My motivation for this response has nothing to do with Mr. Thomas' endorsement of a mayoral candidate. It is his column and he can endorse whomever he chooses. It is strictly one man's opinion.
However, Mr. Thomas took the liberty of making personal erroneous statements about Mary Walker and me that I will not let go unchallenged.
First of all, Mr. Thomas states that Mary Walker and I are lobbying partners -- that we lobby both Carson City and the legislature. He also claims that I do not get involved in politics unless there is a potential "personal gain." The fact is that during the 1999 Legislative Session, Mary and I worked together on two accounts: 1) Lyon County and 2) Carson-Tahoe Hospital. We also each had (in 1999) independent accounts. At the end of the legislative session, I advised Mary that I would no longer be providing lobbying services, and she could take over our accounts for off-session retainers. There has been no partnership for more than a year.
As for "lobbying our city," I continue to work with the city on various issues in my capacities as a director of the Boys & Girls Club; as an officer of the Nevada Day Board; and, as a commissioner of the Carson City Regional Transportation Commission. These are all non-paid volunteer positions. If Mr. Thomas construes spending numerous hours on behalf of our community as "personal gain," then of this I am guilty.
Secondly, Mr. Thomas asserts that Mary Walker and I are actively promoting Tom Tatro because we are confident that we can easily influence him. I cannot speak for Ms. Walker, but I can speak about her many accomplishments. She was an outstanding finance and redevelopment director for Carson City and this community is grateful for her successful efforts. She continues to be successful in representing Carson City at the Legislature.
As for myself, let me say this, that as former mayor I have chosen not to publicly endorse or comment on the candidates for the office that I once held. What I do "actively promote" is my constitutional right, as well as Ms. Walker's, to support and vote for any candidate we feel is the right person for the job. Mr. Thomas was correct, however, in his statement that Mary, Tom and I are "old" colleagues. I worked with Tom Tatro for seven years, while serving as mayor; and, while we sometimes disagreed on issues, I have the highest respect for his honesty, integrity and work ethic.
While we are on the subject of undue influence, I do find it bothersome that Mr. Thomas' endorsement of Mayor Masayko came out on the very morning of the day he appeared before the board to apply for a position on the Airport Authority.
Was it coincidence? Maybe. Was it inappropriate? Absolutely.
Even more curious was the surfacing of Mr. Thomas' application at the Thursday Board meeting. Mr. Thomas did not follow the process that all other applicants are required to follow. Instead of turning in his application to the Personnel Department, from where he obtained it, he made the decision to personally turn it over to the mayor. How odd that Mr. Thomas, a former school board member and a former Nevada Assemblyman failed to grasp appropriate filing procedures. In addition, his application was never date-stamped nor received by Personnel by closing date, and therefore Mr. Thomas was not on the scheduled list to be interviewed at the Thursday meeting as published in the supervisors' packet.
In my eight years as mayor, we seated hundreds of volunteers to various boards and commissions, that serve this community so well. Not once, during those eight years, did I ever receive an application that was personally delivered to me. This procedure was established during my first year as mayor -- to level the playing field. Prior to enacting this procedure, names were simply submitted to the board and the selections were made with no interviews. It was then a process of who lobbies best and who has the connections. Equitable treatment, it was not.
In addition, how disappointing to see that after four years as the presiding officer of the board, the mayor did not recuse himself immediately from the policy decision -- of whether to accept, deny or continue -- the interview process, regarding Mr. Thomas' application. The mayor stated he would not be voting on this policy issue. Instead of turning the gavel over to the mayor pro-tem, and leaving the room -- the long accepted procedure for a presiding officer to enact when he or she has the appearance of a conflict-of-interest - the Mayor continued to both preside and comment.
At Thursday's Board meeting the mayor did state that he thought Mr. Thomas' application was a copy, and placed into a file on his desk. The bottom line, however, was that Mr. Thomas did not follow the correct and long-standing application procedures. In an effort not to "taint" the process, the Airport Authority appointment item should have gone forward without Mr. Thomas' application. Simply stated, Mr. Thomas did not follow the well-known procedures. Ultimately, however, Mr. Thomas was seated as a fixed-base operator.
The significance of this decision-making process, by allowing an individual to violate standing procedures, raises some challenging questions.
Does it open the door for violations of other standing procedures, such as job applications? By not following procedures, do applicants for zoning change, building permits, parking permits, business license, liquor license, etc., not adhere to standard procedure -- but instead, just "drop it off " with the mayor?
Does Carson City want to become known as the city of arbitrary and capricious decision-making?
(Marv Teixeira was mayor of Carson City from 1988 to 1996.)
