Print Edition
View Front Page
Subscribe

Print this story Email this story Post A Comment

Safford attorney reverses conflict opinion

By Jon Johnson
Assistant Editor
Published on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:13 AM MST

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.

Print this story Email this story Post A Comment

Comments

30 comment(s)

Safford Bloggenstein wrote on May 9, 2008 9:22 PM:

" Anyone see what's on this council meeting's agenda? None other than a performance review and severance package for City Attorney Johnny Guthrie. Looks like he didn't last too long. That's what you get when you cross the Evil Empire of Green and company. This guy can't get convicted and thrown out of office fast enough for me. Yes when Green and the city lose either one of the pending lawsuits, Green will be found guilty of violating the conflict of interest statute and will be forced to resign. That means whoever is vice-mayor will then be mayor. Pick wisely. "

Investigate wrote on May 9, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Dear Plato, Ron Green did and dose not like Aime and he has made that perfectly clear. The squeaky wheel always gets heard. "

Dear Plato wrote on May 9, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Your right on track with most of your statements but hasnt Aimee Staton been writing about these subjects for years. She was writing the same things Jon Johnson was and getting attacked nonstop by Green and his staff. "

Pima wrote on May 9, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Perhaps the City of Safford should look around and see what other cities of like size are doing. Most have replaced the local attorney for a Law Firm so they don't recieve the jumbled opinions of their local guy. Since Safford has never had a legitimate City Attorney in my opinion they will have to be trained on how to avoid these political(some possibly illegal) shenanigans. Don't forget you get what you pay for. Safford should really move on in to the 21st century any time they can figure it out.
"

Investigate wrote on May 9, 2008 7:16 AM:

" To Mayor Green, Every time you point your finger at someone you have three pointing back at your self. Let stop pointing fingers step up and start doing the job you voted in to do. If you want to be the mayor then you need to be a team player. If a citizen complains that dose not mean that their right or wrong it means you need to ask questions maybe its a miss understanding, But you feel the need to baggier the employees and side with citizens cause your so angry. Well get over it already lets move on. "

Albert E. wrote on May 8, 2008 8:15 PM:

" You can't have it both ways Jonny---

Could it be that now that the lawsuits are coming, Jonny thinks his original opinion seems to HELP the Talley and Wilmont cases?

SO NOW, I'll just make up some excuses---I was sick, I was tired, I was lonely, I was stupid, I was incompetent, my pants were on fire, there was a full moon, my horoscope was backwards, I ran out of shaving cream----and POOF---my LEGAL OPINION CHANGED---as if by magic!

Can this guy please be FIRED----soon? "

Napoleon XIIII wrote on May 8, 2008 8:05 PM:

" "They're coming to take me away--ha ha--to the funny farm, with trees and grass . . ."

Does anyone remember that song? It was about a guy who was INSANE.

The lyrics were no doubt inspired by a lawyer who kept changing his mind over---and over---and over again---so that pretty soon EVERYONE knew what many have been suspecting----

That HE WAS STARK RAVING MAD! ! ! "

Rod Serling wrote on May 8, 2008 8:00 PM:

" And another thing---

People who run for public office probably should not be doing it for the money. The majority of them could probably make more in some other field.

In the case of Huey---he is managing several hundred people and a large budget. And, a utiltiy company.

To put things in perspective---a beginning PD blue-collar worker makes about $45,000 a year in salary and benefits---perhaps more with bonuses.

Shouldn't the city manager be making 2.5 times as much as a starting mine worker? "

Rod Serling wrote on May 8, 2008 7:53 PM:

" The CEO of Freeport spoke here two weeks ago---and last year his income was some $65,000,000. A lot of money, right?

But is it too much?

You and I might think so---but the stockholders who were the beneficiaries of their $1.3 BILLION FIRST QUARTER NET PROFITS just might think he was worth every penny.

So, stop worrying about someone making more than the Governor. That is just plain stupid. The Freeport CEO made 162 times more than what President Bush made last year---and in my opinion, Bush was the one who was overpaid. "

Rod Serling wrote on May 8, 2008 7:45 PM:

" I'm tired of these people who are jealous of what certain city employees make. Yes a few of them are well paid---by Safford standards.

But remember that CHEAPEST is not always BEST---you usually get what you pay for, and if you are looking for good managers, you are competing with other towns and cities. It is reasonable to assume that better people cost more than ineffective ones.

