BACKGROUND FACTS

Mayor Kiernan McManus is the subject of approximately ten (10) pending complaints filed
by employees of the City of Boulder City, Nevada (the “City”) accusing him of religious
discrimination, bullying, harassment, and creating a hostile work environment, among other bad
acts (the “Employee Complaints”). An outside firm is conducting an ongoing investigation of the
Employee Complaints (the “Investigation”). City Manager Al Noyola and City Attorney Steve
Morris were identified as potential witnesses and interviewed on July 22, 2020 as part of the
Investigation (the “Interviews”). During the Interviews, Noyola and Morris validated the Employee
Complaints. Noyola and Morris also revealed that they, too, had been targeted with similar acts of
discrimination, bullying, and harassment by Mayor McManus and Council member Tracy Folda.

The very next day on July 23, 2020, Mayor McManus retaliated by requesting a special City
Council meeting to consider the character, alleged misconduct, and professional competence of
Noyola and Morris and to terminate their employment. (Exhibit 1, McManus emails &
Memorandum dated July 23, 2020.) Folda conspired with the Mayor and sent out notices of the
special meeting, which was originally scheduled for August 6, 2020. (Exhibit 2, letters from Folda
dated July 28, 2020 and August 6, 2020 special meeting agenda.)

Just prior to the scheduled meeting, Noyola and Morris filed a lawsuit in Clark County
District Court (Case No. A-20-818973-C) (the “Litigation”) to enjoin the retaliatory conduct, then
obtained a restraining order finding that the proposed meeting and agenda violated Nevada’s Open
Meeting Law (the “OML”) (Exhibit 3, Temporary Restraining Order.) The August 6 meeting was
therefore cancelled.

McManus, Folda, and two other City Council members (Judy Hoskins and James Adams)
communicated privately with attorneys at Bailey Kennedy on August 4 and 5, 2020 to engage that
firm’s services to help defend themselves and the City in the Litigation (the “Pre-Retention
Conversations”). (Exhibit 4, August 11, 2020 Meeting Minutes, pp. 7-8.) Council member Claudia
Bridges was intentionally excluded from those Pre-Retention Conversations because she had filed
one of the Employee Complaints against McManus and was against their scheme to terminate City
Attorney Morris and City Manager Noyola.

At its regular August 11, 2020 meeting (the “August 11 Meeting”), the City Council
formally voted 4-0 to retain Bailey Kennedy’s services in connection with the Litigation (the
“Retention Vote”), with Bridges abstaining. (Exhibit 4, August 11, 2020 Meeting Minutes, p. 8.)

A month later, Mayor McManus sent a September 15, 2020 Memorandum directly to City
Finance Director Diane Pelletier requesting that she issue payment to Bailey Kennedy in the amount
of $36,906.06 for August 2020 legal services related to the Litigation, including $14,400 incurred
prior to the Retention Vote (the “Issue Payment Memo”). (Exhibit 5, September 15, 2020
Memorandum and accompanying Bailey Kennedy billing statement.) In so doing, McManus
intentionally bypassed the City Manager’s authority over all of the City’s administrative matters.

After several more failed attempts to reschedule the proposed termination meeting, the City

Page 1 of 4
Council finally voted 4-0 to terminate Morris and Noyola’s employment at its October 13, 2020
regular City Council meeting (the “October 13 Meeting”). Again, Bridges abstained.

APPLICABLE LAW

In pertinent part, Nevada’s code of ethical standards provides:

2. A public officer or employee shall not use the public officer’s or employee’s
position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges,
preferences, exemptions or advantages for the public officer or employee . . .
. As used in this subsection, “unwarranted” means without justification or
adequate reason.

9. A public officer or employee shall not attempt to benefit a significant

personal or pecuniary interest of the public officer or employee . . . through
the influence of any subordinate.

NRS 281A.400(2) & (9).

Mayor McManus is a “public officer” as defined in NRS 281A.160.

The City’s form of government is a council-manager government, with a clear separation of

powers between the City Council, on the one hand, and the City Manager, on the other hand.
(Exhibit 6, City Charter, Art. 1, Sec. 2.) The City Council retains legislative and policy-making
authority as well as the power to adopt budgets, but virtually all executive and administrative
authority is delegated to the Council-appointed City Manager. (Exhibit 6, City Charter, Art. 1, Sec.
2.) As a member of the City Council, the Mayor also has not been vested with any administrative
role or authority and is the head of the City’s government for ceremonial purposes only. (Exhibit 6,
City Charter, Art. 2, Sec. 7(1), for example.)

