Boulder City: Council-raise issue is not going away

Jeffrey Libby

Friday, Sept. 28, 2001 | 9:27 a.m.

A controversy sparked by a proposal to raise salaries for members of the Boulder City Council isn't over.

Former Councilman Bill Smith, along with 14 residents, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit asking the City Council to defend in court its decision not to certify a June ballot initiative. The measure would have cut council members' salaries in half.

The hearing is set for Nov. 15 at 9 a.m. in Clark County District Court. Judge Kathy Hardcastle will preside.

The controversy began in June 2000, when the City Council approved salary increases that would have given raises to Mayor Bob Ferraro and Councilmen Bryan Nix and Joe Hardy before any of the officials faced re-election. Same-term raises are illegal elsewhere in the state.

In April, voters passed a ballot initiative, spearheaded by Smith, killing the raises -- $8,000 for the mayor and $5,000 for council members -- before the increases became effective. Smith was still a council member at the time.

A second initiative on the June ballot, also led by Smith, remains contested. As proposed, it would have removed a loophole in the charter that allowed the council to propose same-term raises. It also would have taken away auto and health benefits for council members, cutting about $11,400 from their annual pay. The mayor earns a base pay of $13,200. Council members earn $10,700.

But Hardy, calling that citizen-based initiative "punitive," proposed a competing initiative that prohibited same-term raises, but maintained current pay levels.

The majority of the city's residents voted for both initiatives, but Hardy's version received more votes. The city attorney ruled that the two questions were in conflict and only the one receiving the most votes could be enacted. The state attorney general's office agreed, issuing an opinion in July that said the two differed on the benefits package.

Smith says Hardy's initiative confused voters. If it was clear that the two questions were in competition, people would have voted for one or the other, but not both, he said.

If the conflict involved the benefits packages, Smith said, Hardy's initiative should have addressed that issue in the ballot question, in which there was no discussion of benefits. That issue is addressed, however, in back-up material.

Smith said Hardy's initiative also fails to close the loophole allowing same-term raises. Under the new law, a council member can still receive a same-term raise as long as he or she abstains from the vote, Smith said.

Hardy said Thursday that the loophole has been closed.