Sure---we could hire the Mayor's brother, uncle or cousin for less---but then what would we have? "

Buster Bodine wrote on May 8, 2008 7:37 PM:

" I get the feeling from reading the original-letter-to-the-editor that something is pretty fishy with Mr. Guthrie's "modus operandi" (you guys who write for the Crosswinds will have to look that one up). What attorney writes about his legal opinions in a letter-to-the-editor?

Does he think that his original opinion damages the city's case? Is he kow-towing to the Mayor? Is he just nuts? Unstable? Bi-polar? Whacky? A wild and crazy guy? Trying to keep his job?

Or is it ALL OF THE ABOVE? "

Plato wrote on May 8, 2008 7:31 PM:

" By the way---Jon Johnson is a pretty good writer. His stories make sense---they have a beginning, a middle and an end.

He seems to know his material, research his subjects and draw reasonable conclusions.

This is reporting at a level of COMPETENCE that we have not been getting until Jon joined the staff. Please see if you can keep him around for a while. "

Socrates wrote on May 8, 2008 7:27 PM:

" We have a buffoon Mayor who doesn't understand what a conflict of interest is---and now we have a city attorney who apparently doesn't even read the cases he is citing.

If Mayor Green gets rent money from Phelps-Dodge (or Freeport) as a landlord---and Exeter would go after them as tennants---then Mayor Green has a CLEARCUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

You don't have to be a ROCKET SCIENTIST to understand this. It should be apparent to anyone over the age of 12 or with an IQ above 65 or so. "

The Wizard of Id wrote on May 8, 2008 7:19 PM:

" OK---so how fast would you FIRE an attorney who gave you three different opinions in three chances---if it was YOUR business he was advising? Perhaps he should have SHUT UP until he had the answer. It sounds to me like he is having a nervous breakdown---not a stroke. This guy is OUT TO LUNCH!

Did the Mayor "persuade" him to change his mind? Is Guthrie seeking some JOB SECURITY? What attorney in his RIGHT MIND writes a letter to the editor of a paper to give a legal opinion? "

Too Much wrote on May 8, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Perhaps an Attorney should be hired from Phoenix or Tucson that nobody is related to or is not an acquaintance of and has nothing to gain or loose from this situation then nobody is in fear of loosing their job. Maybe there would be more getting done than just bickering back and forth and making accusations. Lets get down to the core of the situation and stop wasting time and money. "

Get Real wrote on May 8, 2008 9:23 AM:

" City Attorney: WHICH IS IT? MAKE UP YOUR MIND! Are you succumbing to threats made by the Mayor on your job too?

What's really going on with the City Attorney. You already appear afraid, or attempting to please both sides. You obviously can't be trusted.
As for Jon Johnson, he's reported what the Attorney reviewed. He isn't at fault for reviewing any cases.

Again, a case of attack Messenger rather than the one actually ordering the message.
Amazed,Hater & Jeff Dahmer would be correct. "

Pima wrote on May 8, 2008 6:31 AM:

" The point that is missing is where the Mayor voted and was in conflict. Since the city council has never voted on anything pertaining to the Exeter Development then there is no conflict. You can't have step 2 before step 1 folks. And i'm not saying the mayor didn't say things to people but a conflict is defined and that definition has not been met.
Mr. Talley and Mr. Wilmont should be suing the mayor as a individual not the city which is not yet involved.
"

curious wrote on May 7, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Editor:Thanks so much!! It was driving me crazy lol, I understand now :) "

Courier Editorial wrote on May 7, 2008 4:33 PM:

" Curious, the articles are copied exactly as they appear in the columns of the newspaper causing the hyphenated words. They are fixed by our employees as noticed. Unfortunately, they are not always noticed. "

Jeffery Dahmer wrote on May 7, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Another item was made very clear to me in reading the Hughs vs Jorgenson case...why is Hughs still in office? He asked investigators to ommit items out of their reports and he personally took his sister home instead of jail. I doubt anyone else would get this type of special treatment. I understand Hughs and the Mayor are related. No suprise, they both have done some pretty stupid stuff!! "

Jeffery Dahmer wrote on May 7, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Also, in the Supreme Courts ruling they admitted there is a difference between a criminal case and a civil case. The Hughs case was criminal and the potential lawsuits facing the city are civil. Something fishy is going on with the Guthrie opinion. Maybe the city is just back tracking to cover themselves before the lawsuits hit. "

