Two Ethics Complaints Filed - Exposing Jeff Griffin's Wrongful Activities:
the first in his role as Mayor of Reno, and the second in his role as an RSCVA Director
ALERT! These extremely valid charges are going to be heard by the full Ethics Commission on 8 November, 2001 at 9 AM in Reno, Nevada at 1755 East Plumb Lane (suite 130).
No similarity exists between Nevada government and what the
Founding Fathers had in mind for the Republic they birthed in the late 1700s ~
except by window dressing.
The notion of government of, by, and for the people ~ Lincoln's words,
years later ~ is only mythology in contemporary Nevada.
Public officials in Nevada commonly disregard the United States
Constitution with impunity. "Will of the people" is interpreted as
electing officials who are then free to run amok as dictators who give
not a tinker's damn about representing majority consensus of We, the
people.
Nevada's power structure is dominated by gambling barons who can buy and
sell all the political lackeys they need to in order to control the
state. A major slice of this is exposed in a fairly-new book, "The Money
and the Power," which focuses on Las Vegas ~ Vegas being the life blood
of the entire state.
One facet of sick government in Nevada is its so-called "ethics
commission" which is a nauseating example of subterfuge and fraud.
Formally titled the State of Nevada Commission on Ethics, this circus
sideshow is anything but ethical. As mentioned in the Request for Opinion
which follows, "The view exists that no body of public 'ethics' officials
ever headed at any time by a convicted criminal serving time under house
arrest (i.e., Mary Boetsch) warrants any perception other than that of
being a hypocritical gang of pretentious buffoons."
Readers are invited to savor the flavor of these two related RFOs and return to this
Website periodically. Developments will be posted here in a timely
manner. How the ethics commission handles this matter will be yet another
case study in its modus operandi ~ its practice of protecting corrupt
politicians who are in thrall to the state's power barons and protected
by same.
Although the RFOs each name Jeff Griffin as the subject of concern, the State of Nevada
Commission on Ethics is equally on trial. -Guy Felton
FIRST RFO:
REQUEST FOR OPINION (Ethics Complaint... Revised)
Dated: 28 June 2001
Submitted to the Nevada Commission on Ethics
by Guy Felton
(These 4 pages supplement the official RFO Form previously submitted)
Regarding Jeff Griffin, Mayor of Reno
The Nevada Commission on Ethics is asked to consider the following
and render an opinion regarding the conduct of Mr. Griffin: Did this public
official violate the letter and spirit of clear Commission directives to him
regarding his non-participation in discussing and deciding matters
pertaining to the Airport Authority of Washoe County?
On 19 May 2000, in its Opinion No. 99-41, the Commission stated:
The Commission, therefore, officially reprimands Mayor Griffin
for failing to comply with the requirements of Opinion No. 97-48;
reiterates to Mayor Griffin the strong public interest in knowing
the effects which one's private interests may have on public
decisions, which public interest requires full and complete
disclosures by public officers such as Mayor Griffin; and directs
that Mayor Griffin fully comply with the disclosure requirements
of Opinion No. 97-48 and those required by law. These disclosure
requirements are affirmative responsibilities of Mayor Griffin, and
any subsequent violations by Mayor Griffin may be treated as
successive violations by the Commission and punished as
permitted by law.
The above-referenced Opinion No. 97-48 states, in part:
Furthermore, Mr. Griffin must disclose the full nature and extent
[of] his company's contract with the Airport Authority whenever
the Reno City Council is considering a matter pertaining to the
Airport Authority, including appointment of trustees, and he must
abstain from voting on those matters as long as there is a
potential the Airport Authority could take further action on his
company's contract.
Page 1 of 4 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
Mr. Griffin did not disclose the standing of any private interest he might or might
not have with the AAWC and did participate in the discussing and deciding
of an airport matter, specifically the appointment of Mr. William Newburg
to the AAWC Board of Trustees. This is documented on video tape.
