Letters to the Editor

Unjust enrichment

Three terminated Boulder City officials received a combined $1.875 million to settle their specious legal claims. The City Council chose consent agenda placement, meaning no public discussion as to payment merit or justification. The settlements were not confidential personnel matters.

The city consistently prevailed against two individuals in over two years of legal gymnastics. A higher-level state court requested an attempted negotiated settlement. Rather than telling the court a settlement was inappropriate, triggering an eventual court verdict, the Council prematurely caved.

Three of the five Council members are subordinates in a superior-subordinate relationship with one individual and needed to recuse themselves from voting; it did not happen. The same terminated employee was inserted by his former law partner (then the city’s mayor) into his former position, again no recusal, and paid outsized compensation inconsistent with comparable Nevada cities. The appearance of favoritism is as important as its reality.

The current mayor claimed the Council could not publicly discuss the settlements despite a full history in public court documents. It is preposterous for a 24-year elected official to make such an inaccurate statement.

Some insisted that because the city’s insurer, POOL-PACT, might pay part of the settlements, it is free money. No, Boulder City’s taxpayers pay premiums. If claims are high, the premiums increase.

The same ineffectual Council has failed to significantly reduce excessive water consumption at city facilities, seeks construction of a grandiose $50 million Olympic swimming pool complex, fails to rent city airport hangars at market rates, and fails to staunch multi-million-dollar losses at two city golf courses. Will voters care about Council’s repeated inability to prudently exercise fiduciary responsibilities, while unduly favoring friends and associates?

Fred Voltz

Only in Boulder City

Only in Boulder City, Nevada can an at-will employee be terminated for cause. Said employee sues Boulder City in Clark County District Court; loses their causes of action; appeals to Nevada Supreme aka Appellate Court. Then, Boulder City settles for $1,710,000 before the Supreme Court had reviewed the case. The two defendants that won in Clark County District Court, did not settle.

Only in Boulder City, Nevada, do the losers of Clark County District Court Cases receive over $1 million in settlement.

It pays to lose in court in Boulder City!

This is why we don’t need gambling in Boulder City, Nevada.

Edward Denaut