EDITORIAL: Amid Hafen hubbub, panel wisely leaves Henderson charter intact

Andy Hafen’s second term as mayor of Henderson will be his last. The Nevada Supreme Court declared as much earlier this year when it issued a surprising clarification on the state constitution’s voter-approved term limits amendment. And the city’s citizen Charter Committee assured as much last week when it declined to recommend a change to Henderson’s governance structure that could have kept Mr. Hafen in office through the end of the decade.

The committee made the right call.

Mr. Hafen, who has served on the Henderson City Council since 1987, easily won re-election as mayor last year. Mr. Hafen first ran for mayor in 2009 because term limits were about to end his service as a councilman. During that campaign and last year’s mayoral race against city employee Rick Workman, not a single person suggested term limits should prevent Mr. Hafen from serving as mayor. Although both regular council members and the mayor get a single vote, the difference in title alone suggested a separate office subject to a separate 12-year limit on service.

But Eddie Lorton defied that conventional wisdom in running for mayor of Reno this year. He argued that term limits prevented longtime Reno City Council members from seeking the office of mayor because doing so could allow them to serve on the same governing body for more than 12 years. And on Feb. 20, in a 5-2 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed.

Because the Henderson council and mayor function almost exactly like Reno’s, it’s clear Mr. Hafen won’t be able to seek a third term in 2017. In fact, Mr. Workman has used the Supreme Court ruling to seek Mr. Hafen’s immediate removal from office. The fact that the Supreme Court is considering the request suggests it has legs.

However, if Henderson’s charter were changed to make the mayor’s office substantially different from council positions, Mr. Hafen might be able to run for the office again. As reported by the Review-Journal’s Arnold Knightly, Henderson’s Charter Committee asked City Attorney Josh Reid whether the panel should clarify the mayor’s relationship to the council in response to the court’s ruling. Mr. Reid then suggested the committee evaluate the charter of the city of Sparks, which effectively makes the mayor the city’s chief executive, denying the office a vote on the council but providing veto power over all council decisions.

Such an amendment to Henderson’s charter — subject to approval by the council and the Legislature — would have radically transformed city government, not necessarily because it was good policy, but merely to preserve the power of an entrenched elected incumbent.

“None of us intended to go there,” said attorney Keith Pickard, an appointed member of the Charter Committee.

The fact that the committee even considered moving the goalposts drew accusations from Mr. Workman that the city is actively working to protect Mr. Hafen. In response to Mr. Workman’s challenge to Mr. Hafen’s eligibility, Mr. Reid had filed a friend-of-the-court brief stating the mayor’s removal would disrupt government, undermine the will of voters and could cost tax­payers $123,000 to hold a special election. Mr. Workman’s attorney, Stephanie Rice, said Mr. Hafen is using “city time and resources to fight his own personal battles.”

Voters did indeed re-elect Mr. Hafen. But they also overwhelmingly supported term limits to ensure elected officials can be removed from the bunker of incumbency.

Mr. Reid and other city officials must be careful to stay out of this political dispute. If Mr. Hafen wants to keep his job through 2017, he’ll have to do it without taxpayer help.