Williams requests council hearing

Sito Negron

Friday, Dec. 5, 2003 | 9:41 a.m.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams on Thursday took the first step in challenging the city manager's decision to fire him by requesting a Las Vegas City Council hearing.

Williams was sent a letter dated Monday that stated he was to be fired as of close of business Wednesday. The letter, sent by the city Human Resources Department, said Williams did not live up to a "last-chance" agreement he had signed in September.

"Specifically, you failed to provide the following: a) Timely or adequate weekly activity reports as required by your Director and later, by the Acting Director and, b) Advance notice, as you were required to, of meetings you were attending outside City Hall," the letter read.

The request for a council hearing on the firing was sent in the form of a letter by Williams' lawyer, Lawrence Semenza. In the letter, he states that the justification for firing Williams "relates to vague violations by Mr. Williams of the ... Last Chance Agreement.

"The letter fails to set forth any facts upon which any reasonable person would be able to conclude that Mr. Williams violated the Last Chance Agreement," the letter states. "The additional reasons set forth for Mr. Williams' termination relate to conduct predating the Last Chance Agreement and are inappropriate for consideration in determining whether the City should terminate Mr. Williams."

City officials would not comment on the request for a council hearing. Semenza says Williams is an appointed employee, and as such, under the City Charter, is entitled to a hearing by the council. The city attorney, however, previously has given an opinion that Williams is not covered by that charter provision.

Meanwhile, Williams' former boss in the city Neighborhood Services Department, Sharon Segerblom, has been offered a chance to stay with the city, in the Department of Detention and Enforcement. She has not made a decision on whether to fight her demotion or accept that job, her lawyer reiterated Thursday.

For more than two months, the city has been trying to deal with a scandal that developed after the media requested Williams' cell phone records, which showed thousands of dollars in charges. He agreed to pay the city back about $1,800.

After that, pay records showed he received city pay while he was serving in the 2003 Legislature, and when those records were questioned, he agreed to pay back the city about $6,700.

That led to scrutiny of Williams' 2001 time cards, which showed he and Assemblyman Morse Arberry, then his Neighborhood Services Department supervisor, collected city pay -- including sick time -- while serving in the 2001 Legislature. Williams took 208.25 hours of sick time while the Legislature was in session in 2001, and Arberry took 80 hours of sick leave during a time period in which he attended legislative meetings.

City officials have not said whether the city will seek repayment for the payments made to Williams and Arberry in 2001.

Williams claimed he helped the city with legislative issues during the 2001 session, and that the pay arrangement and a subsequent promotion came about because of that work. While Segerblom had recommended Williams for a raise, he could not receive one because he was at the cap for his current position.

The city had a hiring freeze at the time, but the city manager's office created a new position for Williams, and approved the promotion without Segerblom's signature.