The question is raised whether Mr. Griffin defied the Commission's
directives to him in Opinion 97-48 and in Opinion 99-41.
Further, if Mr. Griffin claims that he no longer has any private interest
with the AAWC, has he documented this to the satisfaction of the
Commission? If Mr. Griffin so claims, are related, substantiating
documents available for public inspection?
Other related questions: Has Mr. Griffin been formally and technically
released from his obligation to comply with direction given him in
Opinions 97-48 and 99-41? Is Mr. Griffin unilaterally empowered per
Commission approval in any form ~ to release himself from his obligation
to comply with direction given to him in said opinions ~ based upon his
own assessment that he no longer is encumbered by any related personal
interest with the AAWC?
In the possible instance that Mr. Griffin has not yet been fully paid for
any purported sale of his prior ownership (full or partial) in one or
more commercial entities doing business with the AAWC, can he be properly
viewed and treated as no longer having a personal interest in AAWC
matters?
The specter is raised that Mr. Griffin continues to be a silent partner
and/or investor and/or lienholder in one or more commercial entities
doing business with the AAWC. Is the Commission convinced that such
specter is not actual fact?
The specter is raised that Mr. Griffin believes he can violate,
disregard, and deny compliance with any directive given to him by the
Commission ~ with impunity. Does the Commission hold that its directives
can be violated, ignored, and disregarded ~ without serious penalty ~ by
public officials such as Mr. Griffin?
Page 2 of 4 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
direction to Mr. Griffin in the above opinions did not state in any way that he
would be released from said direction should he divest himself of any
personal interest (full or partial) with the AAWC.
At this point in time, and assuming for sake of discussion, that Mr.
Griffin has fully divested himself of any personal interest with the
AAWC, is he not reasonably and technically required to state that he no
longer has any personal interest with the AAWC and that documents proving
such contention are available for public inspection ~ this prior to his
participation as a public official in any discussion of any AAWC matter?
It is of related significance that Mr. Griffin failed to obey the
Commission's subject directives to him during a Reno council meeting on
21 June 1999 ~ this only 33 days following issuance of Opinion 99-41. He
later admitted having done so; this is documented on video tape. A
related Federal lawsuit is now in process in that when Griffin violated
the Commission's directives, he was challenged by a concerned citizen who
Mr. Griffin subsequently had wrongfully removed from the meeting ~ such
wrongful removal constituting a crime under NRS 241.040(2).
The foregoing begs to be put into context that the integrity of the
Commission is subject to serious question. A book written by the
Commission's former Executive Secretary, Lee-Ann Keever, supports the
contention that the Commission is a transparently-corrupt body having the
de facto "mission" of protecting rogue public officials who are in good
standing with the state's power elite.
The handling of this Request for Opinion by the Commission will be
reported on the Internet ~ and on radio and television as opportunities
permit. Names of current Commission members will be made clear to the
public. If not prohibited by law, residential addresses of Commission
members will be displayed on the Internet so that citizens may direct
letters of concern to said members without such letters being subject to
screening and trashing by Commission office personnel.
The handling of this Request for Opinion will affect public opinion
regarding whether the Commission is part of a serious problem with
corrupt, subversive government in Nevada ~ or part of a possible
solution.
Page 3 of 4 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
Commission on Ethics should be legally dissolved in that it represents nothing less
than a fraudulent charade ~ a gross insult against any notion of decent,
honest, respectable, trustworthy government. The view exists that no body
of public "ethics" officials ever headed at any time by a convicted
criminal serving time under house arrest (i.e., Mary Boetsch) warrants
any perception other than that of being a hypocritical gang of
pretentious buffoons.
The Commission is reminded of a profound U.S. Supreme Court decision,
Times v. Sullivan (1964), which states, in part:
[As Americans, we have] a profound national commitment
to the principle that debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well
include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly
sharp attacks on government and public officials.
