An ethics complaint filed against Clark County Councilor Temple Lentz could be the first complaint given to the county’s soon-to-be-formed ethics review commission to consider.
The complaint was filed in February by Rob Anderson, the man behind the mini-initiative effort to create a county ordinance banning mask and vaccine mandates that “discriminate against citizens regarding their health status.” The ordinance was the subject of a two-hour-long public hearing on Feb. 1 that drew dozens of comments. Ultimately, the ordinance was rejected in a 4-1 vote.
In his complaint, Anderson called out Lentz for posting videos on Facebook on Jan. 20 “that intentionally mislead (sic) the public” in violation of county ordinance and code of ethical conduct.
“During that video she intentionally mischaracterized the petition ordinance that it would make ‘mask and vaccine mandates in Clark County illegal.’ Her intent to mislead the public is made clear by the fact that her remarks were prepared in advance, and then published after she had time to review or make changes to the video if she desired,” Anderson wrote.
Anderson also said, as a county councilor, Lentz has an ethical duty to give residents the “full truth” about the ordinance.
The council had the option of investigating the complaint, dismissing it or delaying until the ethics review commission is formed to review.
“I would normally do with this complaint as we have with others and have the council decide here and now whether it does meet with the (state law) or not. However, in this case, since we have an ethics review commission that is going to be coming up soon, it would seem proper for them to have this in their purview to make a determination,” Chair Karen Bowerman said.
Councilor Julie Olson argued the complaint did not meet the standard for an ethics violations and should be dismissed, as has been done with other complaints it has previously received.
“On the face of this particular complaint, I just don’t think it meets the criteria. Whether we decide or the ethics commission in the future decides, I think it’s pretty clear it doesn’t meet an ethics violation. I would like to put this to rest and move on,” Olson said.
Councilor Gary Medvigy admitted he had not read the complaint in its entirety, adding Anderson had been “very unkind” to him during the mini-initiative process, and wasn’t sure if the behavior in the complaint met the standard for an ethics violation.
However, he called out the “extracurricular activities as a councilor” that criticize other council members or how they voted.
“The substance of whether this mini-initiative banned or didn’t ban, or created law contrary to the governor’s mandate, I think some of that is hard to understand. From that perspective, I certainly would agree with Councilor Olson the complaint doesn’t comply with the definitions we’re in the process of adopting,” Medvigy said.
Lentz is not the only council member to use social media and other sites to communicate with county residents. Bowerman posts regular “Karen’s Communiques” on YouTube.
However, Medvigy said he was uncomfortable dismissing it when the county is so close to having an ethics review commission and in light of complaints about dismissing prior ethics complaints.
“Politics is a funny business. We say things as electeds that the public and each other sometimes don’t like. That doesn’t mean it’s an ethical violation,” Olson countered. “It’s incumbent upon us to try to behave as well as we can and as collegially as we can. If we don’t put this rest now, it looks inconsistent.”
While Lentz said she thought it was proper to abstain from voting on whether to dismiss the complaint or send to the review commission, she did address the complaint.
“Freedom of speech does not go away when one assumes elected office. With regard to this complaint and others that came in about another councilor some months ago, I also agreed with the majority opinion that those complaints had no merit,” Lentz said. “Not liking what someone has to say doesn’t make it unethical for them to say it. Not liking how one chooses to communicate doesn’t make that method of communication unethical or even inappropriate.”
Olson motioned to dismiss the complaint, but it failed to get a second. Bowerman and Medvigy voted to send the complaint to the ethics review commission, but Olson voted against. Without a three-vote majority, the council was unable to take action but could reconsider the issue at a later date.
