Former manager gets boost in lawsuit against city

Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2005 | 11:01 a.m.

A fired North Las Vegas city manager has received a boost in a lawsuit over his dismissal as the city presses on in its defense despite rising legal costs.

Discovery Commissioner Thomas Biggar, siding with former City Manager Kurt Fritsch, has recommended North Las Vegas City Council members be compelled to testify about their conversations with the city attorney prior to firing Fritsch in July 2003.

In his decision, Biggar said there was evidence that there could be an open meeting law violation and that the attorney-client privilege shouldn't be used as a "sword and shield" in avoiding the mandates of the open meeting law.

"These facts if believed would constitute a prima facie (at first view) case of a violation of the state's open meeting laws," Biggar said in his recommendation signed on Aug. 24.

North Las Vegas officials plan to appeal Biggar's recommendation to District Judge Jackie Glass, who is presiding over Fritsch's suit, which seeks more than $200,000 in unpaid salary.

Fritsch sought a ruling from Biggar after the city's lawyer instructed council members during depositions not to disclose their private conversations with City Attorney Sean McGowan.

"He (Biggar) is saying there is no other way to tell if there are violations unless you know what people said," said attorney Gregory Smith, who is representing the city. "He thinks there is more here than I do."

Fritsch's attorney, Adam Levine of Las Vegas, declined to discuss Biggar's ruling. He said he's "looking forward to expose the scope of the open meeting law violations by the City Council and city attorney."

Smith said North Las Vegas didn't violate open meeting laws, and that if the council members are required to disclose their conversations with McGowan during a new round of depositions, it won't jeopardize the case.

The city has already spent $147,000 on legal bills to fight the lawsuit, and the tab is expected to reach or surpass $200,000 if it goes to trial in April as scheduled.

McGowan said there are no plans to settle the case even though the legal fees are approaching what Fritsch is seeking. He said the lawsuit is simply Fritsch trying to rewrite his contract and get severance for the full two years he had remaining on it, instead of the six months spelled out in the document.

Settling cases in which someone doesn't have a legitimate claim is a bad practice, McGowan said. People would believe the city had deep pockets and file even more lawsuits, he said.

"We would rather pay attorneys than unworthy claimants," McGowan said.

In the lawsuit, Fritsch claims his due process was violated. He said there was a violation of the open meeting laws in the decision to terminate him and determine the amount of severance paid.

Fritsch claims his firing was decided prior to the council meeting on July 16, 2003. The lawsuit argues that McGowan was instrumental in coordinating and achieving that result by holding numerous individual meetings with council members.

The council fired Fritsch without any discussion. Fritsch, who earned about $150,000 a year, had two years left on his contract. The city paid him severance equal to six months' pay.

McGowan said answering questions of council members and giving legal advice doesn't constitute a violation of the open meeting law. He said the vote came as the council was prepared to conduct its annual review of Fritsch, who only three weeks earlier predicted his fate.

Fritsch told top administrators that some council members were trying to push him out.

Smith said the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled previously that the open meeting law doesn't trump the attorney-client privilege, which he says is important to protect. Any revelations from council members about their conversations with McGowan will show there is no open meeting law violation and will only hurt Fritsch's case, he said.

"The attorney-client privilege is a very important principle in law," Smith said. "All we are trying to do is protect it in general."

McGowan said North Las Vegas has filed a motion asking Glass to decide the case in the city's favor without going to trial. A trial date had been set for Sept. 12 until getting pushed back to April.