The Nevada Ethics Commission Violates the United States
Constitution and the Dictates of Honorable Government
Federal Court Rules Against Nevada Ethics Commission:
As a result of Sam Dehne's Federal Lawsuit against the Ethcomm Federal Judge Hagen ruled
that the Ethcomm has been operating in violation of the United States Constitution.
In Judge Hagen's Conclusion of Sept, 2001, he states:
"Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that a judgment be entered that NRS 281.525(1) and
281.551(2)(a) violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and that permanent injunctions be issued enjoining these statutes
from enforcement."
Kudos! to Judge Hagen and Judge Cooke!!!
The Ethics Commission concocted a retaliation in 1999 against citizen Sam Dehne... possibly to derail his bid for the United States Senate. (Sam subsequently filed a Federal Lawsuit against the Ethcomm with his attorney, Jeff Dickerson, and with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union.)
Remember this!
The Nevada Ethics Commission was created to monitor public officers. Instead, they are protecting and covering up for public officers. They are trying to stifle and suppress all honorable citizens who are sick of rotten government in northern Nevada. Threats of $5,000 fines and DA investigations against citizens who perform their civic duty reeks of Totalitarianism.
On June 10, 1999 a Preliminary (fact finding) Ethics Hearing was conducted relative to a complaint that I brought against Jeff Griffin (posing as Reno mayor) and Krys Bart (brand new Reno airport czar). I alleged that they met together (in violation of the spirit of a previous Ethics Opinion) and possibly discussed the dismantling of a long-standing plan to move the Nevada Air Guard to Rewana Farms. Furthermore I said they did this in order to focus on increased cargo operations which would benefit Griffin's private company tremendously.
At the Kangaroo Court Hearing, I also pointed out several critical falsehoods by Griffin. While the EthComm acknowledged some of the lies, they sloughed them off as not being important. One example: Kangaroo-chairwoman: "Why do we care, Mr Dehne?"
She really said that!
Griffin and Bart admitted meeting together; although they (naturally) denied discussing the cargo scheme. They were caught in so many perjurious falsehoods that it became confusing as to when they might have been telling the truth... although I do think they stated their names honestly.
The long and short of it is that:
1. The EthComm is trying to fine ME (the victim of bad government) $5,000.
2. The EthComm is recommending the Washoe District Attorney investigate my Complaint.
These hideous tactics by the EthComm (and the illegal operational rules in NRS 281 that they have created for themselves) are obvious gross violations of various sections of the Constitution... including the 1st (Freedom of Speech) and 14th (Equal Treatment under the Law) Amendments.
There can be no other perception of these tactics than that they are a cowardly attempt to scare citizens and stifle their right to speak out against (bad) government.
I have placed the entire transcript of the Hearing, along with a brief summary, on the internet. (click here to read)
A few simple questions to be asked if there is a bizarre investigation of this bizarre matter:
1. Is the EthComm justly empowered to suspend citizens' right to free expression?
2. Is the EthComm justly empowered to fine any citizen issuing a complaint when, in the judgment of such citizen, a public officer has committed an impropriety?
3. Is the EthComm justly empowered to suppress criticism of public officers by use of fines and threats of investigations?
4. Is it the position of the EthComm that it supersedes the Constitution of the United States?
5. Is it the position of the EthComm that any American citizen has no right to be incensed and vexed at public officers when such officers insult the public trust?
6. Isn't an EthComm dysfunctional when it is being chaired by a person serving time with a DUI conviction... who lied to the Highway Patrol? Should not the chair have been immediately removed from this position?
7. Is an EthComm worthy of respect when it doesn't respect the Constitution of the United States?
Notwithstanding Griffin's guilt, the EthComm is a million miles off-limits in attacking the citizens.
Here is the jurisdiction of EthComm, NRS 281.465
The commission has jurisdiction to investigate and take appropriate
actions regarding an alleged violation of this chapter by a public officer
or employee in any proceeding commenced by:
1.The filing of a request for an opinion with the commission; or
2. A determination of the commission on its own motion that there is just
and sufficient cause to render an opinion concerning the conduct of that
public officer or employee.
The Kangaroo Hearing was conducted with the EthComm acting as judge, jury, and executioner... as well as defense counsel for these 2 perjurious public officers, and I had to confront them every step of the way.