Jeffery Dahmer wrote on May 7, 2008 2:49 PM:

" You can find the Hughs vs Jorgenson case on the internet. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the lower courts ruling since Hughs nor his sister had anything substantial to gain or lose financially. The court ruled "the legislature was concerned only with economic conflicts of interest" when they passed the conflict of interest statute. The Talley and Wilmot cases are all about the Mayors economic interest since he owns office buildings on main that could be harmed by their development. Read it for yourself. If you don't understand the legal terminology then ask someone who does. "

Jeffery Dahmer wrote on May 7, 2008 2:36 PM:

" There are several items that bug me about the new opinion from Mr. Guthrie. First of all, I know of NO "GOOD" attorney that would give a legal opinion in the form of a letter to the editor. Also, it appears he had the stroke one month after he gave the opinion the Mayor had a conflict, but the real problem is the case he sighted as his justification. I agree with the Courier, it has no relevance to the case the city is faced with from Talley and Wilmot. Look it up and read it!! "

curious wrote on May 7, 2008 2:28 PM:

" why does the editor hyphenate words like councilor EG: Coun-cilor?

They do this alot and it makes no sense to me. Could someone enlighten me? "

Tom Green wrote on May 7, 2008 11:32 AM:

" Why don't we let Jon clear it up. He usually can. Is he actually writing factually that Wilmot's Notice of Claim quotes and refers to specifically the Hughes case? No, I think not. Johnny Guthrie I believe is the one referring to the Hughes case, not Wilmot. Can't you see the twist? My guess is that Jon's journalistic reply will be that Wilmot was only referring to Wilmot's belief that Ron "stood to lose money", not to the Hughes case. My problem is that Jon Johnson ties those two ideas together when it's really just Jon's opinion? "

Burro Cat wrote on May 7, 2008 11:25 AM:

" Phenomenal(relating to or being a phenomenon: as: known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition ). So that's what Jon Johnson has risen to, the all knowing Wizard of OZ. This article is fantastically reflective of what the Courier has come to be. They report a story, then twist it to give a twisted perception. Case in point. The last two paragraphs, "This ruling would seem to not apply to Green's case...." "Green has denied....." The big twist is that Wilmot's notice refers to Hughes' reversal? Blasphemous Jon. Or Jon is seeming. "

Also Amazed Too wrote on May 7, 2008 11:07 AM:

" The mayor has more than a 1 out of 7 vote on your utility rates.

Jay Howe why he's paid over $100K and doesn't meet his own job description!

Pete Stasiak received a raise after less than 18 months on the job putting him over $100K/yr with precious little to show for his efforts to date.

Huey Long is paid over $135K per year, well more than the Governor of Arizona.

Where do you think your "utility" payments go? These figures do not include benefits!

Who's corrupt here?
"

hater wrote on May 7, 2008 10:36 AM:

" typical Green obfuscation by Tom. attack the messenger rather than read the article and realize that Wilmot's claim is that the Hughe's case - a cousin of theirs by the way - doesn't apply. I don't think Jon is saying that at all. "

Tom Green wrote on May 7, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Phenomenal( : relating to or being a phenomenon: as a : known through the senses rather than through thought or intuition ). So that's what Jon Johnson has risen to, the all knowing Wizard of OZ. This article is fantastically reflective of what the Courier has come to be. They report a story, then twist it to give a twisted perception. Case in point. The last two paragraphs, "This ruling would see to not apply to Green's case...." "Green has denied....." The big twist is that Wilmot's notice refers to Hughes' reversal? Blasphemous Jon. Or Jon is seeming. "

Amazed wrote on May 7, 2008 9:43 AM:

" Whats that odor coming from Safford? Oh, it's just corrupt politics. Amazing how people believe this buffoon (Mayor Green) has anybodys interest other than his own in mind. Since he has been mayor, utilities have gone up for the first time in years, he's getting ready to be sued by two different people... Guess who is going to pay the bills? Not him. "

WRITE A COMMENT

READER COMMENTS
* Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

* Be relevant. Keep your comments pertinent to the story that is being discussed.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All reader comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Eastern Arizona Courier is not liable for messages from third parties. IP addresses can be subpoenaed and your identity established by individuals who have been hurt by your comments.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity: You can be prosecuted for identity theft.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in www.eacourier.com reader comments represent the individual's own views and not those of the Eastern Arizona Courier. The Courier does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than Eastern Arizona Courier spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!