courts:

Judge rules against Culinary Union over ballot questions

By Jeff German (contact), Sam Skolnik (contact)

Published Friday, April 17, 2009 | 4:41 p.m.

Updated Friday, April 17, 2009 | 6:43 p.m.

Download the judge's ruling

Goodman makes his (public) entrance (4-16-2009)
City, Culinary make final arguments; Friday ruling likely (4-16-2009)
Theatrics ahead in city’s legal battle with Culinary (4-16-2009)
City, Culinary bring redevelopment fight to District Court (4-15-2009)
Editorial: Building City Mahal (4-13-2009)
Battle over Las Vegas City Hall lands in District Court (4-10-2009)
Mayor’s security end-around nags (4-10-2009)
Supreme Court rejects redevelopment ballot petition (4-8-2009)
Development bills rebuff the logic of Vegas’ tax breaks (4-1-2009)
Bill would allow redevelopment money to help schools (3-30-2009)
P.R. title bout on city hall looms (3-30-2009)
An oasis of funding amid a recession (3-21-2009)
Car rentals short city on money for Smith Center (3-19-2009)

District Judge David Barker today refused to order the city of Las Vegas to put two redevelopment ballot measures backed by the Culinary Union on the municipal ballot.

Barker issued an 11-page decision about 4:30 p.m. explaining his reasons for denying the request.

Culinary Research Director Chris Bohner said the union would appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.

"We're disappointed in the ruling, but we're going to fight for the 14,000 voters who want to see this on the ballot," Bohner said. "We believe the constitution ultimately gives the voters that right."

The Supreme Court has to decide the matter by Wednesday — the date absentee ballots are printed for the city’s June 2 general election.

At issue are an initiative and a referendum that the City Council recently stopped from being on the ballot. The initiative would mandate that lease-purchase agreements – such as the one for the proposed new city hall – be put to voters. The referendum would scrap the city’s current redevelopment plan.

The Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Committee and the Las Vegas Redevelopment Reform Committee -- two groups backed by the Culinary Union -- had gathered more than 14,000 signatures to put the issues on the ballot.

But in his decision, Barker concluded that both measures have not "met the threshold requirement for placement on the ballot."

At a hastily called press conference, Mayor Oscar Goodman was jubilant – but still swinging punches – in response to Judge Barker’s decisive ruling Friday afternoon in favor of the city.

“This is a very important day for the city of Las Vegas, for our future,” he said, referring to the major civic and commercial projects that are counting on the city’s ability to be able to pursue its full development vision.

He continued to have harsh words for the leadership of the Culinary, claiming that they acted irresponsibly and worse when they tried to extort the city into pressuring developers to make union-friendly deals.

“Maybe this will teach them a lesson that they’re not big shots anymore,” Goodman said.

Goodman said he didn’t know whether the Supreme Court would be able to decide the promised Culinary legal appeal in time for the city to start printing absentee ballots for its June 2 election. He quickly added that he believed the city would prevail in the appeal.

Goodman said that as a result of Barker’s decision, the city’s bonding capacity would be eased “like a cloud being lifted.”

The mayor praised Barker’s decision and the city’s attorneys in the case – City Attorney Brad Jerbic and retained city attorney Daniel Polsenberg – and said “it took a great deal of courage” for Jerbic to recommend that the two Culinary-sponsored measures be kept of the ballot.

On the initiative, Barker wrote that it did not clearly state its purpose or intent, as well as the potential result of its passage.

Barker said the referendum "misleads the voters" and fails to inform them of the "true effect" of its passage.

He also said the referendum is "clearly unconstitutional and cannot possibly be implemented in a constitutional manner.

"The city properly exercised its authority in refusing to place the referendum on the ballot," he added.

Earlier this week, Culinary Attorney Richard McCracken had told Barker at a hearing that the city under state law was obligated to put the issues on the ballot because enough "valid signatures had been gathered.

McCracken argued that the city has followed “the kitchen sink approach,” using every legal strategy available to fight the measures.

On April 8, the Supreme Court refused a union request to order the measures put on the ballot, saying the issue needed to be aired first in District Court.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

By Richard

4/17/09 at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

One imagines the panic among very powerful interests when the items received threshold signatures. Mr. Jerbic stood forward to take the "bullet" if the union won/wins the case, 'cause he's not a candidate. The culinary attorneys who drafted the measures will take plenty of "bullets" for not knowing what they were doing if the Supreme Court agrees that the language was too vague or misleading. Judge Barker probably wished it wasn't him, as his decision was bound to anger one set of powerful interests or another. Not well known, he can ill afford such interests mad at him at his next election. Sigh. Business as usual in the circus of local politics.
By neiman1

4/17/09 at 8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

The union is going to be mad. NO ONE is allowed to disagree with the union. They are just there for the people and the elected leaders are to do their bidding or be hated.

Unions demanding developers honor their requests for other project or face their opposition in unrelated projects is just blackmail. Extortion is a unions weapon of choice and I hope the politicians in Nevada realize they can stand up and tell them NO .
By LasVegas2009

4/17/09 at 9:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

So does this culinary union have any American Citizens in there membership? Just wondering I would like to know how many members are not even legally in the united states. Since they are such a powerful force in our town can we demand they prove citizenship of all members? I want to make sure the powers that make trouble are American trouble makers.
By LVPaco

4/18/09 at 3:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is wonderful news...
By Harley

4/18/09 at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

The morning sun glared window of the conqueror's edifice harnesses a view to the streets below.

Scurrying about, like ants, are the peasants of the ghetto by which this broad-shouldered legacy now stands, "this is a very important day for the city of Las Vegas, for our furture" declares the Emperor.

At the top, a message and reminder to voters, barely visable through the clouds of ego, "May this teach them a lesson that they're not big shots anymore," O' Goodman.