This discussion was over the controversy of Pat Mulroy being appointed a board member of Wynn Resorts. The reason this became a debate is because Mulroy had been a member of the Nevada Gaming Commission less than a year before and was allowed to get this job. Nevada law states that a member of the Nevada Gaming Commission must have a one year cooling off period where they cannot sit on the board of any private gaming company because of the sensitive information that said person may be able to use to the companies advantage. However Mulroy was given permission to forego this one year cool off period and is on the board for Wynn. The Nevada Commission of Ethics found that, in Mulroy’s case, she did not have to wait. The commission’s biggest point …show more content…
To be clear Senator Segerblom does not have a problem with Mulroy moving into the private sector but has a problem with her being deemed above Nevada Law. First of all he could not understand how Mulroy could not be deemed an employee of Wynn resorts considering she receives compensation from them. It is said that she receives an average of 349,000 dollars a year at Wynn versus about 40,000 a year with the Nevada Gaming Commission. Senator Segerblom also pointed out that being that we are Las Vegas we tend to bend the rules for the powerful and do what the big industries want. The case of Mulroy is no different. The Ethics Commission abandoned dealing with the obligations that are in their jurisdiction by allowing Mulroy to be pardoned. An even bigger issue brought up during this debate was how to deal with the issue. Although Senator Segerblom believes something can be done by the Attorney General’s Office he also believes no one in their right minds would stand up to the powerful and ultimately commit political suicide. The influence that the rich and powerful have had on this issue is not a complete surprise but has been able to put things in perspective. Senator Segerblom also believes that the best way to review any ethical issues is with the people through their power to vote. Whether or not The Ethics Commission is really worth funding is unclear to him at the …show more content…
Professor Fott believes that the law is the law and no one should be exempt. Although an interesting ethics question it is also one that will never be seen or investigated. As far public trust with this case common sense would say that it is not good for trust. Pat Mulroy has a good thirty years of experience and might be the asset Wynn Resorts needs. He also says to take into consideration that this same company has recently been in the media more often and not necessarily for positive things. The bigger question is whether or not this could be more harmful for the Wynn reputation. Professor Fott does believe that although it is debatable if The Ethics Commission made the right call with Mulroy it is better to have them than not. He reasons this by saying that it is better to have an entity that raises ethical standards than to have none. In conjunction with this Fott like Segerblom does believe that in order to change things so that all people are held to the same standards it will take voter action. We are a small state that needs voter action to make a difference. Voters need to use state protocols like initiatives, referendums, and recalls to make a positive impact and make it so people that are in office are the ones that we believe and trust