Petition problem: Council members see ulterior motive to resident’s ballot initiative

Dan Kulin

Friday, Jan. 31, 2003 | 9:48 a.m.

Glen Easter, a North Las Vegas resident of almost 30 years, was frustrated in August 2001 over the lack of information the city was releasing on a police-involved shooting that cost the city $500,000 in a settlement.

That frustration boiled over into an argument with Mayor Michael Montandon and the City Council during a council meeting.

Months later, Easter, who used to attend most council meetings, watched as the mayor refused to let a resident speak on items when they were being debated. The mayor said he thought the man was trying to disrupt the meeting, but he let him speak during the public comment period at the meeting's end.

That's when Easter decided changes were needed. So he launched a ballot initiative asking city voters to change council rules so residents can speak both at the beginning and end of all meetings and put items on the council agenda. His battle with the city is headed to court on Monday.

"I got upset at the City Council, watching them pick and choose who can speak," said Easter, who formed the Freedom of Speech Committee and collected more than 1,500 signatures. "So I said, 'I'll just put up a petition.' "

But Montandon and Councilman Robert Eliason say frustration is not the real motive for the petition. They allege that Easter and others are using the petition drive as a tool to attack political enemies and to prop up opposition candidates for City Council in the spring elections.

Vengeance, not a desire to improve the workings of the city government, is the real motive behind the petition, Montandon said.

"There's a tremendous amount of personal animosity involved ... They can't seem to get elected so they want to try to run the city anyway," he said, noting that Easter ran against him two years ago.

The truth probably is somewhere in the middle, Ted Jelen, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said.

"I'm sure both movements have their own personal agendas," he said.

The personal agenda of the petitioners, Eliason says, is to remove council members William Robinson and Shari Buck from office to make way for council candidates Bill Dolan and Honey Easter, Glen's wife. Robinson and Buck are the only two city elected officials facing re-election this year.

"They're making it a forum for their own candidates," Eliason said.

Dolan has filed to run against Buck, but Honey Easter had not filed for office as of Thursday.

"I'm trying to talk her out of it," Glen Easter said.

The council has fought back with a lawsuit trying to block the petition's propositions from appearing on either the April 8 primary or June 3 general election ballot. The city is arguing that the proposed changes are administrative not legislative decisions, and therefore cannot be decided by an initiative petition.

District Judge Mark Denton is scheduled to hear the case Monday. Although Easter is an apartment owner and manager, not a lawyer, he will be arguing the case for the petitioners.

The legal side of the argument is simple, Easter says: "They say it's administrative and I say it isn't."

And while city officials question Easter's petition motives, Easter questions the council's motives in taking the battle to the courts.

"Their lawsuit is retaliation against us," Easter said. "It's not the substance of the initiative, it's the person behind the initiative. They're saying, 'We'll show him who's the boss.' "

Easter says he only wants the council to be more responsive to citizens. In most cases, the proposed changes would simply bring the council back to operating as it was years ago, he said.

But Montandon said the proposed changes range from potentially devastating to just ridiculous.

For example, one of the proposed changes would let any city resident put a matter on a council meeting agenda, which Montandon said would disrupt meetings.

Another proposed change would move the starting times of council meetings from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., which the mayor called a "trivial administrative issue."

Jelen said it seems as if the changes sought by Easter would make council meetings less efficient without making the council more responsive or representative.

"Very few people will take advantage (of the proposed changes)," he said. "So the chances are you would have the same people with the same sets of grievances."

The city's argument simply allows the mayor to avoid the substance of the petition, which could change how and when residents are allowed to speak during council meetings, Easter said.

Currently, anyone is allowed to speak during the public comment period at the end of every council meeting.

The mayor, who runs the meetings, generally allows people to speak on matters before votes. But Easter said the mayor controls that time, and the mayor can decide to stop anyone from speaking before a vote.

The petition, if successful, would add a public comment period at the beginning of each meeting, which Easter said would ensure that people could speak on issues before council votes.

That's how it was about 20 years ago.

Robinson, who has been on the council since 1983, said when the public forum was at the beginning of meetings, people would sometimes filibuster and the meetings "would go on and on."

As far as Robinson is concerned, he doesn't care which way the vote goes, and he doesn't think about whether it was politically motivated.

"My philosophy's always been if the majority wants to burn down City Hall, then let's get some matches," Robinson said.

Buck said she, too, didn't know if Easter launched the petition to use as a campaign issue. But she doesn't like the precedent that would be set if the council allowed the matter onto the ballot.

"Could you imagine if they decided they wanted the meetings to start at 3 o'clock in the morning?" she asked. Councilwoman Stephanie Smith was the only council member to sign the petition and the only council member to oppose sending the petition to the courts instead of straight to the ballot. She said it's not important what the motives of those behind the petition are.

"The issue is not the messenger," Smith said. "To me the issue is what is on the petition, and attacking the messenger is a great way to obfuscate the issue."