Opinion No. 98-29

BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In the Matter of the Request for Opinion concerning the conduct of

JEFF GRIFFIN, Mayor, City of Reno

This opinion is in response to a third a party opinion request filed with the Nevada Commission on Ethics (Commission) by Judy Pruitt Herman concerning the conduct of Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin. An evidentiary hearing was held by the Commission on April 16, 1999, in Reno, Nevada during which both Mr. Griffin and Ms. Herman presented evidence. Sam Dehne, Jackie Decker, Terry Simmons, and Carina Black also testified. Mr. Griffin was represented by Deputy Reno City Attorney Michael Halley. Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission now issues the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Opinion which follow.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to this matter, Jeff Griffin was the Mayor of Reno.

2. Jeff Griffin owns and operates Griffin Transport, Sierra Transport, Nevada Foreign Trade Zone and Chasing Rainbow Travel Agency. Griffin Transport operates the Reno-Sparks Foreign Trade Zone number 126 that provides specialized warehousing and domestic and international distribution. Mr. Griffin's foreign trade Zone is the only purveyor for trade zone services in Nevada. However, Mr. Griffin does have out-of-state competitors such as Federal Express, UPS, and NevCal that operate in Nevada. These competitors are bigger than Griffin Transport and clear their clients' merchandise electronically from outside Nevada.

3. On April 15, 1997, at a Reno City Council meeting, Mr. Griffin requested that the International Resource Center's (IRC) request for funding be sent back to staff for further evaluation.

4. The IRC is a UNR based public agency dealing with international trade which operates as a clearinghouse for information. The purpose of the IRC is to increase the community's access to international business leaders who can assist local firms finding new international markets. It is anticipated that the IRC will benefit a wide spectrum of the community in direct and indirect ways.

5. On October 14, 1997, Reno City Council staff placed a request for $80,000 in start up monies for the IRC on the Reno City Council agenda.

6. On July 7, 1998, an agenda item requesting $41,600 for second year funding for the IRC was on the Reno City Council agenda. When called to disclose his business and friendship conflicts with the IRC, Mr. Griffin, upon the advice of Reno City Attorney Patricia Lynch, stated that there was no evidence of a conflict of interest. Thereafter, Mr. Griffin voted in favor of the IRC funding. Ms. Herman was unable to provide any evidence of a business relationship between Mr. Griffin's companies and the IRC.

7. Mr. Griffin testified that if the IRC were successful in its endeavors, Griffin Transport's business would likely increase. However, Mr. Griffin testified that his business should not increase any more than any of his competitors.

8. Mr. Griffin does not get paid a fee by companies that use his foreign trade zone unless he is providing services to them. Furthermore, not everyone who ships in and out of Reno uses the foreign trade zone.

9. Mr. Griffin testified that none of his companies have a direct or indirect relationship with the IRC and that the RSCVA is not a funding mechanism for the center.

10. Mr. Griffin believes that Reno needs to promote itself as an international trade investment center.

11. At the time Ms. Herman filed her opinion request, Terry Simmons was the IRC chairman. Mr. Simmons testified that the IRC does not, and did not, have a business relationship with Mr. Griffin, any of his companies, or the foreign trade zone.

12. Mr. Simmons testified that the programs that the IRC promotes would not benefit Mr. Griffin's companies any more than they would benefit any of Mr. Griffin's competitors.

ANALYSIS AND OPINION

The Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to NRS 281.511(2) because Mr. Griffin is a public officer as defined in NRS 281.4365.

The issues presented in this matter are whether Jeff Griffin, in his capacity as mayor of Reno, violated NRS 281.481 (2) or NRS 281.501 (2).

NRS 281.481 (2) states:

A public officer or employee shall not use his position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself, any member of his household, any business entity in which he has a significant pecuniary interest, or any other person.

NRS 281.501 (2) provides:

(2) In addition to the requirements of the code of ethical standards, a member of the legislative branch shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his situation would be materially affected by:

(a) His acceptance of a gift or loan;

(b) His pecuniary interest; or

It must be presumed that the independence of judgment of a reasonable person would not be materially affected by his pecuniary interest or his commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others where the resulting benefit or detriment accruing to him or to the other persons whose interests to which the member is committed in a private capacity is not greater than that accruing to any other member of the general business, profession, occupation or group.

There are two questions currently before the Commission. The first is whether Jeff Griffin violated N RS 281.481 (2) by using his position as Mayor to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions, or advantages for himself or his companies, specifically Griffin Transport, Sierra Transport, Nevada Foreign Trade Zone and Chasing Rainbow Travel Agency when he voted in favor of funding the IRC.

The testimony before the Commission did not establish any type of relationship between Mr. Griffin or his companies and the IRC. As a matter of fact, the testimony indicated that the IRC is a fairly broad based organization that has a number of goals that promote tourism, business interests and various other factors in Northern Nevada. Mr. Griffin would not benefit by the IRC's success any more than anyone else similarly situated. As such, the Commission did not find a violation of NRS 281.481(2). (Commissioner Wines opposed this decision.)

The second issue is whether Mr. Griffin violated NRS 281.501 (2) by not disclosing and abstaining from voting on funding for the IRC when it appeared on the Reno City Council agendas. In this instance, however, the evidence deduced via testimony showed that neither Mr. Griffin nor his companies would not have benefited any more than any of his competitors if the funding to IRC were granted. As such, the exception required for disclosing and abstaining outlined in NRS 281.501 (2)(c) was met, and Mr. Griffin did not have to disclose and abstain. Therefore, the Commission determined that Mr. Griffin did not violate NRS 281.501(2). (Commissioner Wines opposed this decision).

CONCLUSION

In this specific incident, we find that Mr. Griffin's actions did not constitute a violation of NRS 281.481(2) or NRS 281.501(2).

COMMENT

It is specifically noted that the foregoing Opinion applies only to these specific circumstances. The provisions of the NRS quoted and discussed above must be applied on a case-by-case basis, with results which may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances involved.

DATED: April 29, 2000.

NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

By: /s/ MARIO RECANZONE, Vice Chairman