Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, November 7, 1949 to May 21, 1952, lvc000007-137

TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT Commissioner Whipple moved that the Tentative Assessment Roll #11-1950 covering ROLL #11-1950 Special Assessment District #100-7 he accepted and a copy referred to the Assessor. - Assessment District #100-7 Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and harried by the following vote: Commissioners Bunker, Moore, Peccole, Whipple and His Honor voting aye; noes, none. REVISED ASSESSMENT Commissioner Whipple moved that the Revised Assessment Roll #7-1950 covering Special ROLL #7-1950 Assessment District #200-3 be accepted and a copy referred to the Assessor. Assessment District #200-3 Motion seconded by Commissioner Moore and carried by the following vote: Commissioners Bunker, Moore, Peccole, Whipple and His Honor voting aye; noes, none. REPORT OF BOARD OF At this time the Board agreed that the matter of the Board of Civil Service Trustees' CIVIL SERVICE. TRUSTEES Decision on the appeal of dismissal from the Police Department of E. A. Davis, B. J. Handlon, J. E. Reid and George N. Thompson be placed on the agenda. Commissioner Moore moved the report of the Board of Civil Service Trustees be received and ordered filed. Motion seconded by Commissioner Whipple and carried by the following vote: Commissioners Bunker, Moore, Peccole, Whipple and His Honor voting aye; noes, none. Thereafter Commissioner Peccole made the following comment, and requested it be made a part of the record: Commissioner Peccole: I want to take this opportunity to criticize the Civil Service Board in the way they handled this investigation, in the way they tried to make a farce out of the investigation from be­ginning to end by the inference in one of the local newspapers that it was a comedy, for the statements made by at least one member of the Civil Service Board during questioning of the witnesses, and for the conduct of the attorney for the four officers., Harry Claiborne. I believe that the Civil Service Board was too interested in what the downtown politicians had to say about the dismissal of the four officers and interested to the point where they spent money in getting information and sending investigators forth to acquire evidence to acquit or to dismiss the charges against the four police officers. I criticize the downtown politicians for making it possible for a full Civil Service Board to be present at the "hearing. I further criticize the Civil Service Board for the delay in taking action and bringing forth a decision in their investigation of this case. I also refute that according to their testimony and their statements in this decision, they found complete evidence that there was a conspiracy in this case. I also criticize the manner and method in which they criticized the investigation carried on concerning the activities of Stanley Halstead. I also want to state that there has been dissension, disloyalty, and trouble within the Police Department for many, many years and it has not come about since Archie Wells was appointed Acting Chief of Police. It was proved that the former Chief, Malburg, could not handle the Police Department and that is the reason he resigned before the Board took action to dismiss him. The trouble in the Police Department did not come about by the appointment of Acting Chief Wells. It existed before he took that position and it will continue to exist until the entire Police Department has a complete house-cleaning. In their statement where they accuse the City Commission of failing to appoint a permanent Chief of Police, that was due to the fact that the City had more pressing problems, which were of a financial nature, and I want to point out that the present City Manager, Chet Shelley, reported to this Board that he would be ready to clean house in the Police Department in the near future but that there were other pressing problems that needed his attention first. He reported this matter to the Board of Commissioners on two or three occasions. This Board agreed that he should take care of more important matters before he stepped into the Police Department and clean house. The City Manager advised this Board that he wanted to cut the number of policemen in the Department and asked for the Board's permission. He received it. This was done just prior to the dismissal of the four officers. Before the policemen", could be dismissed, the Police Department advised the Commission through the City Manager that four men were being dismissed because of disloyalty. The Civil Service Board report states:"The Board finds that, despite the mitigating circumstances heretofore recited in the findings, the four affected police officers have been proven to have violated their duty and responsibilities to the City of Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Police De­partment, and the Acting Chief of Police by failing to maintain in confidence matters within their know­ledge or information which would materially affect the functions and administration of the police de­partment and particularly matters affecting the efficiency and internal affairs of the department that the said officers violated their obligation to the oaths taken by them as police officers upon their employment by the Las Vegas Police Department when they freely and voluntarily, as admitted by their own testimony, discussed confidential matters affecting the police department with a person not entitled or qualified to receive such information, when they discussed matters of internal dissension and Conditions affecting the successful operation of the department with a stranger and one not authorized to receive such information, and when they complained concerning their personal grievances and made accusations concerning the Acting Chief of Police and certain administrative personnel of the department to a person in no manner officially or otherwise connected with the City of Las Vegas; that the actions of the said police officers are of a serious nature contrary to the best interests and welfare of the police department and the City of Las Vegas, and must therefore subject the said officers to strict disciplinary action." That, to me, would indicate evidence enough that these men were not loyal to the City, not loyal to the Police Department, not loyal to the people, but loyal to themselves only. Two of these officers have been before the Civil Service Board pre­viously. Pete Reid admitted in writing that he took part in pernicious political activities as Chief Malburg charged, and when he came to trial, the Civil Service Board did not call in the complaining witnesses, but took the testimony of Chief Malburg entirely, who in turn had changed his attitude from prosecution to a defending attitude. Mr. Pete Reid has been accused of carrying on individual investigations for the Golden Nugget. Mr. Pete Reid was once discharged and a written order placed on the desk of the then Chief of Police, Luther Horner. That dismissal slip disappeared because Chief Luther Horner was found dead the next morning. Pete Reid criticized Commissioners Wendell Bunker and William Peccole to people on the street after they were elected to office. Police Officer Pete Reid still goes about criticizing these two Commissioners. Would you think that the Civil Service Board would be interested in this information, or do they want to ignore it? The Civil Service Board states there is a lack of coordination between the ad­ministrative head of the Police Department and the City Manager. This Board has been advised time and time again as to what has been going on between the City Manager and the Acting Chief of Police. When the four men were discharged the City Manager was contacted. He accepted the dismissals as he would any other dismissal, and it was not up to the City Manager to disagree with his department head as long as he was presented the facts. The Civil Service Board should have taken this into consideration. Did not the Civil Service Board contact Mr. Halstead and then report to the newspapers and the local citizens that they were unable to contact Mr. Halstead? The Civil Service Board states that Mr. Halstead was induced to come to Las Vegas. Did they prove this point, and if they did why did they not make it public? The Civil Service Board admits that the four affected officers were duped or tricked into engaging in conversation with Stanley Halstead for the purpose of revealing certain conditions which existed and still exist within the Police Department and to make statements of accusation concerning certain members of the Police Department. Were these officers kidnapped and taken down there, and why was it that Officers Allen, Sweeney, and Peterson refused