The Nevada State Athletic Commission has some explaining to do. As first reported by MMAFighting.com, the commission’s newest member – Staci Alonso, appointed by Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval in December – also happens to be an executive vice president at Station Casinos.
As in, the same casino empire owned and operated by Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, who until last year owned a majority stake in the UFC, and who still maintain a “passive minority interest” estimated to be about eight percent per brother.
Appointing an employee of the Fertittas to a state commission that regulates one of their other business interests seems like a clear conflict. But according to a statement issued by NSAC executive director Bob Bennett, there’s no issue here. Bennett provided a copy of that statement to MMAjunkie, and it warrants a close examination.
Here it is, in its entirety:
“We have no comment on any assertion of a general theoretical conflict on the part of any member of the Commission. Conflict analysis is fact specific and, ultimately, is the responsibility of the individual Commission members. All Commission members must undertake due diligence and make a determination under Nevada’s conflict of interest laws.
“By every account, Commissioner Alonso is a person of integrity and, as members of the Commission have done historically, members will continue to do everything in their power to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to avoid conflicts by publicly disclosing material issues and, where an actual conflict exists, by abstaining from Commission votes. Such is critical to maintaining the gold standard of the Nevada State Athletic Commission.”
The statement starts off looking like your usual “no comment” response, yet somehow it serves to kick off two full paragraphs of comments. It also begins by employing a strange phrase: general theoretical conflict.
The word “general” is presumably there to acknowledge that it applies to the entire situation. You throw in “theoretical” because, hey, nothing bad has technically happened yet.
The second sentence doubles down on that reasoning by citing “fact specific” analysis for any potential conflicts, which are somehow up to individual commission members to resolve on their own. That Alonso works for the Fertitta family is apparently not fact enough. The wording here implies that there must be an example of the conflict affecting the commission before action can be taken. Even then, the action is left up to those with the conflicts.
That’s kind of like saying that we’ll believe that you would never do anything wrong until after you’ve done it, and even then, we’ll ask you to be the one to determine if it’s a problem.
While the mind reels at that formulation, the statement goes on to say that “due diligence” is the responsibility of the commission members. As in, it’s your job to tell us whether you have a conflict under Nevada law. Really, it seems like due diligence ought to have been done in advance, by determining whether the commission member you propose to appoint has a conflict built into her employment status.
“By every account, Commissioner Alonso is a person of integrity …”
Here we encounter a familiar reasoning in combat-sports circles. The same way promoters who are also managers shrug off conflict-of-interest accusations by essentially saying that they’re too nice to do anything nefarious, despite the great opportunity to just that, this part of the statement is there to let us know that, even if it is a conflict to have a Station Casinos executive on the commission, she’s too honest to exploit that.
Which is not to say that Alonso is dishonest. Her public profiles paint her as a passionate crusader for domestic-violence victims, which is laudable. She also seems to care deeply about rescue animals and their welfare.
Then again, she’s also spent more or less her entire career in the gaming industry, with no clear connection to sports regulation apart from the fact that she works for people who own a piece of the UFC.
Relying on the integrity of the person with the conflict kind of defeats the purpose of having any rules about conflicts to begin with, though that’s exactly what the statement asks us to do. Amazingly, it continues with this: “… members will continue to do everything in their power to avoid any appearance of impropriety …”
Sorry, but it’s too late for that. Appointing a Station Casinos executive to this commission already gives the appearance of impropriety. Remember? That’s why you had to issue this statement in the first place. That appearance is why we’re even talking about this.
But finally, a ray of hope. The closest thing to a concrete promise here comes near the end, when we are assured that commissioners will do everything in their power “to avoid conflicts by publicly disclosing material issues and, where an actual conflict exists, by abstaining from Commission votes.”
So, for instance, if the commission were deciding a matter that might impact the UFC’s business – the suspension of a popular fighter who draws well on pay-per-view, for example – here’s where Alonso might abstain from voting.
That would make sense. Her bosses have an interest in selling pay-per-views, both for the sake of their current ownership status and possibly for the earn-outs included in the recent sale. If one of their employees is voting on regulatory issues that might affect their finances, that’s a clear conflict.
Whether Alonso actually will abstain in those situations remains to be seen. If so, she might essentially have to recuse herself on all matters affecting the UFC, which is a not insubstantial portion of the business before the NSAC.
But it’s hard to be hopeful when this statement itself seems geared toward a) downplaying the “theoretical” conflict that exists, b) explaining that conflict away by pointing to the integrity of the people involved, and c) making a vague promise to do something about it if necessary.
All this, we are told in the final sentence, is “critical to maintaining the gold standard of the Nevada State Athletic Commission.”
If this is the gold standard at work, let us pray we never see what silver looks like.
view original article >>