The Commission is challenged to defend the "Acknowledgment" on its
Request for Opinion (Ethics Complaint) form. Such Acknowledgment serves
to chill free expression and to discourage public monitoring of public
officials. The Acknowledgment is transparently unconstitutional (1) in
its assault on the First Amendment, and (2) in its disregard for rulings
of the United States Supreme Court including Times v. Sullivan (1964).
Suppression of political dissent is nothing less than tyranny and
subversion; quoting unconstitutional state statutes does not counter such
fact. Said Acknowledgment mandates eventual litigation in Federal court.
No public official who supports the un-American content of said
Acknowledgment ~ which is an instrument of suppression of political
dissent ~ deserves public trust or respect and should be treated
accordingly. Any instrument which can be fairly construed as a means to
threaten and intimidate citizens so they will hesitate to challenge and
expose improprieties perpetrated by public officials works against the
common good. "False information," "bad faith," and "vexatious purpose"
are considerations demanding deliberation by a jury in a court of law.
Note: This Request for Opinion is submitted by Guy Felton in his capacity
as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a Project Officer with
the Civil Rights Task Force of Northern Nevada.
Page 4 of 4 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
END FIRST RFO
SECOND RFO:
Dated: 2 July 2001
Not to be confused with complaint dated 28 June 2001
Submitted to the Nevada Commission on Ethics
by Guy Felton
(These 5 pages supplement the RFO form submitted herewith)
Regarding Jeff Griffin, Member, Board of Directors
Reno-Sparks Convention & Visitors Authority
The Nevada Commission on Ethics is asked to consider the following and
render an opinion regarding the conduct of this public official: Did Mr.
Griffin, in his capacity as a Director of the RSCVA, violate the letter
and spirit of Commission directives to him regarding his
non-participation in discussing and deciding matters pertaining to the
Airport Authority of Washoe County?
On 19 May 2000, in its Opinion No. 99-41, the Commission stated:
The Commission, therefore, officially reprimands Mayor Griffin
for failing to comply with the requirements of Opinion No. 97-48;
reiterates to Mayor Griffin the strong public interest in knowing
the effects which one's private interests may have on public
decisions, which public interest requires full and complete
disclosures by public officers such as Mayor Griffin; and directs
that Mayor Griffin fully comply with the disclosure requirements
of Opinion No. 97-48 and those required by law. These disclosure
requirements are affirmative responsibilities of Mayor Griffin, and
any subsequent violations by Mayor Griffin may be treated as
successive violations by the Commission and punished as
permitted by law.
The above-referenced Opinion No. 97-48 states, in part:
Furthermore, Mr. Griffin must disclose the full nature and extent
[of] his company's contract with the Airport Authority whenever
the Reno City Council is considering a matter pertaining to the
Airport Authority, including appointment of trustees, and he must
Page 1 of 5 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
abstain from voting on those matters as long as there is a
potential the Airport Authority could take further action on his
company's contract.
On 28 June 2001, during a meeting of the RSCVA Board, Director Griffin
participated in the discussing and deciding of an airport matter,
specifically the appointment of Mr. Michael Caryl to the AAWC Board of
Trustees. This is documented by an article in the Reno Gazette-Journal,
issue of 29 June 2001. (See printout of RGJ online article herewith.)
The question is raised whether Mr. Griffin defied the Commission's
directives to him in Opinion 97-48 and in Opinion 99-41.
Although said Opinions were addressed to Mr. Griffin in his capacity as
Mayor of Reno, the substance at the heart of said Opinions can hardly be
limited to just Mr. Griffin's role as Mayor of Reno ~ and to the
exclusion of any other office he holds in government within the
Commission's jurisdiction.
Further, if Mr. Griffin claims that he no longer has any private interest
with the AAWC, has he documented this to the satisfaction of the
Commission? If Mr. Griffin so claims, are related, substantiating
documents available for public inspection?
Other related questions: Has Mr. Griffin been formally and technically
released from his obligation to comply with direction given him in
Opinions 97-48 and 99-41? Is Mr. Griffin unilaterally empowered per
Commission approval in any form ~ to release himself from his obligation
to comply with direction given to him in said opinions ~ based upon his
own assessment that he no longer is encumbered by any related personal
interest with the AAWC?
