To the residents of Indian Hills General Improvement District and the press:
Our intent with the hearing in District Court on June 21, was to point out that the recall petition statements were false and misleading to the public. Although the judge ruled that it was up to the public to be educated and informed on the issues, I felt that the public had been misled by signing a petition that had lies portrayed as facts.
The IHGID board decided at the March 16 meeting to put the issue of the community center on this November general election ballot. This was decided so that all the residents of Indian Hills could vote on spending $1.5 million not 140 people making that decision for the other 3,000 residents who will be impacted. No reductions in employee benefits were present in my recommendations to the board or approved by the board at the March 16 meeting.
In the five years that I have sat as a trustee for the IHGID, and in attendance at more than the 160 meetings that have taken place within that time, the few times that I was not in attendance never jeopardized my understanding of the issues, and certainly not any issues regarding the community center. These are the facts.
We also wanted to get a ruling on the compliance or noncompliance of Barbara Reed's Office regarding the Nevada Administrative Code 306.007 that requires that a public officer to be recalled be notified within two days after a notice of intent is filed pursuant to the NRS 306.015. The judge ruled that her office was substantially out of compliance, and although that was found to be true, this did not affect the sufficiency of the signatures on the petition.
