North Las Vegas group seeks recall of city's mayor

A group of North Las Vegas residents on Tuesday filed an intent to recall Mayor Shari Buck.

James Olive, vice chairman of the city's Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, is leading the recall effort, saying he and others are angry about Buck's support of police and fire unions at the expense of other city services.

Olive did not return a call seeking comment. But in a news release issued late last month, he said Buck "has demonstrated an inability to effectively lead and protect the citizens" of the city.

"In reality, Mayor Buck has shown extraordinary leadership skills protecting the police and fire unions while she destroys the rest of the city," he said.

The mayor was one of three City Council members who voted last month in favor of laying off 21 employees and closing two recreation centers to help bridge a $4.4 million shortfall in the city's fiscal 2012 budget. The closures would be avoided if the city reached concessions agreements with its two police unions.

The council has since approved an agreement with the 57-member Police Supervisors Association. An agreement with the 360-member Police Officers Association, which would save the city $2 million through June, is slated for a council vote today . If the second agreement is approved, the recreation centers would be saved, Buck said.

"I'm not worried about" the recall effort, Buck said Tuesday. "I think it's ridiculous, but anybody can file a recall -- that's their right. I have bigger issues to worry about."

The intent to recall was signed by Olive and North Las Vegas residents Scott Sauer and Cherlynn Thomas.

They have 90 days to collect the signatures of 2,466 voters who cast ballots in Buck's race in 2009.

Residents also are holding a "Recall Mayor Buck" rally at 5:30 p.m. today at City Hall.

Contact reporter Lynnette Curtis at lcurtis@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0285.

Trending topics:

• Las Vegas
• Lynnette Curtis
• North Las Vegas
• Shari Buck

Comments

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

1. vote them out Sep. 8, 2011 | 9:21 p.m. Report Abuse

   Tom, dont be jealous. You can take some pictures in front of my BMW 7 series with your kids. Your wife loves it. Especially the leather seats.

2. vote them out Sep. 8, 2011 | 9:19 p.m. Report Abuse

   Tommy, Here is a "dose of reality" You hate the police and fire unions because you are either a tard who couldnt pass the entrance test or because your a business owner who fired all of his employees. Just so you could make a bigger profit when the economy tanked.

3. vote them out Sep. 8, 2011 | 9:14 p.m. Report Abuse

   Tommy, Why dont you read the article from Jan, 2011. Thats when the 4.25% increase due July 2011, was given back. Once again you cant get your facts straight, Just like your girlfriend Anita.

4. tom.p Sep. 8, 2011 | 5:24 p.m. Report Abuse

   OK, I re-read the article. (You should, too). The raises were not "deferred;" they were "suspended." Semantics. It's still just the City Council's way of "kicking the problem down the road." The sad fact is that they need a real long-term plan that addresses the City's long-term financial problems, and they don't have one. All they have is short-term budget band-aids in the form of "suspended" salary increases for police union members who are already overpaid. The lack of any kind of vision or long-term financial planning by the City is the reason the Council is dealing with current problems.

5. tom.p Sep. 8, 2011 | 5:13 p.m. Report Abuse

   VTO - Check your facts...the raises and the uniform allowances were deferred until next July. It's right there in black and white in the news article. Even Mayor Buck admitted that the council was just "kicking the problem down the road." I suppose they were "given up" in the sense that you won't get your greedy hands on more taxpayer money for the next several months, but my point is that the COLAs were not eliminated permanently so that the City can plan ahead for more than a few months. I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand such a basic concept. And, YES, I absolutely believe that the officers should give up pay AND be subject to layoffs if the City can't pay them. This is what happens in the REAL WORLD, not the fat and lazy world of contracted public union employees. Time for a dose of REALITY, cha-cha.

6. vote them out Sep. 8, 2011 | 12:21 p.m. Report Abuse

   Tom, they werent defferals. Check your facts. Both colas which were due 7/1/11, were given up. Your just flat out lying. So you actually believe that the officers who have a contract until 2014 should give up pay and benefits to help the city without a guarantee the savings will save positions? Scenario: officers give up pay and then they still layoff officers. Who would agree to this?

7. tom.p Sep. 8, 2011 | 10:31 a.m. Report Abuse

   VTO - right back at ya, buddy. The supervisors and non-supervisors did not "give up" anything. Their raises have been "deferred." This is called bad policy - a stopgap measure that accomplishes nothing toward resolving the City's long-term budget problems. Many private sector folks have not just accepted pay cuts, they have accepted job cuts. In case you haven't noticed, the national unemployment rate is over 9%, and even higher in Nevada. Of course, NLV police don't know the meaning of "job cut" because our dumb Mayor and Council approved a contract that doesn't allow for reduction in forces, even under extreme financial circumstances. I support that the officers have a contract, and the City is bound to its agreement. My argument is that such a poorly written, one-sided contract should have never been executed in the first place. It was approved by a very inept Mayor and Council that are unable to provide proper oversight of these matters because they have been bought and paid for by the unions whose members they are supposed to oversee! It's an unholy alliance - a secret combination - that needs to be uncovered and undone. That's what this recall effort is all about.

8. vote them out Sep. 7, 2011 | 11:23 p.m. Report Abuse

   Tom,
   Check your facts melonhead. They gave up the raise in July, both supervisors and nonsupervisors. And when exactly did anyone in the private sector willingly give up pay cuts. Stop hating on unions just because they arent being forced into slave labor like most businesses have done to their employees.

9. Numbers Sep. 7, 2011 | 1:28 p.m. Report Abuse

   @Bob.Jack...hate to break it to you, but I am not a member of Law Enforcement in any capacity...I know Mr. Borgeson and have seen two sides to him...you are entitled to your opinion...I would like to point out that you are of the opinion I am a NLV Police Officer and you are 100% wrong there...Just Sayin'

10. tom.p Sep. 7, 2011 | 11:29 a.m. Report Abuse

    @VTO - The word is BUDGETING! When the City can afford to give raises they should reward those who have earned them. At present, however, the City cannot afford to give raises or maintain unreasonably high salaries. Everyone needs to take a cut. This is called BUDGETING!! Every family and every business does this. The Mayor and City Council should have been the first in line to volunarily cut their salaries and benefits. They have not done this. The police unions have not done this either. They received cost of living increases in July (last month!) and then "voluntarily" deferred them until next year. That is not a cut, and calling it a "concession" is fraud. The union needs to give something meaningful like an across the board salary cut and then freeze all raises with no time limits. This would allow the City to balance its budget for more than two months at a time. Again, this is common practice in business, but the public sector thinks the trough is always full. Well, those who are providing the feed in the form of property and business taxes and fees are through supporting the sow and her piggies.

Read All Comments