BEFORE THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS
JEFF GRIFFIN, Mayor, City of Reno; and
Member, Board of Directors, Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors
Authority
This
matter came before a quorum of the Nevada Commission on Ethics (hereinafter the
“Commission”) for hearing on November 8, 2001, pursuant to allegations in a
Request for Opinion submitted in proper form to the Commission on or about July
2, 2001, under NRS 281.511, Subsection 2, and a Commission panel[1]
determination entered August 29, 2001, finding just and sufficient cause for the
Commission to render an opinion in this matter on whether Mayor Griffin violated
the provisions of NRS 281.501, Subsections 2 and/or 3, and offended the
Commission’s directive in Opinion No. 97-48 dated May 29, 1998, when he voted
(a) as Mayor at a Reno City Council meeting on June 26, 2001, on a motion to
appoint Mr. William Newberg to the Board of Trustees of the Airport Authority of
Washoe County; and (b) as a member of the Board of Directors of the Reno-Sparks
Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA) at an RSCVA meeting on June 28, 2001,
on a motion to appoint Mr. Michael Caryl to the Board of Trustees of the Airport
Authority of Washoe County.
Notice
of the hearing was properly posted and served.
Mayor Griffin was present with his counsel, Deputy Reno City Attorney
Michael Halley, Esq., and provided sworn testimony.
Mr. Russell Romine also appeared as a witness and provided sworn
testimony.
The
Commission, after hearing testimony and considering the evidence presented
herein, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1.
Jeff Griffin is the
elected Mayor of the City of Reno, Nevada.
He has served as Reno’s Mayor since June 1995.
2.
Mr. Griffin is the
former owner of Nevada Foreign Trade Services (NFTS).
3.
On August 27, 1997,
NFTS and The Reno Tahoe International Airport Authority (now known as the
Airport Authority of Washoe County) entered into a contract for services related
to the filing of a foreign trade zone expansion application with the federal
Foreign Trade Zone Board.
4.
NFTS’s contractual
responsibilities were completed December 28, 1999.
On February 28, 2000, the Airport Authority of Washoe County made the
final payment to NFTS for its performance under the contract.
5.
On January 4, 2001,
Mr. Griffin sold all of his right, title and interest in NFTS to Mr. Russell
Romine and Christopher M. Romine and Debbie A. Romine, co-trustees of The Romine
Family Trust, received payment in full therefore, and resigned as an officer and
director of NFTS.
6.
On February 4, 2001,
Mr. Romine and the co-trustees of The Romine Family Trust, the new shareholders
of NFTS, changed the company’s name to Great Basin Logistics, Inc.
Mr. Griffin has no interest in Great Basin Logistics, Inc.
7.
Mr. Griffin is former
owner of Griffin Transport Services, Inc.
8.
On January 4, 2001,
Mr. Griffin sold all of his right, title and interest in Griffin Transport
Services, Inc. to Mr. Russell Romine and Christopher M. Romine and Debbie A.
Romine, co-trustees of The Romine Family Trust.
Mr. Griffin holds a personal unsecured promissory note from the Mr.
Romine and the co-trustees of The Romine Family Trust, the principals who
purchased Griffin Transport Services, Inc.
9.
On October 22, 2001,
Mr. Griffin, as Mayor of Reno, Nevada, was a luncheon speaker for the National
Association of Foreign Trade Zones.
10.
On June 25, 2001, Mr.
Griffin, in his capacity as Mayor of Reno, Nevada, voted in opposition to a
motion before the Reno City Council to appoint Mr. William Newberg to the Board
of Trustees of the Airport Authority of Washoe County.
On June 28, 2001, Mr. Griffin, in his capacity as a member of the RSCVA
Board of Directors, voted in favor of a motion to appoint Mr. Michael Caryl to
the Board of Trustees of the Airport Authority of Washoe County.
1.
Mayor Griffin is a
public officer as defined by NRS 281.005 and NRS 281.4365.
2.
The Commission has
jurisdiction to render an opinion in this matter pursuant to NRS 281.465 and NRS
281.511, Subsection 2(b).
WHEREFORE, the
Commission unanimously renders the following Opinion:
NRS
281.501, Subsection 3, provides:
A
public officer or employee shall not approve, disapprove, vote, abstain from
voting or otherwise act upon any matter:
(a)
Regarding which he has accepted a gift or loan;
(b)
Which would reasonably be affected by his commitment in a private capacity to
the interests of others; or
(c)
In which he has a pecuniary interest,
without
disclosing sufficient information concerning the gift, loan, commitment or
interest to inform the public of the potential effect of the action or
abstention upon the person who provided the gift or loan, upon the person to
whom he has a commitment, or upon his interest…[S]uch a disclosure must be
made at the time the matter is considered.
