Opinion No. 98-29

BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In the Matter of the Request for Rehearing

This matter came before the Commission for rehearing on September 17, 1999 in Las Vegas on a Petition for Resubmission filed on July 1, 1999 by Judy Pruitt Herman concerning Opinion No. 98-29, dated April 29, 2000, which held that Mayor Griffin did not violate NRS 281.481(2) or NRS 281.501(2) when he voted on funding for the International Resource Center when the matter appeared on two Reno City Council agendas.

Specifically, Ms. Herman's Petition alleged: 1) that Louis Ling, Senior Deputy Attorney General and legal counsel for the Commission should have recused himself from any involvement with this matter because he cohabitates with Carolyn Cramer, a Deputy Reno City attorney thus creating a conflict of interest; and 2) that Mr. Ling and Mr. Halley, Deputy Reno City Attorney and counsel for Jeff Griffin in this matter, conspired to not investigate Mr. Griffin prior to the hearing that took place on April 16, 1999.

Mr. Ling appeared and represented himself. Mr. Halley appeared and was represented by Chief Deputy Reno City Attorney Michael Melner. Ms. Herman, the petitioner in this matter, was not present after receiving proper notice of the hearing.

Mr. Ling testified that he did not feel he needed to disclose and abstain from the proceeding because of his relationship with Ms. Cramer. Mr. Ling stated that he was not a Commission member; that he only provided the Commission with legal advice. Mr. Ling also testified that he had never discussed this matter with Ms. Cramer and that she only became aware of it after Ms. Herman filed the instant Petition. Mr. Ling also testified that when this matter originated, Ms. Cramer worked in the criminal division of the Reno City Attorney's Office, not the civil division.

Concerning the conspiracy issue raised by Ms. Herman, Mr. Ling testified that he contacted Mr. Halley after the Just and Sufficient Cause Hearing based upon instructions from the Commission asking him to do so. He also testified that he and Mr. Halley did not conspire with one another to derail an investigation. Rather, during the course of his conversation with Mr. Halley, it became apparent to Mr. Ling that Mr. Griffin had proof that would refute the questions that went unanswered at the Just and Sufficient Cause Hearing. Mr. Halley concurred with Mr. Ling's recollection of the events. As such, Mr. Ling determined that he had followed the Commission's instructions regarding this matter and that it was not necessary to spend taxpayer dollars on an investigation that was not needed. After hearing the testimony from the parties present and based on all the information and evidence before it, the Commission denies Petitioner's Request for Resubmission.

COMMENT

The foregoing opinion applies only to the specific facts and circumstances defined herein. Facts and circumstances which differ from those in this opinion may result in an Opinion contrary to this Opinion. No inferences regarding the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes quoted and discussed in this Opinion may be drawn to apply generally to any other facts and circumstances.

DATED:  April 29, 2000.

NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

By:  /s/  MARIO G. RECANZONE, Vice Chairman