OK, I honestly haven’t been following Boulder City politics as closely as maybe I should, but in light of my speaking engagement there this past week at the kind invitation of the Boulder City Republican Women, I have a question about the three-way mayor’s race there….especially since all three candidates spoke after me at the same event.
First, and with all due respect to Zachary “Zach of All Trades” Inman: Dude, you’re running for mayor…not city handyman. As Andre Agassi would say, image is everything. And faded jeans, tennis shoes and a short-sleeve polo shirt ain’t exactly the image most people have of a mayor. Dress for success, my friend. That doesn’t necessarily mean a three-piece suit…but at least tuck your shirt in!
Which brings us to the brouhaha between incumbent Mayor Roger Tobler and City Councilwoman Linda Strickland, both of whom are seeking the mayor’s gavel. I don’t know either and have no dog in this fight, however….
According to a Las Vegas Review-Journal story this week by Henry Brean, Strickland is an attorney representing a group of citizens who are being sued by the city over “several ballot initiatives” that I’m assuming the citizens are proposing. Tobler, as current mayor, says he supports the lawsuits.
But here’s the part I don’t understand: Mayor Tobler, according to the RJ report, “doesn’t understand how Strickland can serve on the (city) council and represent her clients when those two roles are at odds with each other.” According to the mayor, “She’s put herself in a huge conflict of interest.”
How are those two roles at odds with each other? As an elected member of the city council, Strickland represents citizens of the city. As a lawyer, she’s representing some of those citizens of the city. How is that a conflict? Unless, of course, you believe that Strickland’s duty and loyalty should be to the government and not the actual citizens.
Boulder Cityites….please clear this up for me.
UPDATE: Since I originally posted the above on Friday, I’ve been inundated with all manner of “clarifications” from both sides. Suffice it to say, I appear to have lifted a rock and all manner of critters have scurried out. As such, I can assure you this is not the last ye shall hear of the Boulder City Brouhaha.
I started to mention that Inman wasn’t dressed for the position he was seeking, but didn’t want to be tacky.
That’s what I’m for.
Mr. Muth, your answer is in the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 1.11(d) and 1.07. As a City Councilperson, Linda Strickland represents ALL of the citizens as a whole. As an attorney, she has chosen to represent only a PORTION of the citizens, against the City of Boulder City and the other Boulder City citizens that do not agree with the political position in the lawsuit. It is Linda Strickland’s ethical duty to pass on the attorney representation and refer the matter to someone who can do the job without conflict. Also, under Rule 1.10, because they are a 2 person lawfirm, her husband (Tracy Strickland) should be out of this as well.
Well, I’m no lawyer, Mr. Stubbs…but I can’t agree with you on this.
First, I believe Mrs. Strickland’s oath is to the Constitution – though I guess perhaps that’s not true in Boulder City. I’ll have to check. But if so, then her first obligation is to defend “the right of the people….to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Secondly, it is my understanding that the initiatives in question all received the legally required number of citizen signatures to place them on the ballot….and voters said “yes” to three of the four initiatives last November.
So the “PORTION” of citizens Mrs. Strickland is representing are those individuals whose First Amendment constitutional rights appear to have been infringed, as well as the majority of citizens who voted for the initiatives. A “majority” is more than a “portion.”
The more I look into this issue, and the more rationalizations such as yours that I read, the more I think this whole thing stinks and that Linda Strickland is a world-class patriot. To persuade me otherwise, you’re gonna have to do a lot better than cite Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct 1.11(d) and 1.07. My Constitution trumps your Rules every day, and twice on Sunday.
Give it another shot….
Tsk-tsk, Mr. Stubbs. Why didn’t you disclose in your comment that you’re an anti-Strickland activist who last fall was “collecting signatures on a petition to have City Attorney Dave Olsen or an outside body investigate the actions of Strickland who voted at a City Council meeting on Aug. 10 not to allow the city to continue a lawsuit against five residents.”
Was this an intentional effort to deceive or just an error of omission? Either way, I suggest trying to pull the wool over my eyes is not a wise political move.
Oh, no, Stephen. You put up a self-serving post on my website and hid your uber-activism on this issue?
And you accuse the mother of two Naval Academy graduates, who is defending the citizens of Boulder City against government infringement on their Constitutional right to petition their government, unethical?
This is bad. Really bad. You’ve just “radicalized” an otherwise disinterested party in this fight. You called down the thunder….you got it.
I didn’t hide anything.
In answering your post- please see Article II, Section 4 of the Charter, which reads “No councilman shall represent any particular constituency…and each Councilman shall represent the entire City”.
It doesnt matter the proportions. Linda Strickland is not ethically allowed to be an attorney in this fight.
I believe the petitioners should have competent legal council. Before the Stricklands were involved, I even offered my professional help (pro-bono) to one of the petitioners (with their permission, I would be glad to disclose who- and even send you the emails). My problem comes with the fact that Linda Strickland is the attorney.
The ethical (and right) thing to do is allow a different attorney to do this job. That is my only issue in this matter. All other issues I have with Linda came after (with her suing me and violating my constitutional rights- I’d love to show you that evidence)
By the way, the question the City is presenting is a constitutional one as well. “Are the questions unconstitutionally administrative in nature?” A judge should make the determination and we should all move on.
I was collecting signatures for City Attorney Olsen to investigate Ms. Strickland’s conflict of interest. The lawsuit with the City was NEVER my issue.
Welcome to Boulder City politics where civil rights and democracy apply only those of special interest, ordinances are changed to serve those interests. Where insubordination towards Council Members Strickand and Chandler by the City Manager are condoned by the present mayor. Where there is no division between church and state, Mormon members are told to put three candidate signs of Tobler, Woodbury and Leavitt on their lawns. And there’s so much more Mr. Muth, an old saying, “the deeper to dig into the shit, the deeper the shit gets.”
But, it is a lovely city with some good folks. Best of luck to Linda Strickland a person of integrity and valour, the city would be fortunate to have her as mayor.
Thank you Mr Muth for your recognition on the Stricklands work and Boulder City politics. I have been watching the City Council meetings for many years and am well aware of the dynamics at work.
Politics is a dirty business when integrity and ethics are not in the equation. I’ve stayed apolitical but when the citizens civil rights have been violated through reprisal and intimidation I became outraged and have to speak out. Everything our Founding Fathers have fought for, what our soldiers fight for even now is being violated in our small city.
Going up against the status quo, big money and special interests is not easy but I’ve watched Linda and she’s a warrior. Maybe I’m a bit naive but I have faith that truth and justice will prevail for the benefit of Boulder City and it’s citizens. Again, VR thank you.
Mr. Muth,
Your response that our Constitution trumps all other agreements is right-
on and fundamental to good government. If everyone in government based their political decisions on the Constitution we would have far fewer long term problems. Those in government who don’t choose to follow the Constitution want to control others because it will suit their own purpose. When we have government employees, elected or hired, who base their decisions on rules that built this great country we will all fare better. Whether our president or a local council person, doesn’t like our founding fathers rules for limited government they do not belong in our government.
You can’t make it up as you go along. Taking an oath to the Constitution should mean that you will do your best to follow it. If following its rules is sometimes frustrating, live with it. It was provided by men wiser than us, to allow all to prosper.
Thanks for the open forum,
Jon