This Nevada Ethics Commission is nothing more than a hideous buffer for rotten public officers. Rather than protecting citizens against bad government... it is doing just the opposite.
(continued below)
ALERT!
MORE REPORTS ON PERVERSION:
EDITORIAL: Laugh-a-minute ethics panel
Monday, October 01, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Despite court ruling, lawyer says panel can still collect fine against citizens.
It's hard to find a grin in these trying times -- even our professional
comics have to be careful where they tread -- but fortunately, locals in
need of some comic relief still have the state Ethics Commission.
U.S. District Judge David Hagen last week enjoined the commission
from enforcing a state law which appeared to allow the board to
impose fines on everyday citizens who brought ethics complaints
against officeholders, if the commission deemed those complaints to
be "inaccurate" and/or "vexatious."
In the case at hand, Reno gadfly Sam Dehne had apparently "vexed"
Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin by accusing him of violating
conflict-of-interest laws by meeting in Texas with Krys Bart, executive
director of the Washoe County Airport Authority. (In his private
capacity, Mayor Griffin once operated a business at the Reno
airport.)
Judge Hagen threw out the law as unconstitutional. But because Mr.
Dehne merely asked the court to throw out the law -- not the $5,000
fine levied against him under the law -- the commission can still levy
the fine, argues Nancy Lee Varnum, the board's attorney.
As though any first-year law student doesn't know of the majestic
precedent of Marbury v. Madison (link), in which the first U.S. Supreme
Court instructed Americans that once a law has been ruled
unconstitutional, we are all to act as though the law in question never
existed. (emphasis added)
Then Ms. Varnum asserts that -- while this commission retains the
right to levy its $5,000 fine against the hapless Mr. Dehne -- the fine
was actually levied by some other commission, some "different
commission that operated under different statutes."
Ah, the "evil twin" defense.
Her state Ethics Commission "doesn't see itself as out to batter private
citizens. It is eight hard-working, dedicated members trying to do the
right thing. They are very conscious of free speech rights," Ms.
Varnum asserts.
If that's so, why did the current commission fight so hard in court to
retain its right to fine folks like Mr. Dehne -- and why does it insist it
still has the right to do so, despite Judge Hagen's ruling, asks Allen
Lichtenstein, lawyer in the case for the ACLU.
"If they attempt to collect a fine under a statute declared
unconstitutional, we will be back in court immediately on a
show-cause order on why they aren't in contempt of court," adds Mr.
Lichtenstein.
Well, good. And should it come to that, here's hoping Judge Hagen
sees fit to award a little jail time. And not to Mr. Dehne.
AND MORE PERVERSION:
COLUMN: Steve Sebelius
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
"Those Tiny Liberties"
It was a small story, buried in the Saturday
newspaper, as most stories unrelated to terrorism are these days. But it's
an important story anyway, about an entirely different kind of terrorism.
Under a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge David Hagen, the state Ethics
Commission cannot fine a person for making a false or vexatious
complaint about a public officer. Or, to put it another way, the commission
cannot abridge the freedom of speech or the right of the people to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
That sounds very familiar. Yes, I'm sure I've read that before somewhere.
The problem is, the Legislature didn't, when it initially gave the
commission the ability to fine people who complain falsely about elected
officials. And let's be honest about who those complainers are going to
be, after all: Government gadflies, for whom "vexatious purpose" is a
reason to get out of bed in the morning.
So when Reno gadfly Sam Dehne got out of bed in 1999 and alleged that
Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin had a conflict of interest in his dealings with
Airport Authority of Washoe County Executive Director Krys Bart, the
commission took umbrage. Not only was there no conflict, the board ruled,
but Dehne said what he said to vex Griffin. The next thing he knew, he was
facing a $5,000 fine.
But, like so many other First Amendment cases here in Nevada, the
federal courts stepped in with a measure of common sense when no one
else was prepared to show any.
First, federal Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke and later Hagen ruled that
the statutes -- which ban making false statements to the commission to
get them to render an opinion, and which allow fines for making
statements in bad faith or with vexatious purpose -- violated the First
Amendment (free speech) and the 14th Amendment (due process, since
there's no hearing before the commission imposes a fine).