Furthermore: “Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal
with the administrative service solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor
any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly
or privately.” (Exhibit 6, City Charter, Art. 2, Sec. 11(1) (emphasis added).)

VIOLATIONS

When he sent his Issue Payment Memo to Finance Director Diane Pelletier, Mayor
McManus was not merely making an inquiry. He was not simply asking for information. In fact,
he was not inquiring or asking about anything. He was telling Ms. Pelletier to issue payment to
Bailey Kennedy. The fact that he used the word “please,” although perhaps courteous, does not in
the least bit disguise his directive to Ms. Pelletier.

Mayor McManus has no business whatsoever sending Memoranda to City department

Page 2 of 4
heads, division managers, staff members, or any other subordinates of the City Manager.1
Hopefully he is not in the habit of doing so. Even Memos saying “pretty please” do this or don’t do
that are prohibited by the Charter. The Mayor cannot and should not be doing so. He has a duty to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

If Mayor McManus believes payment should be made to Bailey Kennedy or anyone else
(especially a $37,000 payment to attorneys representing him in a lawsuit adverse to other City
employees), then the appropriate procedure is to make that request through the City Manager, who
has the sole power to make such administrative decisions and the sole power to direct subordinate
staff members to act or refrain from acting. If the amount is too large to be authorized
administratively by the City Manager or his designee, then the City Manager can direct that an
agenda item prepared for approval by the entire City Council (not just the Mayor) at a properly
noticed public meeting where citizens have to opportunity to give input either for or against. The
same is true if the City Manager is unwilling or unable to approve payment due to a conflict of
interest. And if the City Manager were to refuse, then the Mayor also has the ability to put the item
on a Council agenda for open public discussion and action.

The Mayor’s act of preparing and delivering his Issue Payment Memo directly to Ms.
Pelletier was a clear overreach in violation of the separation of powers set forth in the City Charter.
It also violated his ethical obligations as a public officer. In so doing, he was using “his position in
government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages” for
and to himself, as well as for and to his fellow public officer Defendants in the Litigation. NRS
281A.400(2). The Mayor knew that if the City didn’t pay with taxpayer dollars, then he and the
other Council members would be on the hook for the legal bill. He also knew that legal fees and
costs had already reached $14,400 before the City Council voted in public on August 11 to actually
retain Bailey Kennedy, and consequently that there would be a strong legal basis for rejecting
payment of those pre-retention amounts.

It’s no justification to claim that the City Manager was (and still is) adverse to him in a
lawsuit and therefore might not authorize payment as requested. If the City Manager didn’t honor
the request, then the Mayor could seek other recourse through proper channels, including through
the courts or Ethics Commission, or even just having the item placed on a Council meeting agenda
that would be open to public scrutiny. But by not giving the City Manager that opportunity, the
Mayor overstepped his legal and ethical bounds.

The Mayor’s Issue Payment Memo also violates NRS 281A.400(9), which prohibits him as
a public officer from “attemp[ing] to benefit a significant personal or pecuniary interest” of his

1
The ONLY exception would be a Memo whose sole and unmistakable purpose is to make inquiry
and request information, but even that is a slippery slope because it’s so easy to cross the line.

Page 3 of 4
own “through the influence of any subordinate.”2 After all, the Mayor not only has a significant
personal interest in the outcome of the Litigation in terms of its potential impact on his reputation,
presumed competence and character, and political career, but also a significant pecuniary interest
since he has been sued individually for attorney’s fees, compensatory damages, and possibly even
punitive damages. And with legal fees now approaching $200,000 or more, he is desperate to have
taxpayer dollars fund the Litigation if he is to have any hope of winning. The same is true of his
personal and pecuniary interests in the outcomes of the Investigation and Employee Complaints and
the outcomes of the complaints that Noyola and Morris recently lodged against him with the Nevada
Equal Rights Commission (the “NERC Complaints”), all of which could result not only in a tarnished
reputation and political career but also in both monetary and non-monetary sanctions against Mayor
McManus.

