Today, the Las Vegas City Council has a rare opportunity for redemption: a political "do over."

Two weeks ago, the council voted to lift a deed restriction and allow developer Bill Walters to put homes on the site of Royal Links Golf Club. The deed restriction had been in place because the acreage, sold by the city to Mr. Walters, sits next to a sewage treatment plant. The vote increased the value of Mr. Walters' land between $24 million and $28 million, and probably will require taxpayers to shell out some $5 million in odor-abatement improvements to the sewage plant.

But as the council considered this action, city staff was sitting on a bombshell: documents that detailed how former Public Works Director Richard Goecke might have violated city protocols in the late 1990s to expedite the transfer of the property and necessary water rights to Mr. Walters. A Las Vegas police investigation determined Mr. Goecke's decisions cost the city "millions of dollars" and that he "did commit acts which were likely criminal in nature."

Mayor Oscar Goodman acknowledged Monday that he knew of the allegations when he cast his vote to enrich Mr. Walters. But Councilman Steve Wolfson didn't appreciate the lack of full disclosure, so he returned the issue to today's agenda at City Hall. The council will consider rescinding last week's vote, and many key figures and former elected officials associated with the deal are expected to be on hand.

If Councilman Wolfson and other council members are serious about shining more light on this controversy, they'll have a list of questions for their esteemed guests. We have plenty of our own:

-- If the city attorney's office and city officials knew about allegations of misconduct against Mr. Goecke, why was he allowed to keep his job and retire with a generous pension? As public employees and members of the state bar, weren't city attorneys obliged to report possible criminal conduct?

-- Why did Deputy City Attorney John Redlein wait until this year to write a memo about the possible wrongdoing?

-- Who among city staff and the City Council knew that Mr. Walters might have received favorable treatment, and when did they know it? If such treatment occurred, who at City Hall ordered it?

-- What ever happened to integrity in city dealings? Why do taxpayers so often foot the bill while political favorites dance away with public wealth? Does anyone on the City Council understand the concept of stewardship?

But if today's council meeting turns into a lengthy question-and-answer session (and we hope it does), it should be a two-way street. Residents should use the meeting's public comment period to grill sitting council members about this debacle.

Someone must stand up for taxpayers and ask the council how it intends to recover the millions of dollars the city lost in this deal. Will the council call for a grand jury investigation? Will the council subpoena any invitees who fail to show up today? And why is this council so determined to allow houses to be built next to a sewage treatment plant?