Backstory: The importance of being Oscar

By Michael Green

Since UNLV, CCSN and Nevada State College just held graduations, we have had our share of pomp and circumstance. When it comes to the pomp surrounding Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, it's time for circumspection.

Obviously, Hizzoner could use some. He was out of line. The Nevada Ethics Commission held that he shouldn't have aided his son's business by hosting a party at a national mayoral conference. In an ideal world, he has learned something.

He also was wrong in other ways. He didn't violate the law--just good sense. To quote an old-time Nevadan, anyone using the public money should be cleaner than an angel's drawers. Part of Goodman's popularity rests in his being rich enough not to be bought off. In an ideal world, he should know better than to spend even a little city money on what could be perceived as his own aggrandizement, even if he thinks the city benefits.

But that is in an ideal world. It isn't. As a defense attorney, Goodman painted his clients--and sometimes himself--as victims, although some of them were known for sticking people's heads in a vise and going squish. At first, in his now either famous or infamous press conference reacting to the charges, he played the victim. Before the commission, he was calmer. Afterward, he was somewhere in between.

No one, including Goodman, would deny that his ego would comfortably sleep a family of four. But ego is one thing and hubris is another. If he thinks he did nothing wrong, he is terribly wrong, and will pay more dearly in the future.

But Goodman isn't the only one who would benefit from circumspection. So would his critics.

First, he remains far and away the most popular politician around these parts. After the first day of his ethics hearing, he came to the downtown auction of centennial license plates. It was as though a rock star had arrived (and I don't consider that comparison a recommendation). Las Vegans grasp that, whatever his faults, Goodman wants what's best for their city. While he may confuse that with what's best for him, he wouldn't be the first to do that and won't be the last.

That brings us to history. The list of Las Vegas mayors begins with Peter Buol, who won office partly because he seemed to be involved in every business in town. Would you have a problem with that today? His successors included Fred Hesse, who was arrested for violating Prohibition, which many violated and then-Sheriff Sam Gay considered ridiculous. Comparatively few in the community objected.

Another mayor red-lined African-Americans out of downtown into segregated West Las Vegas. Another owned large amounts of land with his friend and business partner, who happened to be the state official who surveyed the land. Both wound up in the R-J's First 100 list of significant Las Vegans of the 20th century, and I was one of those who voted to put them there. That's because they also did good things.

In the 1980s, Mayor Ron Lurie, City Manager Ashley Hall and other investors bought property. Then Lurie voted for zoning changes that increased its value and wound up violating several ethics laws. His successor, Jan Jones, faced several ethics complaints. While their merit often was debatable, it's safe to say that some of her actions as mayor raised as many eyebrows as Goodman's, if not more. None of that justifies Goodman, but it merely adds him to a long list.

Yet Goodman also is separate from that list. To question half of his $100,000 for a gin ad going to the private school his wife co-founded is fair, as is questioning whether he should have done the ad. He could have avoided any questions by giving all the money to the city. Granted, his half-funded scholarships for children who otherwise couldn't afford to attend the Meadows. But if the mayor hadn't been Goodman, there would have been no ad, attention from magazines or interest in videotapes in the first place.

Right is right and wrong is wrong, but whatever Goodman did wrong was minor-league cronyism. To spill so much ink and blood over this when several members of the City Council and County Commission have posted "For Rent" signs on their foreheads--and several have wound up under indictment for selling their offices to strip club owners, or got off just as lightly with the ethics czars--seems a bit much.

At some point, critics and cynics (if you think I don't fit that description, you are among the millions who ignore me) should look in the mirror. To argue the public is wrong about Goodman when the same critics argue on other issues that the public always is right is inconsistent and hypocritical unless you do what many accuse Goodman of failing to do: Acknowledge your faults.

So I do. None of us is free from the faults that afflict Goodman or his critics. Consider the beginning of this article. I spent five years attacking Nevada State College. Its history has been more corrupt than all the charges against Goodman put together, and why its graduation was front-page news instead of the thousands who graduated from UNLV and CCSN is mind-boggling. But those 13 students who graduated and set up a scholarship fund have their priorities in order. We could learn from them. They deserve the pomp. The rest of us should work on the circumspection.