including by voting, discussion, persuasion or otherwise. If the officials are not board members, then their supervisors shall designate persons to act in their place on the items of conflict. If the official is the county manager, then the assistant county manager with supervisory responsibilities in that area shall act in the managers place. The state Ethics Commission staff advised the county that this recommendation conflicts with Nevada law, which allows a public officer to "otherwise participate." Because of this, county staff advised that board members live by these rules while seeking a change in state law, which the board agreed today to do.
Prohibition of Acceptance of Gifts: The task force recommended reducing the amount of any gift a county elected official can accept from the current statutory limit of $200 per year to $50, unless he or she can demonstrate that the gift was not offered because of his or her position as a county elected official. This does not include political campaign contributions, meals, non-profit fund-raising events and functions sponsored by public institutions. State Ethics Commission staff has informed the county that their ability to enforce this will be difficult because state law and state reporting requirements are already established at the $200 level. The County Commission supported a staff recommendation that this provision not be immediately implemented but that it be proposed as a change to Nevada law covering elected officials statewide . The task force recommended reducing the amount of any gift a county elected official can accept from the current statutory limit of $200 per year to $50, unless he or she can demonstrate that the gift was not offered because of his or her position as a county elected official. This does not include political campaign contributions, meals, non-profit fund-raising events and functions sponsored by public institutions. State Ethics Commission staff has informed the county that their ability to enforce this will be difficult because state law and state reporting requirements are already established at the $200 level. The County Commission supported a staff recommendation that this provision not be immediately implemented but that it be proposed as a change to Nevada law covering elected officials statewide
Education: The task force urged the county to provide annual education about ethics for all officials. It recommend that classes include a review of existing laws and ethical codes and case studies that require officials to determine how they would act in given hypothetical situations. The group also wanted county employees and officials at all levels -- including elected and all appointed -- to participate on a yearly basis. County staff is developing these courses. The task force urged the county to provide annual education about ethics for all officials. It recommend that classes include a review of existing laws and ethical codes and case studies that require officials to determine how they would act in given hypothetical situations. The group also wanted county employees and officials at all levels -- including elected and all appointed -- to participate on a yearly basis. County staff is developing these courses.
Imputed Disqualification: The task force recommended that the county work with the state bar to study the extent to which the "imputed disqualification" rules of the bar may inappropriately cause elected officials to disqualify themselves from the publics business. Of particular concern: Conflicts that are deliberately created to disqualify an official from acting. Where appropriate, the group said, those rules should be modified. The task force recommended that the county work with the state bar to study the extent to which the "imputed disqualification" rules of the bar may inappropriately cause elected officials to disqualify themselves from the publics business. Of particular concern: Conflicts that are deliberately created to disqualify an official from acting. Where appropriate, the group said, those rules should be modified.
Definitions: The task force recommended expanding the definition of "county official" to include appointed managers and department heads, as well as members of certain appointed committees such as town advisory boards. The group also recommended clarifying the definition of "conflicting interest" by adding some examples, such as those that might arise from outside employment, donor/donee or debtor/creditor relationships, consulting arrangements, family and personal relationships, and legal or fiduciary arrangements or investments. The state Ethics Commission staff informed the county that in order for that body to enforce these definitions, this language should be inserted into the Nevada ethics law. The task force recommended expanding the definition of "county official" to include appointed managers and department heads, as well as members of certain appointed committees such as town advisory boards. The group also recommended clarifying the definition of "conflicting interest" by adding some examples, such as those that might arise from outside employment, donor/donee or debtor/creditor relationships, consulting arrangements, family and personal relationships, and legal or fiduciary arrangements or investments. The state Ethics Commission staff informed the county that in order for that body to enforce these definitions, this language should be inserted into the Nevada ethics law.
Disclosure of Conflicts: The task force recommended that the policy specifically state that, before acting on any matter, county officials will disclose to their superiors or to the board any conflicting interest. The task force recommended that the policy specifically state that, before acting on any matter, county officials will disclose to their superiors or to the board any conflicting interest.
Abstention: The task force recommended that once conflicts are disclosed, officials must automatically abstain on the matter unless they determine in good faith: The task force recommended that once conflicts are disclosed, officials must automatically abstain on the matter unless they determine in good faith:
1. That their actions will be in the countys or publics best interests; and
2. That the independence of their judgment will not be impaired
County officials must disclose that determination and the reasons for it to their superiors or, if a member of the Commission, to the board at a public meeting, before any action or participation. In the case of a county official who is an employee of the county, his or her supervisor may remove the employee from the matter, even if the employee-county official believes abstention is not required, since an employee is subject to the direction and control of his supervisor.
Advice About Disclosures and Abstention: In deciding whether to disclose or abstain, the county official may seek the advice of the county counsel, the county manager or the board at a public meeting. However, the decision will be the responsibility of the county official. In deciding whether to disclose or abstain, the county official may seek the advice of the county counsel, the county manager or the board at a public meeting. However, the decision will be the responsibility of the county official.
Changes in Nevada statutes: The task force recommended several specific changes to the state ethics law to clarify and strengthen it. For example: The task force recommended several specific changes to the state ethics law to clarify and strengthen it. For example:
1. The group asked that the language listing examples of conflicts be included in the statutory definition.
2. It recommended that the following advisory language be added:
"The principle of public office as a public trust, and the principle of independence of judgment require that in any case where the public official is in doubt, or it is not legally defined, as to whether or not a commitment in a private capacity to the interest of others does or does not exist, in those borderline cases these principles recommend caution by, first, full disclosure as to the facts, and, second, abstention if a third party reasonable person would see the commitment as likely to compromise independence of judgment."
The task force recommended that the legal standard defining "willful" conduct as it applies here should be narrowed so that "an action is willful if it is not coerced and if the agent knew, or reasonably could have known, of the consequences of that action."
For more information, view the news release below.
Report of the 2003 Task Force to Study the Ethics Guidelines of Clark County, Nevada
Proposal of Final Provisions
Clark County Ethics Task Force (CCETF) Craig Walton, re: Ethics Education
|