Letter clouds Gibson's explanation for violating conflict of interest

When Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson says he didn't realize he was voting on an issue that involved his law firm, I want to believe him.

Gibson comes from stout political stock and has a record of success in Henderson, where he's helped the malodorous former factory town blossom into one of the fastest-growing cities in America. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate is a family man with Nevada roots reaching back several generations.

Surely Gibson wouldn't risk his reputation and stir an ethics storm over a consent agenda item that had already been approved by staff and the Henderson city attorney's office. Would he?

The issue in July 2001 involved the approval of a settlement agreement between the city and the holders of a group of mining claims. The claim-holders were sued by powerhouse developer Del Webb, which sought to build its handsome Anthem community in far southwestern Henderson but needed to resolve the mining claim issue. In exchange for giving up claims covering several thousand acres, the holders would receive the city's blessing in developing a gravel pit operation next to a larger pit operated by Rinker Materials.

Gibson said he regrets voting on the issue and never would have done so had he known of a conflict. But an Aug. 22, 2000, letter from Denver attorney William Marsh to Gibson's law partner Keith Rooker complicates the mayor's denial.

Marsh wrote, "I represent the City of Henderson in a matter where adverse parties are represented by your law firm, and your law firm consists of you, Michael M. Later, and James B. Gibson. Mr. Gibson is the Mayor of Henderson. Ironically, your law firm is accusing me of conflict-of-interest and threatening to sue the City of Henderson for several 'torts,' including 'conspiring' with me.

"Under these circumstances, there is clearly no point in elaborating on either the facts or the law because only two possibilities exist. The first possibility is that your law firm has an incurable lack of perception of professional conflict-of-interest concepts. The second possibility is that your grasp of conflict-of-interest concepts is at least adequate to understand that you have the conflict-of-interest instead of me but your firm is not interested in either the law or the facts, preferring to use its political influence to make extortionate demands in an effort to further its own interests at the expense of the citizens of Henderson. ...

"I am not disposed to meet you or any member of your firm. I practice law, not politics. In a word, I find this particular dialogue disgusting and my disgust prevents me from continuing to adequately represent the city."

Marsh's letter was copied to five people.

One of those was Mayor Jim Gibson.

On Tuesday, Gibson said he was unaware of the letter's existence.

"Right today I don't remember seeing that letter in any of the backup material," Gibson said, adding that it might have been copied for other members of the Henderson City Council.

For that matter, it might have been sent to his law firm.

But let's try to get this straight:

A heated settlement negotiation involving a major developer, the city and the mayor's law firm passes from his law partner's hands, through the city attorney's office, under the noses of various managers, clerks and secretaries all the way to the council's consent agenda. Additionally, an angry letter shouting about the potential conflict was mailed to the mayor.

And no one warns the mayor of the potential conflict?

Frankly, that's hard to believe.

It's hard to believe the lawyers in the city attorney's office and the Rooker & Gibson firm didn't cover the mayor's flank. Even if the mayor missed the connection and failed to read the backup material, his allies should have known the players and the potential for a conflict.

"I do not know why nobody said anything," Gibson said. "I've kind of figured out what I think happened to me on it, but I recognize this was an item I should have abstained on and I didn't. ... I feel badly that I did (vote). I guess that's about the sum of it."

We'll know in a few weeks whether the gravel pit issue was a political pothole or a chasm deep enough to swallow up Gibson's gubernatorial ambitions.

• John L. Smith's column, reprinted from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, appears on Thursdays on the Appeal's Opinion page. E-mail him at smith@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0295.