Ethics battle heats up state school board race

A state school board member said he was forced to vote on an issue that sparked an ethics complaint from the woman who wants his seat.

Dave Cook said an attorney general's opinion required him to vote for standards involving health curriculum, resign or face potential removal from office.

Cook's opponent, Michelle Trusty Murphy, wrote the ethics commission, pointing out Cook's March 18 vote on the matter.

The ethics panel told Cook in February of last year not to vote on health-related issues because he is engaged to Robinette Bacon, the HIV/AIDS Comprehensive School Health Coordinator for the State Department of Education.

However, Deputy Attorney General Melanie Meehan-Crossley wrote in a Nov. 29, 1999, letter to the state board that members must approve the standards set forth by the Standards Council appointed by the Legislature or resign.

"The Legislature compelled me to pass those standards," Cook said. "No ifs, ands or buts."

Cook said he was caught in a Catch-22, but to remedy that situation he issued a disclosure.

After voting to approve the motion to adopt the standards, Cook said, "Because I am under an ethics ruling and, under other circumstances I would have abstained since Robinette Bacon was a facilitator for the health team.

"However, I think the overriding consideration is that the Legislature mandated that we vote to accept these standards. I don't want to send the wrong message, but I do want to make a public record note that I am mindful of my ethics obligation.

"I think the overriding consideration was their mandate to approve."

The Nevada Commission on Ethics determined there was sufficient cause to schedule a preliminary hearing for Aug. 10 because Cook made the disclosure after having voted instead of before and because he did not provide enough information about the effects of his action.

Cook said the proper protocol for issuing a disclosure was never explained to him and he did not purposely violate the ethics ruling.

"I thought it was the appropriate way to disclose," Cook said. "If my disclosure was not appropriate, then ethics violations abound in the Legislature. I did exactly what every legislator does."

Cook said he has always tried to follow the ethics ruling to the letter and that Trusty-Murphy's complaint was not so much about the ruling but about a political agenda.

"Shelly is desperate," Cook said. "She's trying to create some kind of issue to hide the fact that her real agenda is to oppose standards and proficiency exams.

"Because most people don't agree with her, she's trying to create a diversion."

He said that Trusty-Murphy violated ethics by speaking out about the complaint before the hearing.

Trusty-Murphy said she filed the complaint, not out of malice, but as a matter of duty.

"I was very disturbed," she said. "I felt it was my obligation to report it because the public was unaware of what was going on."

She said her complaint was not meant to harm Cook, but if it does it is not her fault.

"If Mr. Cook has mud on him, it is not because I have flung it," she said. "It is because he has rolled in it."

Regardless of the outcome, Trusty-Murphy said she hopes to be able to call attention to the fact the board is required to approve decisions set forth by the Legislature.

"This is a wonderful opportunity to to see that the state board is being forced into decisions," she said. "That's robbing our elected officials of the ability to work on behalf of their constituents."

Cook said that if the ethics commission rules against him, he plans to appeal.

"This is a unique technicality that is not clearly explained anywhere," he said. "I would like to see this idea of appropriate disclosure clarified for everybody."