Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Boulder City Councilman Duncan McCoy, center, stops to talk with a few of the protesters demonstrating on Tuesday against the city’s decision to sue the petitioners of two ballot questions that passed in November.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 | 8:45 p.m.
Home News
Sun archives
- Judge denies motion to dismiss Boulder City term-limit lawsuit (1-27-2011)
- Boulder City’s lawsuit over ballot question to continue, judge rules (1-20-2011)
- Boulder City Council votes to challenge ballot questions (11-9-2010)
- Boulder City voters approve measures to limit government (11-3-2010)
- Council members argue for, against Boulder City ballot questions (11-1-2010)
- Judge rules Boulder City golf course initiative will appear on ballot (9-8-2010)
- Voters to decide if Boulder City attorney elected or appointed (5-7-2010)
Bubbling tension over Boulder City’s decision to sue the petitioners of several ballot questions on November’s ballot inspired about 30 residents to march on the front steps of City Hall on Tuesday.
The demonstrators held neon-colored signs that expressed their frustration. Some examples: “R.I.P. First Amendment Rights,” “Don’t Silence the People” and “Don’t Sue Me.”
“I’ve lived here since 1989, and this is the first time that I’ve been disappointed in the city,” said Terry Jensen. “Everyone should have the chance to petition. That’s the U.S. I hope this wakes the city up.”
The protest was a grassroots effort put together by about five people who met Sunday night, said Matt Ragan, one of the initial organizers. The word was spread via email and phone calls.
They had no definite goals — some sought the resignation of the City Council members who approved the lawsuits; others thought that could be taking the matter too far — but all of them agreed that they wanted to “make their voice heard,” Ragan said.
"More than 4,000 people have been disenfranchised," he said. “I’m here to protect my own vote.”
In November, the city council voted to challenge two ballot questions approved by voters by naming the petitioners as defendants in a lawsuit. One question limited the number of years the city’s appointed committee members could serve; the other required a special election if the city planned to go into debt for $1 million or more.
City Attorney Dave Olsen, in recommending the lawsuits, said they infringed on City Council’s right to make administrative decisions. The questions passed 60 percent to 40 percent and 58 percent to 42 percent, respectively.
Mayor Roger Tobler and council members Duncan McCoy and Cam Walker supported the motion, while Councilman Travis Chandler opposed it. Councilwoman Linda Strickland abstained from voting because she and her husband, Tracy Strickland, had decided to serve as the petitioners’ attorneys.
The city has since paid more than $130,000 to the law firm Lionel, Sawyer and Collins in pursuing the lawsuits, according to city records. The Stricklands filed anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) motions to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuits could have a “chilling effect” on the city’s citizens.
Both of those motions were denied in January, although Judge Susan Scrann has ordered Boulder City to “show cause” that it has not harassed the petitioners when it sued them for submitting ballot questions.
Both judges encouraged the Stricklands to appeal, expressing their reservations about the city’s actions, and they have said they will do so.
The demonstrators kept a relatively low profile during the hour-long protest, chatting with Chandler and McCoy as they entered City Hall for the council meeting and laughing amongst themselves.
Peter deBeauchamp held a sign that called Tobler “the face of tyranny” and said he believes council members who approved the lawsuits should be recalled.
“Petitioning your government is a fundamental civil right,” he said. “To try to take that away, to try to teach us a lesson through litigation, that’s tyrannical.”
The petitioners have absolutely no liability, financial or otherwise, in the City's lawsuit. It's only goal is to get a decision on the legality of the ballot questions. Period. The anti-SLAPP motions are an attempt to prevent the City Attorney from doing his job. And the City, by having to defend itself from these questionable lawsuits, is having to unnecessarily spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars.
The supporters of the ballot questions believe that just because the people approve an initiate, it automatically becomes law. If that were the case there would be cities across the country where minority citizens would have to sit in the back of the bus and use separate water fountains.
Council Woman Linda Strickland is a candidate for Mayor, and is also the lawyer who initiated these anti-SLAPP lawsuits (which have been slapped down by several judges). There have been serious ethical questions raised about Strickland accepting a case that reeks of conflict of interest instead of referring the case to an associate law firm as is the customary practice when ethical questions arise.
This whole thing seems to many to be a political ploy for Strickland to create the illusion of being a "protector of the people" and that is a hot campaign button these days, real or not.
I love the 1st amendment RITES sign!!
I've lived in Boulder City for 18 years and I've never, ever seen a city government that holds so much contempt for the people for whom they work. They stay in power by relying on the support of outside interests, a group of wealthy cranks and a loyal religious faction who vote as a bloc. It's a political machine.
These lawsuits are absolutely intended to threaten and intimidate...and as one protester's sign correctly points out, it is tyrannical.
It's so good to see the Unwashed Taxpayers of Boulder City rise up and smote the status quo.
It's the same dormant spirit we saw in 1996's Dump War when the people opposed a greedy-gut 2,000-acre Las Vegas garbage dump in OUR Eldorado Valley.
Kudos to the Great 8 petitioners and to the folks who turned up in front of City Hall on Tuesday saying, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"
Sounds like Roger Tobler and his Cronies wants to RAPE the coffers of Boulder City like the Braniacs that voted for 3 Golf Courses did. That was 1 smart move. How much did the city lose on that one. I guess he and his cronies wants to serve (RAPE) Boulder City like Harry Reid is serving Nevada. Now the Mayor is wasting more of Boulder City's dollars ($130,000 so far)to sue a measure that the citizens voted for and accepted. How about Roger Tobler put up the money to sue the citizens of Boulder. Come on people where is your backbone. Thomas Jefferson would be calling you all British Floosies for letting that group strong arm the city and using your tax dollars to do it. Boulder City you voted for the changes don't let these crooks reverse it. The city needs Term limits and it needs a way to control the spendaholics in the city counsel from forcing Boulder City into bankruptcy just to fill their own and buddies pockets. Not all of Boulders citizens are wealthy many are hard working people or retired. Do you want to let these people just reach into your pockets whenever they want!
Shame on the three Boulder City government officials for suing and violating the civil rights of it's citizens. These government officials truly indicated a lack of leadership and integrity. Governing through intimidation and reprisal is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Accolades to the citizens that picketed City Hall.