Vol. 3, No. 8
.jpg)
February 17, 2006
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
Letter From Senn Meulemans To Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman On Non-Cooperation In Walters Investigation
SENN MEULEMANS LLP attorneys Three Embarcadero Center Suite 310 San. Francisco, CA 94111.4039
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
February 13, 2006
Mayor Oscar B. Goodman City of Las Vegas City Hall, Tenth Floor 400 Stewart Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101
Re.- Royal Links Investigation
Dear Mayor Goodman:
Thank you for your phone call last week. Before addressing the content of that phone conversation, a few general comments are in order. It was our distinct impression when the Las Vegas City Council rescinded its approval of the Walters Group's proposal to convert the Royal Links golf course to a high density subdivision, that the City Council was sincerely interested in obtaining all of the underlying facts regarding that controversial transaction. However, we are very concerned that there has been considerable and unnecessary delay and a lack of cooperation with this investigation and we would like to bring these facts to your attention.
To begin, soon after this investigation was made public, a document production request was issued by the Attorney General's office, on November 29, 2005. This document production request, which we attach for your convenient reference, was sent to the City Attorney's Office more than two months ago; yet we still have not received any documents other than those relating to the limited Metro investigation. Several inquiries have been made at the City Attorney's office about the status of these documents and each time we have been told that the document production is being processed and will be available soon. As I am certain you can appreciate, this (now almost three month) delay in producing responsive documents has significantly delayed the investigation. In our February 2, 2006 meetings with the City Attorney's Office, we were subsequently informed there are several relevant documents that would not be produced to us due to an alleged attorney-client privilege. When we inquired as to who was asserting the privilege, we were told that the City Manager, Doug Selby, had asserted the privilege. Accordingly, we requested that a "privilege log" be prepared by the City Attorney's Office, describing the date and nature of the documents not produced. Despite assurances we would receive a customary privilege log, to date, we have received nothing.
As recently as Friday, February 10, 2006, in a meeting with Chief Deputy City Attorney Bill Henry, we were told that although the document production was nearly complete, the "clerk's procedure" required that there be a cover letter which was not yet ready, so the documents could not be released. When further inquiry was made about the privilege log, we were told that it also was not available. We were informed by Mr. Henry that a privilege log would be prepared "sometime after the Council meets next week."
As you will recall, on January 11, 2006, we sent a letter to you and to the City Council members requesting confirmation that we would have "full and complete access to all City employees and documents, including all relevant documents in the possession of the City Attorney's Office" in order to facilitate this investigation. However, we did not receive a response to or an acknowledgment of this letter. Instead, last week when Mr. Dunlap and I were at City Hall, you asked us to visit your office. In our brief meeting, we raised the issue of the withheld documents. You seemed surprised that documents were being withheld and indicated that you believed that the investigation should be concluded quickly. In response, we informed you that without the benefit of these documents, the investigation was necessarily taking more time than anticipated Accordingly, we asked you to assist us in obtaining the withheld documents. You responded that perhaps YOU could put the issue of the assertion of the privilege on the next City Council agenda. However, instead you placed an item on the City Council agenda for "discussion and possible action regarding the status of the inquiry into the Royal Links Golf Course transactions."
Our obvious concern with this City Council agenda description is that it is too broad and does not even address the issue of the withheld documents. Accordingly, we sent a letter to you, dated February 8, 2006, expressing our concerns. On February 9, 2006, you called our office to discuss this issue. In that telephone conversation, you represented that the February 15, 2006 City Council agenda item relating to the Royal Links investigation would address only the issue of the City's waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to documents responsive to the document production request issued by the Attorney General's office. You further explained that the City Council agenda item was worded the way it was for the public's benefit; you stated that the public simply would not understand the attorney-client privilege . During our telephone conversation, you were informed that we would be unavailable on February 15 to attend the City Council hearing on this issue . Accordingly, you suggested we prepare a letter addressing our needs and concerns.
In response to your suggestion, we hereby submit this letter. We believe that the Board of Examiners adequately and clearly expressed their desire for a full and complete investigation of this matter. Withholding relevant documents impedes our investigation. Accordingly, we hereby respectfully request that the City Council and City Manager conclude that the attorney-client privilege be deemed waived for purposes of this investigation and that all previously withheld documents be produced to us. It is obviously in the public's best interests to thoroughly review the issues, obtain complete disclosure and not rush the investigative process. Accordingly, we respectfully request the cooperation of the City Council and City Manager in facilitating our efforts.
We thank you in advance for your anticipated assistance and cooperation in this matter.
Catherine S. Meulemans Encl. cc: City Council Members City Manager
FOOTNOTE: Our review of the Metro investigation documents reveals that the scope of that investigation was very limited and that a number of issues and transactions were not explored, nor investigated, by Metro. We are not at all critical of the Metro officers, as it appears that they professionally carried out their as signed task. However, we have already discovered several facts and transactions, which apparently were not reported by Metro or the press, that lead us to believe there were other, unreported expenditures of City monies and resources, for the benefit of Mr. Walters. We believe these transactions should also be part of our investigation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------