In the possible instance that Mr. Griffin has not yet been fully paid for
any purported sale of his prior ownership (full or partial) in one or
more commercial entities doing business with the AAWC, can he be properly
viewed and treated as no longer having a personal interest in AAWC
matters?
Page 2 of 5 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
The specter is raised that Mr. Griffin continues to be a silent partner
and/or investor and/or lienholder in one or more commercial entities
doing business with the AAWC. Is the Commission convinced that such
specter is not actual fact?
The specter is raised that Mr. Griffin is responsible for machinations
intended to invite the false perception that he no longer has ties of any
significance to Griffin Transport ~ a company which he founded and which
continues to carry his name, as well as being a company which held and
may continue to hold profitable contracts with the AAWC. Questions:
Has Mr. Griffin terminated all contact with Griffin Transport?
Transport?
he no longer has ties to that company?
company is still headed by Mr. Griffin?
Griffin Transport?
with Griffin Transport which would cause him to serve and protect the
interests of that company ~ with or without his personal financial gain
being involved?
company carrying his name ~ and then walk away from that company
without having and exercising a continuing loyalty to that company,
its profitability, and its general health?
The specter is raised that Mr. Griffin believes he can violate,
disregard, and deny compliance with any directive given to him by the
Commission ~ with impunity. Does the Commission hold that its directives
can be violated, ignored, and disregarded ~ without serious penalty ~ by
public officials such as Mr. Griffin?
It must be noted ~ and properly treated ~ that the Commission's direction
to Mr. Griffin in the above Opinions did not state in any way that he
would be released from said direction should he divest himself of any
personal, financial interest (full or partial) with the AAWC.
At this point in time, and assuming for sake of discussion, that Mr.
Griffin has fully divested himself of any personal, financial interest
with the AAWC, is he not reasonably and technically required to state
that he no longer has any personal, financial interest with the AAWC and
that documents proving such
Page 3 of 5 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
contention are available for public inspection ~ this prior to his
participation as a public official in any discussion of any AAWC matter?
It is of related significance that a similar Request for Opinion was
submitted to the Commission on 28 June, just a few days ago.
It is also of related significance that Mr. Griffin failed to obey the
Commission's subject directives to him during a Reno council meeting on
21 June 1999 ~ this only 33 days following issuance of Opinion 99-41. He
later admitted having done so; this is documented on video tape. A
related Federal lawsuit was filed on 21 June of this year; when Mr.
Griffin violated the Commission's directives, he was challenged by a
concerned citizen who Mr. Griffin subsequently had wrongfully removed
from the meeting ~ such wrongful removal constituting a crime under NRS
241.040(2).
The foregoing begs to be put into context that the integrity of the
Commission is subject to serious question. A book written by the
Commission's former Executive Secretary, Lee-Ann Keever, supports the
contention that the Commission is a transparently-corrupt body having the
de facto "mission" of protecting rogue public officials who are in good
standing with the state's power elite.
The handling of this Request for Opinion by the Commission will be
reported on the Internet ~ and on radio and television as opportunities
permit. Names of current Commission members will be made clear to the
public. If not prohibited by law, residential addresses of Commission
members will be displayed on the Internet so that citizens may direct
letters of concern to said members without such letters being subject to
screening and trashing by Commission office personnel.
The handling of this Request for Opinion will affect public opinion
regarding whether the Commission is part of a serious problem with
corrupt, subversive government in Nevada ~ or part of a possible
solution.
A number of Nevada citizens believe fervently that the Nevada Commission
on Ethics should be legally dissolved in that it represents nothing less
than a fraudulent charade ~ a gross insult against any notion of decent,
honest, respectable, trustworthy government. The view exists that no body
of public "ethics" officials ever headed at any time by a convicted
criminal serving
Page 4 of 5 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
time under house arrest (i.e., Mary Boetsch) warrants any perception
other than that of being a hypocritical gang of pretentious buffoons.
