Ross recallers short on signatures, not justification
Steve Ross is a lucky man.
The Las Vegas councilman narrowly avoided a recall election last week after petition circulators came just five signatures short of the 1,089 required to send him back to the ballot. (An additional 20 signed the recall petition but later asked to have their names removed, bringing the total to 25 short of the goal.)
Close, but no recall.
As a general rule, recalls are justifiably difficult, because voters are being asked to undo an election. In Nevada, they're even tougher, as courts have ruled only people who voted in the election in which an official was elected may sign a recall petition.
In Ross' case, complaints range from the petty to the persuasive. He allowed a tavern in a shopping center that some neighbors later said they didn't want. (If you had a nickel for every Southern Nevadan angry over a zoning matter, you could buy the Bellagio.)
Ross promised not to take a pay raise set to go into effect after the 2009 election, but later did. (And thus Ross became the very first politician ever to lie. Oh, wait )
Ross failed to push through a zoning variance that would have allowed Joe Scala's high-end used car dealership to operate in the Centennial Hills auto mall without a national franchise. That caused 30 people to lose their jobs on Christmas Eve and prompted Scala to back the recall financially.
Now that's bad. How many people can be found to argue a zoning law shouldn't yield to the livelihood of 30 families? (Well, one, apparently: Ross.) But save for those directly affected, is even that recall worthy?
A brief side note: Ross and his supporters pin the blame on the recall on Scala. But even if Scala were 100 percent responsible for the effort (he wasn't), who cares? The voters ultimately would have had to decide Ross' fate on the merits if the recall had reached the ballot, regardless of the motives of those who put him there.
Then there's ethics: After getting elected to office in 2005 as a journeyman electrician, Ross asked the state Ethics Commission if it would constitute a conflict for him to seek election as secretary-treasurer of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, a union group.
State ethics laws are clear. A public office is a public trust and should be held for the sole benefit of the public. Elected officials should commit themselves to avoid conflicts between their public office and private interests. But this is Nevada, home of the loophole.
Still, ethics commissioners discouraged Ross and warned him of the ethical pitfalls. Sure enough, Ross sought the union job anyway and later was accused of a conflict of interest by voting on the construction of the new City Hall, which involved union labor. Commissioners found he'd violated ethics laws, although they said his violations weren't "willful."
That's the kind of unique malfeasance that does tend to justify a recall. First, Ross put his personal interests ahead of his constituents: Even if he'd behaved ethically and abstained from voting where he had a conflict, he'd be forced to leave his constituents voiceless when he should have -- and previously could have -- cast a vote.
Second, he ignored the prescient warnings of ethics commissioners. While his error might not have been legally willful (the city attorney told him he could vote), any reasonable person should have avoided the conflict.
Ross' antagonists were almost able to put him back on the ballot, and they've vowed to try again. Whether they succeed is open to question. Whether they have at least one valid complaint is not.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@ reviewjournal.com.
