Former commissioner warns of conflicts

Potential conflicts of interest should be a serious issue in your personal debate as to whom you might cast your ballot for in the upcoming primary election.

Commissioners who have conflicts of interest can sometimes be the critical vote in a commissioner action that can affect you, and this county, for years to come " a critical vote that could literally shred the fabric of this county.

How do I know this? I have been there.

My name is Bob Allgeier. I am a former Douglas County commissioner, circa 1993-1996. I was chairman of the commission 1995-1996. Probably 50 percent of those reading this did not even live in Douglas County at that time. Our current county master plan was written in 1995-96, passed and parts of it were put into action at that time.

In 1996 one of the largest development plans ever to come before the county (referred to as Buckeye Creek) was denied a further contract time extension to perform.

This development anticipated about 2,700 homes, a golf course and, of course, a substantial commercial area.

It was located at the intersection of East Valley Road and Buckeye Road. I believe this may have been the largest single development proposed in Douglas County prior to the recent submittal by Park Cattle Co.

The developer was John Shahin from the Palos Verde area of Los Angeles County. And of course, I can't forget you either, Larry Walsh; you were John's vice president of operations or worked in a similar position. The development was initially approved in the late 1980s and had received seven extensions prior to 1996 when the commissioners declined to approve yet a further extension of time for this project.

See there, Jim Slade, one county commission had the courage to sunset a major development for non-performance.

I believe this issue of whether county commissioners have the authority to deny extensions of time to a developer for non-performance was addressed in three separate court actions before Douglas County finally prevailed.

I bring this forward to you as an example because one of the commissioners on the board at that time had, in my opinion, a clear conflict of interest. I discussed the matter at length with the county district attorney, who represents the commissioners, and felt that I was on firm ground. I talked with this commissioner at length with seemingly little progress. Nevada Revised Statutes at the time clearly defined the issue as to when a commissioner is required by law to announce his relationship with the developer.

I had no authority to require that this commissioner make a public announcement and recuse himself from voting on the action. The threat of public disclosure and pressure from the district attorney finally prevailed. In the end, the commissioner recused himself and the issue was decided by a four-person board of commissioners.

I bring this to your attention because we now have an active developer/builder, Greg Lynn, who is running for election in a commissioner race. With all due respect to Mr. Lynn, to vote him onto the board will likely open a Pandora's box of "conflicts of interests" whenever a development-related agenda item is up for consideration. The following is my reasoning:

Many of the critical issues that come before the commissioners for action concern development and the development community's applications to amend the master plan, approval of development plans and development agreements which are often endlessly debated. Zoning requests, development fees, construction standards and many other matters, such as the current flood plain ordinance, are all part of the critical actions constantly faced by the Commissioners. Many of the decisions made could substantially add to the financial success or failure of a development, including those of direct pecuniary interest to the commissioner.

It is unlikely that an active developer in the Carson Valley, elected as a county commissioner, can avoid being constantly exposed to conflict disclosures and voting abstentions. I do not believe in the good tooth fairy or divine intervention when it comes to politics. Just look at the recent issue concerning our governor and parcel taxes.

Unfortunately, violations of the rules concerning a conflict of interest are not weighted in favor of the public. Once the vote is taken by the commission in an action, it is the law. The offending official can be taken to the Ethics Commission for a remedial hearing, but actions by the Ethics Commission take time. These are usually civil matters and if found to be in violation, the offender can be fined and scolded. His voting action, however, usually stands and is not rescinded.

The recently modified Ethics Law is quite specific. The commissioner is the party responsible for making the timely decision on whether to disclose the conflict of interest and whether to vote or abstain. If the person in conflict makes no timely disclosure and the public is otherwise unaware, no public divulgence takes place and the person participates in the action at hand.

Read NRS 281A.400, and the sections following it, for the full text of the law. You can find it on the internet or in the library.

An opinion paper released by our District Attorney's Office offers the following commentary: The legislature states "the law concerning ethics in government is not to require a member of the legislature to abstain on issues which might affect his interests, provided those interests are properly disclosed and that the benefit or detriment accruing to him is no greater than that accruing to any other member of the general business, profession, occupation or group." This applies to county legislative bodies such as the county commission.

In other words, under the modified statute " and this is the critical issue " the commissioner can vote a benefit for himself, even if he discloses the conflict, as long as others of his occupational, professional, business class or group benefit in the same way. This is hardly encouraging to us citizens.

The modified statute certainly widely opens the door to a possible abuse or misuse of an official's voting privilege.

I suggest that it would be best to avoid the potential for the conflict in the first place through informed voting.

n Bob Allgeier is a Minden resident.