Competing measures pass; ruling still to come

Jeffrey Libby

Wednesday, June 6, 2001 | 10:35 a.m.

Boulder City elected officials could keep their current pay. But they won't be able to vote themselves raises without first being re-elected.

As of this morning though, more than 12 hours after polls closed, City Clerk Vicki Mayes declined to release an official ruling on two competing ballot questions that both received strong yes votes from residents in citywide voting Tuesday.

"I requested a legal opinion, and the city attorney is researching the issue. We're hoping to have a decision sometime later this morning," Mayes said.

About 31 percent of active registered voters went to the polls, down from 41 percent in the April primary.

Question 1, a petition-driven initiative led by Councilman Bill Smith, would amend the city charter. The amendment would prevent elected officials from voting themselves raises that take effect during current terms of office. It also would limit health and auto benefits to out-of-pocket expenses, halving pay.

Voters approved the measure with 61 percent for and 39 percent against -- 1,821 to 1,175.

But a competing measure led by Councilman Joe Hardy asked voters to amend the charter only to prevent elected officials from voting themselves same-term raises. It did nothing to address current pay rates.

Voters approved that measure with 70 percent for and 30 percent against -- 2,103 to 895. The key factor though, is that 2,103 people voted for Hardy's initiative, for a 282-vote edge over Smith's initiative.

City Attorney Dave Olsen said Tuesday that after an initial review, it appears that city charter dictates that with two competing measures, the majority vote prevails. But he could not say for sure.

Councilmen on both sides of the issue were interpreting the votes in their favor.

"If you look at the numbers, many of the same people voted for both questions, because they believed the council people shouldn't vote themselves their own raises," Hardy said. "Fortunately, enough people believed at the same time you shouldn't punish them."

If Smith's initiative were enacted, pay for elected officials would be halved, from about $22,000 to $10,700.

But Smith said voters may have voted for both initiatives because they were confused.

"If you went to the polls in favor of both questions, the average person wouldn't have any clue that if you voted for one, the other would lose," Smith said. Otherwise, he said, why would the vast majority of people vote for both initiatives, effectively canceling their vote?

Smith also questioned Olsen's preliminary interpretation of the city charter. He said the state attorney general might have a different view if asked.

But Smith said Hardy's initiative still accomplishes what he originally hoped for. "The council can't even try to give itself raises in the same term of office. I've always said that's the most important part, and that's been accomplished."

Councilman Mike Pacini, whom several other councilmen have held up as an example of the type of middle-income earner who might not be able to run for office if pay was cut in half, said he was skeptical of the entire debate.

"Isn't it ironic?" he said. "Here I am, not worried about getting a raise. I'm worried about keeping what I've got. Only in America."