"A statute that regulates speech critical of public officials and which
implicitly requires the critic to guarantee the truth of every factual assertion
made to the commission ... results in self-censorship and discourages
public debate," Cooke wrote. And why do I think that was the general idea
in the first place?
But you see, here in America, it's our God-given right to criticize our public
officials. We can say just about anything we want about the president, the
governor and the mayor. And unless any of those people can prove what
we said is not only false, but was uttered with the knowledge that it was
false or with a reckless disregard for whether it was false or not, they can't
win a defamation lawsuit.
Yes, it's a great country. And I'm not just saying that because I regularly
lampoon public officers in a constitutionally protected way.
What does the Ethics Commission have to say? First, it doesn't look like
they'll appeal. Chairman Todd Russell and attorney Nancy Varnum both
say that changes in the law adopted during the 1999 Legislature make
fining people who complain a thing of the past. Now, a two-member panel
of the full eight-member commission first hears all complaints behind
closed doors, and rejects those that panel members think are without
merit. Since only the full commission can decide to fine someone, false,
vexatious or otherwise imperfect complaints never get to the full
commission, and thus no one will ever get fined. (No one, they say, has
been fined since October 1999, when the new law went into effect.)
"I don't think this commission views its job as being the police of the
general public," Varnum says.
All of which fills American Civil Liberties Union attorney Allen Lichtenstein
with absolutely no confidence whatsoever. What if, Lichtenstein wonders,
a panel decides to give a complaint to the full commission, which then
decides -- in light of fuller testimony or new evidence -- that a complaint
was vexatious after all? With those laws still in place, a person could still
be fined.
And that raises a curious point: If, as the commission says, the new
procedures make the law moot, why did the Ethics Commission fight so
hard before Cooke and Hagen to keep them in place, Lichtenstein
wonders? "They're being disingenuous in terms of their argument," he
says.
But thanks once again to federal judges, the statutes really are moot, and
the Bill of Rights goes unmolested for another day. Then again, this is
Nevada, and there's always tomorrow.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs
Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Reach him at 383-0283 or by e-mail at
Steve_Sebelius@lvrj.com (click)
(continued)
Because I have been more than a little active in local government matters, the EthComm is apparently trying to squash me like a bug.
I have attended virtually every local government meeting for the past several years. I know about the severe epidemic of mendaciousness. I speak out against the incompetence and corruption of public officers... with justification.
I will continue to do so as long as I can.
"They" do not like this.
Last but not least, let's not forget what got us here. NRS 281 (which is the controlling law for public officers) says public officers are not to feather their nests at the government trough... for instance, at 281.481, 2. it says that, "A public officer shall not use his position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself, or any member of his household, or any business in which he has a significant pecuniary interest... ". Griffin violated this law when he got his lucrative contract from his cronies at the Reno Airport.
The EthComm semi-whitewashed this violation in 1998, but it did tell Griffin he had to leave the room, and explain why, whenever any airport issue was discussed at city council meetings.
If Griffin is forbidden from discussing airport issues in public, he certainly should not be meeting with airport people and discussing them in "secret"... far from Reno. I proved (and they admitted) they did meet!
For that I am punished. This is dysfunctional government at its very worst.
It is interesting to note that the Kangaroo-chairwoman unceremoniously resigned from the EthComm 3 weeks later. Will her replacement bring the EthComm to its senses?
Patrick Henry where are you?
AND MORE REPORTS ON PERVERSION:
Federal Judge and Federal Magistrate Agree with Sam. EthComm Severely Chatised for its Nasty Behavior and Las Vegas Review Journal Newspaper also Agrees:
Tuesday, September 25, 2001
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
EDITORIAL: Citizen Complaints
On Friday, U.S. District Judge David Hagen ruled that two sections of Nevada
law allowing the Ethics Commission to fine citizens who file false complaints
are unconstitutional. His ruling followed a recommendation handed down last
month by U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke.
Judge Hagen's ruling upholds a time-honored American tradition: the right to
criticize government officials without fear of reprisal. Striking down these
statutes will encourage average citizens to participate more fully in the
day-to-day activities of state and local government.
The case originated in Reno, where Sam Dehne, a frequent critic of city
government, filed a conflict-of-interest complaint against Mayor Jeff Griffin. The
Ethics Commission dismissed the complaint, but it decided that Mr. Dehne's
letter contained "false" information. He was charged with a misdemeanor and
fined $5,000.
