Official: Williams’ actions justify firing

Sito Negron

Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2003 | 11:13 a.m.

Las Vegas officials should consider firing Wendell Williams and his City Hall supervisor for their mishandling of his leave and sick time, the deputy city manager has concluded.

Betsey Fretwell's investigation into the controversy over Assemblyman Williams' city pay during the 2003 legislative session found that contrary to Williams' allegations, he was not forced to change his time cards because of pressure from his bosses.

However, the report indicated that he and his supervisor -- Sharon Segerblom, director of the Neighborhood Services Department -- did not follow procedure to note leave and sick time, and it recommended "appropriate discipline up to and including termination" for both.

Neither could be reached for comment. Officials would not specify what discipline has been enforced, although City Manager Doug Selby said neither has been fired.

The report does not end the city's inquiry into time card issues, however. The city auditor's office, which reports to the mayor and City Council, will review the report into Williams' 2003 time cards, and also will look at 2001 time cards filed by him and Assemblyman Morse Arberry, who left his city job in January 2002.

In those cards, each took what Selby said at first glance appears to be excessive amount of sick leave -- 208 hours for Williams and 190 for Arberry -- between January and June of 2001, while the Legislature was in session.

City policy does not allow sick leave to be taken for anything other than illness, bereavement, to care for a family member or to keep a medical appointment.

The auditor "will look at 2001, and may go further back. He will probably review our actions as a city managers office in this matter," Selby said. "He will look at our controls and system to make sure we have fair and accurate reporting of time."

"2003 is basically dealt with in my opinion," said Selby. "2001 and any other areas that the city auditor goes into, we're going to wait until his report comes out to determine if additional actions needed by our office." The report about the investigation into Williams' 2003 time cards ends with a note that: "Appropriate discipline up to and including termination may be necessary" for Williams and Segerblom "following the conclusion of the evaluation of the 2001 Legislative session pay records."

The investigation was handled by Fretwell, who is Segerblom's supervisor.

Selby said, "I'm confident the city auditor's review of what we did, as well as his review of prior sessions, will show Betsy handled this with integrity and fairness and her role as supervisor of that department did not bias her in any way."

When asked if it was fair to have the city manager's office investigate claims Williams made against that same office, Selby said, "That's why I'm happy to have the auditor (review the issue)."

Selby said Fretwell looked into allegations Williams' time cards were falsified and forged, and that they were altered at the direction of the city manager's office.

He said while those allegations were not substantiated, the inquiry found that one of Williams' co-workers in Neighborhood Services, Michael Chambliss, did sign Williams' name to some cards.

"It wasn't clear to us there was an effort to forge Mr. Williams' signature or represent it as his own. It was simply an effort to process time cards through our system in a (quick) manner," said Selby, explaining that Chambliss faced no disciplinary action for his role. "I don't know if that rises to the level of violating standing policy."

Selby said that Williams' agreement to pay the city back $6,700 was based on an accurate representation of the time he actually worked.

"Based upon his claims of work completed and the sparse documentation of work product we concluded he was overpaid in the legislative session and those adjustments that were made were warranted," he said.

Selby said policies regarding time card signatures, payroll procedures, sick time and outside employment were not followed.

"We need to consider legislative services outside employment. There is a review process prior to that employment," he said. "The question has been raised: Is serving in the legislature outside employment under our policies? In this case it wasn't treated like that and our opinion is it should have been considered."

Selby said the city manager's investigation did not check Williams' sick leave claims against days the Legislature was in session.

In 2003, Williams billed the city for more than 700 hours, and has agreed to pay the city back $6,700 for 208 hours. In 2001, he charged the city for 880 hours, including 208.25 in sick leave, between Feb. 3 and June 23. Arberry noted 1,040 hours in 2001, including 190 hours of sick time, in a similar time frame.

Jan L. Jones, who was mayor of Las Vegas from 1991 to 1999, said she considered city employers who were legislators as an asset.

"You always had elected officials who were city employees," she said. "I don't remember their pay being docked because they were at the Legislature.

"The city always has issues up there, so it's in the city's best interest to have an employee who is an elected official," Jones said. "Businesses, whether the city, county or private business, it's good for them to have an elected official.

"Are you really telling me every elected official up there works for free for four to five months during the legislative session? I know the answer to that," she said.

She also questioned why the issue has come up now, and wondered "Is it just, get Wendell?"

Jones, like Williams, is a staunch Democrat.

She said that without judging whether "Wendell did right or wrong, I'm saying there's a bigger issue here."

That issue, she said, is whether or not the state wants to face up to the responsibilities of a mature government. Those who call for banning public employees from state government service are misguided, she said.

"That's outrageous. In a state like Nevada, where it's a citizens' Legislature, who are they to decide who can serve and who can't?" Jones said. "They're unclear about what they want. If you want full-time, pay them and get over it. You want part time, understand there is complexity."

As for the way the issue was dealt with, she said, "I think the city would have been better off to say 'Look, it's long been a policy, we pay X amount while they're up there,' and if it's not a policy they should have been very clear, 'Look, we'd love to have you in office but in legislative years your salary will be adjusted by X.' "