Lawmaker won’t file charges against officials who threatened him

Friday, July 25, 1997 | 9:18 a.m.

"I don't plan to do anything further unless something unexpected comes up," Williams said. "As long as the issue is brought out, and (city officials) are willing to assure there is more communication so something like this doesn't happen again, I'm fine with that."

Williams, D-Las Vegas, said his job with the city was threatened earlier this month by city spokeswoman Cathy Hanson and former City Councilman Matthew Callister.

He said Callister and Hanson told him in separate conversations they had three votes - out of five City Council members - to fire him if he supported legislation designed to curb the use of eminent domain.

Callister adamantly denied the charge. Hanson was out of town and unavailable to respond, but Mayor Jan Jones said, "I find it impossible to believe that someone as experienced and knowledgeable as Cathy Hanson would threaten anyone. She just wouldn't."

Williams said he won't file charges against Hanson or Callister. Nevada law stipulates that interfering with the legislative process, which includes threatening or intimidating a legislator, is a gross misdemeanor.

Another statute says anyone who uses menace or deceit to influence a lawmaker on a vote faces a felony charge with a penalty of as long as five years in prison, and a fine of as much as $10,000.

"If what (Williams said) happened, it is covered by Nevada Revised Statutes," said Bob Harmon, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. "It's a matter of whether he (Williams) wants to take it from there."

Williams also said he won't lodge a lobbying complaint, which can be filed by any person with the Legislative Counsel Bureau in Carson City.

Williams takes a six-month, unpaid leave of absence every other year from his job with the city to serve in the Assembly.

He said he was threatened in the final days of the legislative session before voting for a bill that would have subjected the city's eminent domain proceedings to court review.

The measure was strongly opposed by city officials and lobbyists for the gambling industry, who argued it would hamstring redevelopment efforts by Nevada cities.