The Mayor’s Issue Payment Memo undoubtedly violates other laws and ethical standards as
well (even if not specified above), so request is hereby made to fully investigate the matter, interview
witnesses with knowledge, and bring to bear all relevant Nevada Ethics in Government standards in
arriving at a decision.

SANCTIONS ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE PUBLIC TRUST

The position of Mayor of Boulder City is one of public trust. “It is hereby declared to be the
public policy of this State that: (a) A public office is a public trust and shall be held for the sole
benefit of the people.” (NRS 281A.020(1)(a).) Mayor McManus’s attempts to circumvent the
distinct separation of powers set forth in the City Charter and his ethical duties under the law are
causing the people of this State, and especially the citizens of Boulder City, to lose faith in that trust.

Please restore our public trust in the office of Mayor. Please protect us against Mayor
McManus’s abuses of power and his erosion of that trust. Do not allow him to dilute that trust any
further. Rather than navigate in protected waters by respecting the City Manager’s authority and
heeding the City Attorney’s advice, the Mayor has instead chosen to repeatedly flout that authority
and ignore that advice. Once again he is sailing outside the safe harbor, this time spending hundreds
of thousands of dollars in public funds on high-powered attorneys in an effort to shield himself from
legal liability. He is not, however, exempt from or above the law. Please sanction him for using the
singular power and influence of his position to his own competitive advantage.

Respectfully,
Roger Tobler (former Mayor); Peggy Leavitt (former Mayor Pro Tem & Councilwoman)
Duncan McCoy (former Councilman); Mike Pacini (former Mayor Pro Tem & Councilman)

2
The City Finance Director is subordinate to and within the Mayor’s chain of command. The City
Council (of which the Mayor is a part) is vested with all powers of the City. (See e.g., Exhibit 6, City Charter, Art. 1,
Sec. 2; Art. 2, Sec. 8.) They appoint and remove the City Manager, who in turn reports to and is accountable to that
body alone. (See e.g., Exhibit 6, City Charter, Art. 2, Sec. 8 & 9; Art. 3, Sec. 26 & 28.) In turn, all other City
officers, employees, and staff members, including the Finance Director, are hired, fired, appointed, removed, and
accountable and subordinate to the City Manager (See e.g., City Charter, Art. 3, Sec. 28.) The only exceptions are
the City Attorney and City Clerk, who, like the City Manager, also report directly to the City Council as its direct
appointees. (See e.g., Exhibit 6, City Charter, Art. 2, Sec. 8, 14 & 15.)

Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
 CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 401 CALIFORNIA AVENUE,
BOULDER CITY, NV 89005

August 6, 2020 – 6:00 PM

NOTICE
Pursuant to Section 7 and Section 10 of the Declaration of Emergency Directive 021,
there will be limited in-person attendance at this meeting. Preference will be given to
applicants who have an item on the agenda. Others may reserve a spot by contacting
the City Clerk’s office at (702) 293-9208. Attendees are required to wear face coverings.
The public may view the meeting live at the following link:

https://www.bcnv.org/191/City-Council-Meeting-Live-Stream-Video

For information regarding Directive 006, see the following:

http://gov.nv.gov/News/Emergency Orders/2020/2020-03-22 - COVID-
19 Declaration of Emergency Directive 006/

Extensions of Directive 006 have been included in in Section 6 of Directive 16, Section
23 of Directive 18, Section 37 of Directive 21, and Section 3 of Directive 26 found at the
following link:

http://gov.nv.gov/News/Emergency Orders/2020/2020-06-29 - COVID-

19 Declaration of Emergency Directive 026/

ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA MAY BE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER; TWO OR

MORE AGENDA ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION MAY BE COMBINED; AND ANY
ITEM ON THE AGENDA MAY BE REMOVED OR RELATED DISCUSSION MAY BE
DELAYED AT ANY TIME.

PUBLIC COMMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA MUST BE LIMITED TO
MATTERS ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION. EACH PERSON HAS UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO
SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM.

Public comment, whether on an agenda item or general public comment, is limited to up

to five minutes per person. Members of the public may participate in the meeting without
being physically present by one of the following methods.

• Written comments may be submitted via the Public Comment Form

(https://www.bcnv.org/FormCenter/Contact-Forms-3/City-Council-Comment-
Form-111)

• Written comments may be submitted by emailing cityclerk@bcnv.org. Written

comments will be added to the record.