If the officer or employee is a member of a body which makes decisions,
he shall make the disclosure in public to the chairman and other members of the
body…This subsection does not require a public officer to disclose any
campaign contributions that the public officer reported pursuant to NRS 294A.120
or 294A.125 in a timely manner.
On
any matter in which a public officer has, inter
alia, a pecuniary interest, NRS 281.501, Subsection 3, prohibits the
public officer from approving, disapproving, voting, abstaining from voting, or
otherwise acting upon the matter “without disclosing sufficient information
concerning the…[pecuniary] interest to inform the public of the potential
effect of the action…upon…his [pecuniary] interest.”
See also, Commission
Opinion 99-56, In the Matter of the Opinion Request of Bruce L. Woodbury, Clark
County Commissioner (12/22/99).
NRS
281.501, Subsection 2, provides:
…[A]
public officer 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
(c)
His commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others.
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.
The presumption set forth in this subsection does not affect the
applicability of the requirements set forth in subsection 3 relating to the
disclosure of the pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the
interests of others.
NRS
281.501, Subsection 2, prohibits a public officer from voting on matters under
certain specific circumstances. However,
public officers have a public duty to consider and act on matters that come
before them unless they are specifically disqualified therefrom pursuant to NRS
281.501, Subsection 2. To require
otherwise would deprive the public of its elected or appointed representation.
As the Commission noted in a prior opinion:[2]
[T]he
public (and an elected official’s constituents) have an interest in matters
which come before such officers and employees.
Abstention deprives the public and that official’s constituents of a
voice in governmental affairs. And,
public officers and employees should have the opportunity to perform the duties
for which they were elected or appointed, except where private commitments would
materially
affect one’s independence of judgment. Compliance
with disclosure requirements informs the citizenry as to how its public officers
and employees exercise their discretion and independent judgment.
And, in exercising their discretion and independent judgment, public
officers and employees are accountable to their constituents or their appointing
authority. The burden, therefore,
is appropriately on the public officer or employee to disclose private
commitments and the effect those private commitments can have on the
decision-making process, and to make a proper determination regarding abstention
where a reasonable person’s independence of judgment would be materially affected by those private
commitments.
In
its Opinion No. 97-48, the Commission concluded, “NRS 281.501(2) compels Mr.
Griffin to abstain from participating in any future vote regarding the Airport
Authority [of Washoe County] that may come before the Reno City Council as long
as NFTS is involved with the Airport Authority.” The Commission further stated that “[o]nce the relationship
between NFTS and the Airport Authority ceases, so will Mr. Griffin’s
obligation to disclose and abstain regarding Airport Authority matters.”
NCOE Opinion No. 97-48 at 2-3.
In
determining whether or not a public officer or public employee has violated any
provision of NRS Chapter 281, the Commission must look at the evidence actually
presented in a matter. By statute,
the Commission may not find that a public officer or public employee has
violated any provision of NRS Chapter 281 unless such finding is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in the matter.[3]
The Commission is loath to assume any fact not in evidence on the record.
Contrary
to the allegations herein, the preponderance of the evidence in this matter
clearly establishes that on June 26, 2001, and June 28, 2001, when Mayor Griffin
voted on appointments to the Board of Trustees of the Airport Authority of
Washoe County, he had no ownership or other pecuniary interest in NFTS and there
was no contractual relationship between NFTS or Griffin Transport Services,
Inc., and the Airport Authority of Washoe County.
The
disclosure requirements of NRS 281.501, Subsection 3, are affirmative in nature.
If a public officer’s independence of judgment in a matter is
materially affected by one of the three enumerated interests, he must disclose
information about that interest and how it affects his participation and/or
vote. There is nothing in the
statute that requires a public officer to disclose that he has no such interest.
It
is the Commission’s opinion, therefore, that Mayor Griffin did not violate the
provision of NRS 281.501, Subsections 2 and/or 3, or offend the Commission’s
directive in Opinion No. 97-48 dated May 29, 1998, when he participated in the
discussion and voted (a) as Mayor at a Reno City Council meeting on June 26,
2001, on a motion to appoint Mr. William Newberg to the Board of Trustees of the
Airport Authority of Washoe County; and (b) as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority (RSCVA) at an
RSCVA meeting on June 28, 2001, on a motion to appoint Mr. Michael Caryl to the
Board of Trustees of the Airport Authority of Washoe County.
NOTE:
THE FOREGOING OPINION APPLIES ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED HEREIN. FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT 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:
February 25, 2002.
NEVADA
COMMISSION ON ETHICS
By: /s/ TODD RUSSELL, Chairman