The Commission is reminded of a profound U.S. Supreme Court decision,
Times v. Sullivan (1964), which states, in part:
[As Americans, we have] a profound national commitment
to the principle that debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well
include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly
sharp attacks on government and public officials.
The Commission is challenged to defend the "Acknowledgment" on its
Request for Opinion (Ethics Complaint) form. Such Acknowledgment serves
to chill free expression and to discourage public monitoring of public
officials. The Acknowledgment is transparently unconstitutional (1) in
its assault on the First Amendment, and (2) in its disregard for rulings
of the United States Supreme Court including Times v. Sullivan (1964).
Suppression of political dissent is nothing less than tyranny and
subversion; quoting unconstitutional state statutes does not counter such
fact. Said Acknowledgment mandates eventual litigation in Federal court.
No public official who supports the un-American content of said
Acknowledgment ~ an instrument of suppression of political dissent ~
deserves public trust or respect and should be treated accordingly.
Any instrument which can be fairly construed as a means to threaten and
intimidate citizens so they will hesitate to challenge and expose
improprieties perpetrated by public officials works against the common
good. "False information," "bad faith," and "vexatious purpose" are
considerations demanding deliberation by a jury in a court of law.
American citizens, as owners of government, must not permit themselves to
be intimidated by public officials who abuse their powers, nor to have
their justified anger tyrannically suppressed when such officials betray
their trust.
Note: This Request for Opinion is submitted by Guy Felton in his capacity
as a private citizen and not in his capacity as a Project Officer with
the Civil Rights Task Force of Northern Nevada.
Page 5 of 5 (Supplement to Request for Opinion)
END SECOND RFO
Reno Citizen Notes:
Mister Griffin has been guilty of this type of blatant and audacious breach of the
Ethic Commission's Decrees on numerous other occasions (click).
that they have been made aware of these violations on many occasions... and have chosen to ignore
and acquiesce.
NRS 281.511 Rendering of opinions by commission: Requests; determination of just and sufficient cause; notice and hearings; confidentiality.
9. If a person who is not a party to a hearing before the commission, including, without limitation, a person who has requested an opinion pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 2, wishes to ask a question of a witness at the hearing, the person must submit the question to the executive director in writing. The executive director may submit the question to the commission if he deems the question relevant and appropriate. This subsection does not require the commission to ask any question submitted by a person who is not a party to the proceeding.
(Note: Talk about a stacked deck... in favor of these often-evil Public Officials!)
We will try to keep the Public updated as this issue winds its way... in the meantime... citizens who care about America can pray.
Here is another attempt to rehabilitate the EthComm Kangaroo "Courtiers":
From: Guy P. Felton III
5 November 2001
Mr. Todd Russell, Chair 775-882-7918 Fax
Nevada Commission on Ethics
Carson City, Nevada
Dear Mr. Russell:
REGARDING RFOs 01-27 AND 01-28
Based upon the Commission's demonstrated lack of integrity and commitment to
justice, it can be reasonably anticipated that the hearing to be held this
Thursday, November 8, will be yet another insult against any notion of decent,
respectable, trustworthy government.
It is my understanding that Ms. Jackie Decker has recently provided you with
commentary regarding certain machinations of Mr. Jeff Griffin, as well as a
number of supporting documents. Mr. Griffin's political record is diseased
with his repeated abuses of public power.
For the Commission ~ an entity pretending to be a defender of ethics in
government ~ to repeatedly run interference for a documented liar, hypocrite,
and criminal such as Griffin is totally unacceptable.
There is no question in my mind that the Commission should be dissolved. It
warrants absolutely no measure of public trust. Its de facto reason for being
is to deceive the public.
I fully expect that the 11-8 hearing will lead to litigation against the
Commission for intentional neglect of duty, undermining and obfuscating due
process, and conspiring to defraud the people of Nevada.