• Public commenters may leave a voicemail at (702) 293-9210. Messages received

will be broadcast into the Council Chamber.

• To comment during the meeting, members of the public may call (702) 589–9629
when the public comment period is opened.

SPECIAL AGENDA

1. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of the City Manager,
Alfonso Noyola (as requested by Council member Folda)

A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or professional

competence of Alfonso Noyola, City Manager of Boulder City

B. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken in obtaining review by

outside counsel of employment contracts for you as City Manager and for the
City Attorney after a request for such action had failed to be approved by a
majority of the City Council

C. Discussion of actions you are alleged to have taken under the emergency
powers that existed during a public health crisis for a matter at the Municipal
Airport regarding fuel delivery, transport and storage

D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7143, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, terminating Employment Agreement No. 18-1764 between the
City of Boulder City and City Manager Alfonso Noyola pursuant to the
 termination or severance section of the employment contract and the City
Charter

2. For possible action: Resolution No. 7144, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City appointing an Acting City Manager

3. For possible action: Matters pertaining to the performance of City Attorney Steven
L. Morris (as requested by Council member Folda)

A. Discussion to consider the character, alleged misconduct, or professional

competence of Steven L. Morris, City Attorney of Boulder City

B. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.

Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the City
Council with respect to the right of a majority of the City Council to retain a
special counsel

C. Discussion of actions alleged to have been taken by City Attorney Steven L.

Morris in providing misleading information to one or more members of the City
Council concerning the application of provisions of NRS 281 to Mr. Morris as a
public official

D. For possible action: Resolution No. 7145, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, terminating Employment Agreement No. 18-1765 between the
City of Boulder City and Steven L. Morris

4. For possible action: Resolution No. 7146, a resolution of the City Council of
Boulder City, appointing an Acting City Attorney

5. Public Comments

Each person has up to five minutes to speak at the discretion of the Mayor/Chair. Comments made
during the Public Comment period of the agenda may be on any subject. All remarks shall be
addressed to the City Council/Board as a whole, not to any individual member of the Council/Board,
of the audience, or of the City staff. There shall be no personal attacks against the Mayor, members
of the City Council, the City staff or any other individual. No person, other than members of the City
Council and the person who has the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either
directly or through a member of the Council without the permission of the Mayor or Presiding Officer.
No action may be taken on a matter raised under this item upon which action will be taken.
Supporting Material: Pursuant to Section 5 of Directive 006, the requirement contained
in NRS 241.020(3)(c) that physical locations be available for the public to receive
supporting material for public meetings has been suspended. Staff reports and
supporting material for the meeting are available on the City’s website at
https://www.bcnv.org/AgendaCenter. Pursuant to NRS 241.020(6), supporting material is
made available to the public at the same time it is provided to the City Council.

Notice to persons with disabilities: Members of the public who are disabled and require
special assistance or accommodations for the meeting are requested to notify the City
Clerk by telephoning (702) 293-9208 at least seventy-two hours in advance of the
meeting.

This notice and agenda has been posted electronically in compliance with NRS
241.020(3) at https://www.bcnv.org/AgendaCenter, and NRS 232.2175 at
https://notice.nv.gov/. For further information, please contact Lorene Krumm, City
Clerk, 401 California Avenue, Boulder City, NV 89005, (702) 293-9208;
lkrumm@bcnv.org.
EXHIBIT 3
 ELECTRONICALLY SERVED
8/5/2020 11:11 AM
Electronically Filed
08/05/2020 11:11 AM

1 TRO
JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
2 Nevada Bar No. 7269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
3 Nevada Bar No. 13513
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
4 3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
5 Telephone: 702-678-5070
Facsimile: 702-878-9995
6 jbarr@atllp.com
tkahler@atllp.com
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
8
RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
9 Nevada Bar No. 9036
BRADELY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
10 Nevada Bar No. 13064
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
11 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
12 Telephone: 702.784.5200
Facsimile: 702.784.5252
13 rgordon@swlaw.com
baustin@swlaw.com
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
15

16

17 DISTRICT COURT
18 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
19
Case No.: A-20-818973-C
20 ALFONSO NOYOLA, an individual, and
STEVEN L. MORRIS, an individual Dept. No.: 24
21
Plaintiffs,
22 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
vs. ORDER
23
THE CITY OF BOULDER CITY, a political
24 subdivision of the State of Nevada,