Mr. Dehne sued, claiming that the laws violate the First and 14th Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Hagen agreed, based on the 1964 New York
Times v. Sullivan decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
That ruling stated that people who make false accusations against public
officials are protected by the Constitution so long as no "actual malice" was
involved. Judge Hagen agreed with the recommendation of Judge Cooke, who
ruled that the Nevada statute violates the First Amendment because it "results
in self-censorship and discourages public debate."
The Ethics Commission has not decided whether it will appeal the ruling. It
shouldn't. Judge Hagen's decision was a sound one, in line with existing
precedents, that should be upheld by higher courts.
From The Sparks Tribune Newspaper, 7 July, 1999
Mayor Jeff Griffin Owes Sam Dehne a Public Apology
Ira Hansen
Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin owes an apology to activist Sam Dehne, and he also needs to be reminded that he is a public SERVANT, not the public's master.
Griffin verbally attacked Dehne in a meeting of the Reno City Council. After Dehne spoke (out of turn, apparently) up about Griffin's violation of an order of the Nevada State Ethics Commission, Griffin ordered: we have someone remove this clown" and had Dehne ejected from the council chambers. He then further mocked Dehne, stating "I'd like an opportunity to throw him out again!"
But it turns out Sam Dehne was completely correct. Griffin was willfully violating the specific orders of the State's ethic rules, as Griffin himself admitted. Griffin, because of his relationship with the Reno Airport, must abstain from airport-related votes and discussions.
Sam Dehne was holding a copy of that very ruling in his hand as he was manhandled out of the City Council chamber. Griffin, when confronted and read the Ethics Commission ruling, agreed Dehne was "absolutely right," as did the Reno City Attorney.
Does this mean the Mayor of Reno had not been advised on the ruling by the City Attorney? Or is he above the law? When confronted by Dehne why did he not admit he was in the wrong? Why was he not following the ruling in the first place?
Dehne was punished by being thrown out of the meeting and publicly humiliated. What punishment is Griffin going to receive for intentionally violating ethical standards? None? Without Dehne, would Griffin have continued to ignore the ruling? The Mayor acted as though the ethics ruling, when read to him, was somehow unfamiliar.
Has he such contempt for the rules of the Ethics Commission of this State that he had not even bothered to read them, even those specifically directed at him?
Sam Dehne, a private citizen, was recently fined $5000 by the Ethics Commission for filing "frivolous" complaints against Mayor Griffin. In light of the Mayor's admitted violation of the Ethics Commission rules, will he be fined as well?
It seems bizarre that an unelected, non-judicial body such as the Ethics Commission has the authority to fine a private citizen. The result of this fine against Dehne will be to intimidate other citizens from filing complaints against elected officials who they suspect of unethical behavior.
Whether or not this was the intent can be debated, but most observers of the Ethics Commission agree it is made up largely of political hacks and friends of the existing power structure who bend over backward avoiding serious censure of elected officials. In too many cases it seems they shelter rather than punish.
I am not aware of any public official accused of violating ethics having ever received as severe a penalty as private citizen Sam Dehne was given. Why not? More importantly, now that the Mayor, by his own admission, violated its ruling and abused the very citizen that brought this to the public's attention, what punishment will the Ethics Commission sanction Mayor Griffin with? If a Mayor or other elected official can with impunity ignore or willfully violate their instruction, of what value is an "Ethics" commission in the first place?
Activists such as Sam Dehne are a vital part of the political landscape. Without them, the public at large, which for the most part does not have the time or inclination to watch closely the behavior of our elected officials, would never know of the shady and questionable dealings of "our" elected officials. More importantly, the officials themselves, when tempted to do that which is personally beneficial but publicly improper, know the Sam Dehnes of the world are looking over their shoulder with a magnifying glass.
This fact is probably why Griffin is so annoyed with Dehne in the first place. The Mayor seems to delight on walking very near the edge, and without Sam around, would probably be doing business in a much more lucrative way. Hence the hostility.
I'm not suggesting Dehne walks on water. I am suggesting Sam, in spite of his outbursts and less than dignified manner, is acting in the public's interest. There is another way to look at this whole thing. We need to ask ourselves a question. Suppose Dehne, knowing the Mayor was intentionally violating ethical standards, had waited patiently until the end of the meeting, filled out the little "speakers card" and, in the allotted time frame during the "public comment" period, politely spoke in opposition to Mayor Griffin's violations. What would have happened? Would the newspapers have picked up the story and ran with it? Would the citizens know about it?
