Safford attorney reverses conflict opinion
|
|
The Safford city attorney has changed his mind three times in the past three months on whether Mayor Ron Green had a conflict of interest regarding the proposed Exeter Development Commerce Park.
In City Attorney Johnny Guthrie's recent letter published in the Sunday Courier, he stated he now believes Green did not have a conflict of interest concerning the Safford Commerce Park — only a perception of one. At his first council meeting he stated that there was only a perception of a conflict, and later he said that there was an actual conflict because of the mayor's actions and conversation regarding a proposed business development.
The attorney said he came to his new conclusion that there was only a perception of a conflict after recuperating from a stroke he suffered in late February. Guthrie said in his letter to the Courier that his stroke limited his ability to fully investigate the matter.
Guthrie was asked at his first council meeting Jan. 14 for his opinion on whether the mayor had a conflict. At that time he said there was a perception of a conflict, but he didn't feel it met the requirements of the statute.
Nearly a month before he suffered his stroke, Guthrie again addressed the Safford City Council at its Jan. 28 meeting.
He said after investigating the claims against Green and receiving 11 pieces of evidence, including sworn statements from city employees and Exeter developer John Wilmot, he came to a new conclusion.
"I have done my due diligence since that meeting," Guthrie said. ". . .Because the mayor put it before the public last time, read the allegations and then categorically denied, I feel it proper for me to put it before you and categorically declare that I believe, in my best legal opinion based on all the facts and insinuating circumstances, that there is a conflict."
Green said he had a conflict of interest at this meeting, and the council voted 6-0 to accept his conflict of interest statement.
About two months after his stroke, Guthrie changed his mind again.
In his letter, Guthrie states one reason he believes there is only a perception is because sworn statements from city employees did not reference conflict of interest issues, only hostile work environment issues.
Safford Utilities Director Jay Howe was one of the employees who submitted a sworn statement to Guthrie. He said Guthrie asked him to make a sworn oath statement regarding Green's alleged actions, so he did.
"My area is not to determine if there was a conflict or not," Howe said. "We (the employees) stand beside our statements."
Green submitted a written statement to the Courier on Tuesday that said, "This issue has been over-politicized and publicized, but I applaud City Attorney Guthrie for stepping forward now and doing the right thing by admitting a mistake that was made. I have maintained from the beginning that there was no conflict of interest. . . I never had, don't have now and don't expect to have a conflict of interest in the future. I have only done what any good mayor should have done to look out for the residents and taxpayers of Safford and to make decisions in their best interests. In light of the fact that notices of claim have been filed, it would be improper to comment further."
The conflict of interest statute, ARS 38-503 states, "Any public officer or employee of a public agency who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any contract, sale, purchase or service to such public agency shall make known that interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such contract, sale or purchase."
A "substantial interest" is defined as "any pecuniary (dealing with money) or proprietary interest, either direct or indirect, other than a remote interest."
Wilmot and Exeter filed a $10.2 million notice of claim against Green and the city April 3. Former Mayor Van Talley, who was a consultant for Exeter, filed a $4.3 million notice of claim on Feb. 22. Wilmot and Talley said they had no comment on Guthrie's letter.
According to Exeter's $10.2 million notice of claim, Green stood to lose his Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold tenant to the new development. The claim states this would cause a direct financial interest between Green and the new development because if the Safford Commerce Park was built and FMI moved its offices, it would cause Green to lose revenue.
Guthrie wrote that in his "exhaustive search of case law interpreting that statute" the precedent was set with the Hughes vs. Jorgenson criminal case in 2002.
In that case, the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a lower court's finding that the Sheriff was guilty of a conflict of interest.
That case dealt with Graham County Sheriff Frank Hughes' actions regarding the handling of reports after his sister was pulled over for speeding by a deputy Jan. 14, 2000, with drugs and drug paraphernalia on her.
In that incident, Sheriff Hughes was called to the scene to calm his sister, and she was released to his custody. According to the Arizona Supreme Court, Hughes omitted facts from the incident reports, and his sister was apparently never charged with anything.
The earlier ruling was overturned because Hughes only stood to lose votes and not money or ownership.
This ruling would seem to not apply to Green's case because he stood to lose money, according to Wilmot's notice of claim.
Green has denied that his situation meets the conflict of interest criteria.