Lee-Ann Keever's intent to request an investigation into the conduct and
activities of the Commission will involve a delegation of concerned citizens
visiting Washington to meet with Attorney General Ashcroft and key members of
Congress. A copy of Ms. Keever's request is herewith provided.
Siincerely,
Signed by Guy Felton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONDUCT AND ACTIVITIES
OF THE NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS
November 2001 Lee-Ann Keever
I hereby request an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into a
pattern of improprieties knowingly and willfully perpetrated by members (both
current and former) of the Nevada Commission on Ethics, aka the Nevada State
Ethics Commission.
As the Commission's former Executive Secretary for 14 years, I and my
attorney, Mr. Martin Crowley, have compiled extensive proof revealing the
extent of those improprieties. This documented proof exposes many instances
where Nevada Law was knowingly and willfully violated and/or ignored by the
Commission and its legal staff.
My claims were recently bolstered when federal Judge David Hagen
determined that the Commission had violated the rights of those individuals
appearing before it.
To date, the Nevada Attorney General's Office (the state's chief law
enforcement agency) has refused to review my concerns.
The Commission's deliberate violations resulted in the unjustified and
illegal persecution of innocent people appearing before it as well as myself.
I was fired for bringing my documented concerns to Governor Guinn, Attorney
General Del Papa, Senator Raggio, and Assemblyman Arberry.
The Commission is/was comprised of a diverse group of professionals
(including lawyers and judges) and has apparently violated a number of
existing budgetary and personnel laws, even though that body was provided with
the services of a deputy attorney general. As Nevada's representatives, the
actions of this group could result in the courts awarding huge monetary
damages to those individuals harmed by the Commission and its legal staff.
Appeals for a credible review of the Commission's decisions and related
actions have been made to Governor Guinn and other highly-placed elected
officials but such appeals received an irresponsible "don't bother me"
response.
In Nevada, as in any state, the public's trust in government suffers when
there is the reality or appearance that the state's enforcement of its ethics
laws is nothing more than a fraudulent charade.
Therefore, I am requesting that U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft sponsor an
immediate, in-depth investigation into the conduct, activities, and character
of the Nevada Commission on Ethics and its individual members. I further
request that such investigation determine why Nevada Governor Guinn, Attorney
General Del Papa, and key state legislators have turned a blind eye to
legitimate concerns raised about the Commission's integrity.
THE NEVADA STATE FLEXIBLE ETHICS COMMISSION
by
Lee-Ann Keever
former Executive Secretary
Nevada Commission on Ethics
In Nevada, we have the Nevada State Flexible Ethics Commission, an entity unique to the workings of government. Originally created as the Nevada State Ethics Commission, it was designed to provide guidance to both public officers and employees in Nevada.
However, it appears that since 1997, this body has transformed itself into a tool of the elite, the politically powerful and their friends. Under this new Flexible Ethics Commission, there appears to be two sets of rules: one for the rich and/or politically connected and one for the everyday average joe.
Why else would Steve Miller of Las Vegas and Sam Dehné of Reno be fined by the Flexible Commission when they filed opinion requests concerning the conduct of their respective mayors? (The decision to fine was recently overturned by federal Judge David Hagen.) When Mr. Dehné attempted to explain why he felt Mayor Jeff Griffin had lied about an issue, then Flexible Commission chair Mary Boetsch asked "Why do we care?"
During one of Mr. Miller’s hearings, the Flexible Commission turned on Joni Wines, one of its own members, and threatened to bring her up on Ethics charges. Why? Ms. Wines’ limited social interaction with Mr. Miller had biased her and she should not be allowed to participate in the hearings. Never mind that other members of the Flexible Commission had friends appear before it and they participated in those hearings.
The Flexible Ethics Commission also decided to fine Mr. George Toto of Incline Village despite the fact he was never notified of this fact. Guess when you’re flexible, you don’t have to follow the rules.
