Theatrics ahead in city’s legal battle with Culinary

By Sam Skolnik (contact)

Thursday, April 16, 2009 | 2 a.m.

After all the legal briefs and court arguments, the heated allegations and news conferences, it comes down to this:

Mayor Oscar Goodman has decided to take the stand today at the Regional Justice Center, promising to rail about what he claims is the Culinary Union’s “real reason” for trying to change the way city pursues its development agenda ­— payback for the city’s refusal to bend to demands that all new downtown casino jobs be filled with union workers.

After a hearing Wednesday, a scowling Goodman ripped into the Culinary’s leadership, which he said is “breaking their fiduciary duty” to union members. “To me, it’s a sin and they’re evil.”

Goodman’s testimony, accurate or not, will likely be compelling courtroom theater. But it’s unclear whether it will be relevant to the legal matter at hand — whether the city has the right to block two Culinary-sponsored ballot measures from the Las Vegas general election even though the union gathered enough valid signatures.

It underscores the fact that while fighting in court, both parties also hope to score points with voters who could ultimately decide the matter should the Culinary prevail.

If Goodman uses such rhetoric on the stand today, another key figure in this drama, Culinary’s top attorney Richard McCracken, will likely object. The clash between Goodman, who was longtime criminal defense attorney, and McCracken, who has represented the union for decades and has a reputation as an effective advocate, could bring some of the biggest fireworks in the case to date.

District Judge David Barker’s ruling could influence the Supreme Court’s thinking should the case be appealed. (An appeal is pretty much assured, lawyers close to the case confirm, no matter which side initially wins.)

Tacitly acknowledging the historic nature of the case, Barker said during Wednesday’s hearing that he wanted to make sure the process did not “get in the way of the result.” He said that meant he would give both sides more than enough time to lay out their arguments and call witnesses, but within a short time frame, presumably so the June 2 general election would not be affected.

The case is time-sensitive because the city clerk’s office says it needs to start printing absentee ballots for the general election by April 22. Even if Barker finishes hearing arguments by today and rules by Friday, there still will be precious little time for the losing side to appeal.

The arguments Wednesday focused on the initiative, which would mandate that lease-purchase agreements, like the one the city is using for its controversial new city hall, be put before voters. The referendum would also repeal the city’s redevelopment plan.

Most of the hearing involved City Attorney Brad Jerbic acting as a witness for the city. He was questioned by the city’s hired-gun appellate specialist, Daniel Polsenberg, among the most respected appellate lawyers in Nevada and a past president of the state bar.

The courtroom debate focused on technical points, whether the initiative failed the “single subject test” and whether the court should wait until after the election to decide the matter.

After the hearing, Goodman emerged to level his allegations against the Culinary before the assembled media.

McCracken also addressed reporters, countering Goodman’s rhetoric with sound bites sure to ring in voters’ ears.

“We’re trying to change the way things are done,” McCracken said. “It’s all about big chunks of tax dollars.”