Would Griffin admit his violation and refrain in the future?
The answer is no to all of the above. Dehne would have been politely listened to by the Council, which would then politely ignore everything he said. Gentility would have accomplished nothing. By boldly speaking out, Sam Dehne accomplished his mission.
Rather than fining him $5,000, the Ethics Commission should be paying Dehne that sum for in effect enforcing their ruling. Mayor Griffin should be issuing a formal public apology -- and the public at large should be thanking Dehne for being their watchdog.
So, thank you Sam Dehne. Keep up the good work.
Read the Ethcomm Kangaroo Court WHITEWASH and a synopsis (click).
Is this a joke!
NEVADA GOV. Kenny Guinn gave his State of the State address Jan. 18, 1999 to a joint session of the Legislature in Carson City. Guinn made the administration of ethics a priority during the speech and has introduced an ethics reform bill to address deficiences in the system.
Governor Kenny C. Guinn
Exceprts, State of the State Speech, January 18, 1999
Public service should always be hard work, given willingly and honestly. (Duh!)
ETHICS
"It is the goal of this administration to safeguard the public’s faith in government, and that will begin at my front door. I demand the highest integrity from myself and from those with whom I work. And I will expect no less from anyone in state government, or from any other elected official in Nevada.
Therefore, I will propose stronger ethics laws, that are easy to understand, easy to follow, and tough on those who breach the public trust.
I look forward to working with Senator Ann O’Connell, who has proposed a similar bill, modeled after some of the strongest laws in the country.
Specifically, I propose to require all public officers to sign the code of ethics – to stipulate that they have read it, understand it, and will adhere to it. Ignorance, in the face of the people’s trust, cannot be an excuse.
Certain offenses in our ethics code will become felonies, and convictions will result in automatic removal from office.
Our ethics reform must also serve to protect the many, good, honest elected officials serving our state. We must require that complaints be adjudicated swiftly and in a reasonable manner to deter those who would abuse the system to harm honest, hard working public servants. Complaints should be investigated thoroughly, decided in a timely fashion, and announced in plain English.
From start to finish, the work of the ethics commission should take no more than 60 days. I will also seek increased penalties for other ethics violations – fines up to 25,000 dollars for grievous offenses, paid from personal assets, not by campaign contributions or special interests.
I pledge to you that Nevada will have stronger ethics laws – enforced by a dedicated ethics commission."
Sam Dehne:
"My side is still aching for laughing. How do you spell bullshit? Geeze!"
Has the Nevada Governor reneged on his Campaign Pledge?
Governor Kenny Guinn "guaranteed" Nevadan's that he would clean up the Ethics Commission. Thus far he has reneged blatantly on his campaign promise. As a matter of fact the current EthComm and its anti-good-government laws are an insult to ethics.
Well, then what are you going to do about this, Kenny:
November 17, 2001
Nevada Ethics Commission critics seek meeting with governor
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A group of Nevada Ethics Commission critics is asking for a meeting with Gov. Kenny Guinn to discuss the abolition or reform of the panel.
The Committee Against Nevada's Unethical Commission requested the meeting in a letter sent Friday to Guinn, the Sparks Tribune reported.
Guinn press secretary Greg Bortolin confirmed the letter had been received, but could not say whether or not the governor will meet with the delegation.
The group includes former commission executive secretary Lee-Ann Keever and Reno activists Sam Dehne and Guy Felton.
In the letter to Guinn, Felton called the commission "transparently corrupt" and demanded the removal of panel Chairman Todd Russell and other members.
"The buck for responsibility stops on your desk," he wrote. "If you will not agree to meet with (us), you will be asked to explain why you should not resign from your position of public trust for conscious and willful failure to deal with a despicable blight on your administration."
Felton said Guinn bears special responsibility for the commission because he promised to reform the panel during his 1998 campaign.
The call for a meeting follows a commission hearing last week into a complaint brought by Felton against Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin.
The commission dismissed the complaint after deciding Griffin sold his Nevada Foreign Trade Services Corp. before voting on the appointments of two Airport Authority of Washoe County trustees.