25 Defendant.

26
Alfonso Noyola (“Mr. Noyola”) and Steven L. Morris (“Mr. Morris”) (collectively,
27
“Plaintiffs”), by and through their respective attorneys of record, filed their Ex Parte Application for
28
Temporary Restraining Order (the “Application for TRO”) against Defendant The City of Boulder
1
Case Number: A-20-818973-C
 1 City (“The City”) on August 4, 2020.
2 The Court, having reviewed and considered the Application for TRO, and good cause
3 appearing therefore, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS THAT:
4 1. Plaintiffs met their burden under NRCP 65(b) for issuance of an Ex Parte Temporary
5 Restraining Order against The City, pending a hearing on the preliminary injunction, as
6 the facts set forth in the Application for TRO support a finding that:
7 a. Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm, should The City be
8 permitted to proceed with hearing Items 1-4 on the August 6, 2020 Special
9 Meeting Agenda – which Special Meeting and Special Meeting Agenda violate
10 Nevada’s Open Meeting Law, NRS ch. 241; and
11 b. The Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order is necessary to preserve the status quo
12 and prevent said irreparable harm; and
13 There is insufficient time for The City to be heard regarding the Temporary Restraining Order
14 prior to the August 6, 2020 Special Meeting. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
15 A. Plaintiffs’ Application for TRO is GRANTED;
16 B. The Court further orders that The City, City Council, its agents, servants and employees,
17 and those persons acting in convert or participation with them, are prohibited and enjoined
18 from hearing Items 1-4 of the August 6, 2020 Special Meeting Agenda until the
19 conclusion of the preliminary injunction hearing;
20 C. The Court further orders the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
21 20th of ___________,
scheduled for the ____ August 2020, at the hour of _____
9:00 o’clock ____.m.
a in
24
22 Department ______of the Eighth Judicial District Court. The hearing will not be an
23 evidentiary hearing;
24 D. The Court further orders that Plaintiffs shall serve The City with the Application for
25 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and the executed Temporary
26 August 7
Restraining Order by _______________, 2020;
27 E. This Temporary Restraining Order shall expire at the conclusion of the preliminary
28 August 20, 2020 unless otherwise ordered by the Court;
injunction hearing on _______________,

2
 1 F. The City’s Opposition brief shall be filed and electronically served on Plaintiffs and the
2 August 11 at _____
Court by ___________ 4:00 pm;
3 G. The Plaintiffs’ Reply brief shall be filed and electronically served on The City by
4 August 14 ______.m;
__________at 9:00
5 500.00
H. The Court further order that Plaintiffs shall post a bond in the amount of $_________.
6 This security shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Court.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 DATE:____________________HOUR:_________________
9

10 DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
Respectfully submitted:
12 ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
13
By: /s/Tiffany A. Kahler
14 JEFFREY F. BARR, ESQ.
15 Nevada Bar No. 007269
TIFFANY A. KAHLER, ESQ.
16 Nevada Bar No. 13513
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200
17 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
18 Attorneys for Plaintiff Alfonso Noyola
19

20 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

21 By: /s/Richard C. Gordon

RICHARD C. GORDON, ESQ
22 Nevada Bar No. 9036
23 BRADELY T. AUSTIN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 13064
24 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
25
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven L. Morris
26
4831-8414-1766
27
28

3
 1
CSERV
2
DISTRICT COURT
3 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
4

6 Alfonso Noyola, Plaintiff(s) CASE NO: A-20-818973-C

7 vs. DEPT. NO. Department 24

8 The City of Boulder City,

Defendant(s)
9

10

11 AUTOMATED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

12 This automated certificate of service was generated by the Eighth Judicial District
Court. The foregoing Temporary Restraining Order was served via the court’s electronic
13 eFile system to all recipients registered for e-Service on the above entitled case as listed
below:
14

15 Service Date: 8/5/2020

16 Jessica Myrold jmyrold@atllp.com

17 Sheila Darling sdarling@atllp.com

18
Jeffrey Barr jbarr@atllp.com
19
LV Docketing lvlitdocket@atllp.com
20
Richard Gordon rgordon@swlaw.com
21
Bradley Austin baustin@swlaw.com
22

23 Tiffany Kahler tkahler@atllp.com

24

25

26

27

28
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 6