A Flexible Ethics Commission explains the discrepancy in the decisions issued to a state employee and the Clark County Building Department. The facts in each case were almost identical; yet due to flexibility, the Commission was able to render two entirely different decisions. Flexibility permitted the Commission to thoroughly chastise the poor state employee and then exonerate the staff of the Clark County Building Department for the same conduct.
In 1997, the Flexible Commission awarded a contract for investigative services to the Advantage Group (TAG), a company already under contract to Mary Boetsch’s private law firm. This contract was awarded without benefit of bidding; former deputy attorney general Louis Ling saw no need to follow the statutorily prescribed bidding process.
A Flexible Commission allowed Mary Boetsch to interfere with a contract the Clark County Commission awarded. Due to her illegal intervention two county commissioners were not allowed to participate in the awarding of the contract for a recreational complex. The reason: their social relationships with two of the participating vendors, Sig Rogich and Mahlon Brown/Andre Agassi. The estimated profit of the contract was $36,000,000. Due to flexibility, Mary Boetsch did not share her actions with the rest of the Commission for ratification.
A Flexible Ethics Commission allowed the Attorney General’s Office to take over the administrative oversight of its office in 1999 without the benefit of a co-operative agreement as required by NRS. A Flexible Ethics Commission permitted the Attorney General’s Office to shortchange it on the amount of legal representation it was entitled to. The 1993 Legislature provided the Commission with a full time deputy attorney general. However from October of 1995, the Flexible Commission received only the services of a half time deputy attorney general. Flexibility permitted this legal shortchanging and may account for some of the ‘unusual’ decisions handed down by the Commission.
The October 14, 2001 editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal asked "Is there anything state ‘Ethics Commission’ wouldn’t OK?" Thanks to flexibility, the answer to that question is yes; even its own employees are subject to the Commission’s whims.
The Commission failed to OK the proper personnel procedures that mandate the creation, modification and deletion of positions for state employment. In plain English this means that when the Flexible Commission re-organized in 1999, it failed to follow all the applicable personnel laws; thus, I was terminated illegally, while the new staff members were hired illegally. Amazingly enough, due to their flexibility, the Commission (through the AG’s Office) contends it is not their fault that State Personnel Laws were not followed; it’s the Legislature’s.
Flexibility allowed the Commission to forgo the standard exit interview and forced me to leave state service without having to sign the required termination paperwork; due to this oversight, I am technically still a state employee (although unpaid). Thank god for flexibility!!!
Flexibility is great...if you’re an acrobat. It is not great if you are a state agency charged with providing guidance to the public officers and employees of Nevada. The same rules have to apply equally to all participating in the opinion process in order for the Commission to be successful. And respected.
The Las Vegas Review Journal’s editorial also called for the abolishment of the Flexible Ethics Commission. Not a bad idea, especially if it’s replaced with the Tough Ethics Commission; a body that would treat all parties fairly and with compassion. No more telling people that photographs of wrong doing do not constitute proof. No more treating those who hold political office or who have large bank accounts differently than who do not. No more bending the rules for its friends and cronies.
It’s time to stop the insanity! How? By involving the State Legislature; that body can’t play ostrich any longer. It can no longer afford to ignore the atrocities committed or being committed by the Flexible Ethics Commission.
First, hold a series of hearings at which members of the public could testify as to their deplorable treatment by the Flexible Ethics Commission, who by the way should not be allowed to participate in the hearings. Suggestions for overhauling the Flexible Ethics Commission would be taken at those public hearings.
Second, authorize the Legislature’s research division to conduct a study of other ethics commissions and present model legislation based on its research and the suggestions received at the public hearings to the 2003 Legislature.
Finally, hold accountable the Flexible Ethics Commission members and legal staff for their actions. Require them to make the appropriate reparations to all those injured by the Flexible Ethics Commission.
The citizens of Nevada have a right to be treated fairly. Let’s give it to them!
The citizens of Nevada also have a chance to show the rest of the country that ethics are not flexible or for sale in Nevada. Let’s take it!