The complaint was the latest in a series by Felton and Dehne, who claim Griffin has become rich through an exclusive contract with the airport authority to manage a vast foreign trade zone.
In two previous rulings, Griffin was ordered to abstain from voting - or make disclosures regarding his business interests - on airport-related matters.
Keever has waged an Internet-driven battle against the commission, seeking federal and state probes of it. She filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in 1999, claiming she was targeted because of a whistle-blowing letter earlier sent to Guinn.
THE NEVADA STATE FLEXIBLE ETHICS COMMISSION
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!
Excerpts from Keever's "We The People":
The Commission’s current make up is purely legal: eight members, all attorneys; one executive director, an attorney and the legal counsel, an attorney (natch!). The Commission’s enabling legislation states that only two of the members have to be attorneys; yet the Commission has 100 percent compliance in the attorney department.
One would think that with this plethora of legal expertise, the Commission would not be making such noticeable legal faux pas. Ignoring a federal judge’s ruling; retro-actively reprimanding people; refusing to abide by the provisions of the Federal Whistle Blowing Laws; snubbing all Nevada State Personnel Laws to name a few.
The Commission will continue to operate independent of the laws of the land, the laws of Nevada, until such time as the people protest and protest loudly. Until the Commission is brought under control by those in authority, it will continue its reign of terror and chaos.
How can the Commission’s conduct be changed? How can it be brought under control? Simple, by We the People. We the People have the right to be treated with respect and dignity by a government agency created to protect us, to guide us. We the People have the right to have our questions and concerns listened to and answered in a decorous manner by those officials elected or appointed to represent us.
However, it is up to We the People to make our concerns known to those elected to represent us, on both a state wide and national level. Our elected officials will not know of our distress with an agency until we notify them. It is We the People’s responsibility to make the governor, the attorney general, the members of the state legislature and the members of the Congress and the US Senate aware of what troubles us. They are not mind readers.
This country is based on participation by all citizens and until such time as We the People decide to participate, the Nevada Commission on Ethics will continue to operate as it always has and always will; with a callous disrespect for those appearing before it
Remember: We the People have an enormous impact on the manner in which government operates. Let’s take advantage of it. Let’s use it.
Sam Dehne:
"Sorry Lee Ann, but, unfortunately, 99% of "We the People" too busy... watching football and "wrastling" shows."
IMMEDIATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
by Lee-Ann Keever
Former Executive Secretary
Nevada State Ethics Commission
March 2, 2002
Today’s Las Vegas Review Journal reported that the executive director of the State Ethics Commission, Polly Hamilton, has resigned her position with the Commission, effective immediately. According to the story, Hamilton will "pursue other interests."
It is not clear how or when Hamilton’s successor will be appointed. According to Commission chair, Carson City attorney Todd Russell, one option may be combining the executive director's job with that of the staff general counsel.
If the Commission decides to combine the two positions, it may once again be guilty of being selective as to which provisions of the NRS it will abide by. Both of these positions were specifically created by statute to fulfill a definite function and thus, it may be, they cannot legally be combined.
An additional problem to consider is the fact that both these positions were created illegally by the 1999 Legislature. This unfortunate occurrence is not the legislature’s fault; it was working on flawed information supplied by both the State Ethics Commission and the State Attorney General’s Office.
The Nevada Revised Statutes requires State Personnel to conduct an in-depth study before any (emphasis added) position in state service can be created, modified or eliminated. This study must be conducted to determine the appropriateness of such creation, modification or elimination. Such a study was not sought by the Commission when it decided to reorganize its staff. State Personnel did not enforce this statute. Thus, according to the NRS, the positions of executive director and legal counsel were created illegally, while the position of executive secretary was abolished illegally.
The State Budget Office should have caught this mistake, but failed to. The reasons for this failure are not known at this time. If is fair to presume that the State Budget Office and/or State Personnel were extremely busy with the demands placed on them by a legislative session. However, those individuals favoring a conspiracy theory might believe that those agencies were merely bowing to the requests of some higher elected or appointed officials.
This whole situation appears to rest squarely on the shoulders of the Commission, the Attorney General’s Office and the State Budget Office for not following the Nevada Revised Statutes, for trying to rush through legislation without bothering to consult the law.
The question now, is, how can it be corrected???