A new filing that seeks the recusal of the Reno city attorney is revealing new allegations of sexual misconduct against the former city manager, Andrew Clinger.
A new filing that seeks the recusal of the Reno city attorney is revealing new allegations of sexual misconduct against the former city manager, Andrew Clinger.
A new filing that seeks the recusal of the Reno city attorney is revealing new allegations of sexual misconduct against the former city manager, Andrew Clinger.
ouizizo18
Som ranean
u
13
14
15
16
7
18
9
20
21
2
23
2g
25
26
27
28
15:43 Mark Mausert ESQ (FAX)775 786 9658 P0101
Case 3:17-cv-00458-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 11
Mark Mausert
NV Bar No, 2398
Cody Oldham, Esq.
930 Evans Avenue
Reno, NV 89512
(775) 786-5477
Fax (775) 786-9658
mark@markmausertlaw.com
Auorieys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MAUREEN McKISSICK & ‘Case No.: 3:17-cv-00458-MMD-VPC
DEANNA GESCHEIDER,
Plaintifts,
¥s. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT
CITY OF RENO and DOES I-X, ‘OF MOTION TO RECUSE,
Defendants
f
COME NOW plaintiffs, through their attomeys, and hereby file a Notice of
Supplemental Declarations in Support of Motion to Recuse Reno City Attomey Karl Hall and
his Office, ic, all attomeys in the employ of the Reno City Attomey's Office. These
supplemental Declarations are filed post-briefing because they were unavailable at the time
plaintiffs filed their Motion and the Reply Points and Authorities in support thereof, For
instance, the “Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury”, executed by Ms. Jean Elta Atkinson, a
member of the Reno Civil Rights Commission, was obtained on January 5, 2018. Ms, Wolf
made a decision not to file her own lawsuit post-briefing.
‘The Declaration of Ms, Atkinson is very materiel to the Motion. Ms. Atkinson
authored the City's policy on sexual harassment and retaliation, although the original policy
‘was subsequently modified by others. Declaration, paragraph 4, Ms. Atkinson was made
Page t0112/2018
18:44 Mark Mausert,ESQ (FAX)775 786 9658 P.00z/011
Case 3:17-cv-00458-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 11
aware, in July, 2015, by Mr. Clinger's secretary, Ms, Vishe Siddharthan, that Mr. Clinger and
Assistant City Manager Kate Thomas were behaving in the manner befitting a romantically
involved couple. Declaration, paragraph 5. Ms. Atkinson, in her capacity as a member of
Reno Civil Service Commission, investigated and learned Clinger had bestowed on Ms.
‘Thomas an extraordinary raise of approximately $44,000. She also determined Mr. Clinger
appeared to be discriminating against men, See, e.g., Declaration, paragraphs 6-8,
Approximately a year prior to the plaintiffs complaining, Ms. Atkinson informed
the City of her findings — to the effeot Clinger was using his authority as City Manager to
discriminate in favor of women he was sexually attracted to,
pir fla Resear be Ci of Refi Maan bt
believed the City had a gender bias problem per the decisions regarding pay that
had been made by City Manager Clinger in regard to members of the management
group. 1 also explained to Ms. Leerman that based on the data I had seen, and the
information 1 had been receiving, I was concerned that these docisions algo reflected
a “predilection” for females, She nodded and thereby manifested her aflirmmanve,
4 als informed Ms, Lecrmaa’s supervise: Mr Rober Chisel on August 212015)
and Assistant City Manager Mr. Bil! Thomas (on or around September 1, 2015) of
my concer regarding gender bias in the wage decisions made by Mr. Clinger.
Mr. Chisel responded in the affirmative and stated, “Andrew likes the pretty ones”
~ or words to that direct effect, Mr. Thomas aiso affirmed awareness.
Declaration, p.3.
In other words, about a year prior to the plaintiffs being reduced to complaining, the
City knew Clinger was using his authority to curry favor with women he found sexually
attractive, As noted in the Complaint and Jury Demand, this favoritism created a dynamic
whereby Ms, Thomas jealously guatded her position ~a position she held by virtue of Clinger's
view of her as a unicorn. See, the Declaration of Robert Chisel (Mr. Chisel repudiates
Clinger's denial he used the term “unicom"), Ms, Thomas instituted a campaign of
harassment against plaintiff Maureen McKissick. And, of course, Clinger pursued plaintiff
Deanna Gescheider ~ a pursuit which, per Ms. Atkinson's 2015 report, was eminently
prodictable, and more importantly, preventable,
‘The information Ms, Atkinson acquired from Mr. Clinger's secrotary, along, with her
findings, should have resulted, per the City’s poliey, in an immediate investigation,
Page 2o1tar2o18
u
12
13
4
15
16
7
18
19
20
a
22
2B
24
25
26
27
28
15:44 Mark Mausert ESQ (FAN)775 786 9658 P.0031011
Case 3:17-cv-00458-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 11
Ms. Atkinson's Declaration, in light of the behavior of Mr. Hall, is extraordinary.
When Hall wiviatized and derided the plaintiffs’ complaints, he knew or should have known,
of Ms, Atkinson's 2015 findings! Yet, he attacked the plaintiffs, and invited others to attack
them, notwithstanding the fact the allegations were entirely consistent with Ms. Atkinson's
findings, made a year prior, Hall went so far as to characterize the complaints as a “witch
hunt”, Mr, Bill Dunne, whose employment has been terminated (apparently as the result of
being co-opted by Hall) accepted Hell’s invitation, He intimidated Ms, Geschelder. The
information provided by Ms. Atkinson was corroborated by Ms, Kim Wallin in early August of
2016. See, Wallin Declaration, attached hereto, Ms, Wallin spoke before the City Council and
described Clinger’s extraordinary penchant for retaliation, én the presence of Mr, Hall. Sec,
Wallin Dectaration, p.2.
Hall oversaw the payment of approximately 2 quarter ofa million dollars of City
monies to various attorneys, inchuding Judge (ret.) David Wall. Judge Wall authored 96 page
teport - which does not mention Ms. Atkinson’s findings! Either Judge Wall deliberately
‘omitted mention of Ms. Atkinson and her 2015 investigation (that is a very doubtful
hypothesis), or Mr. Hall and/or other highly placed City employees essentislly lied to Judge
Wall by omission. Judge Wall’s investigation is defective and incomplete because he was
denied critical information regarding Ms. Atkinson’s investigation and findings. The
statements of Mr. Clinger’s seoretary, Ms, Visha Siddharthan, corroborate the auditory
observations of Ms. Brianna Wolf (Wall disregarded those observations because he found they
Incked corroboration), More importantly, Ms. Atkinson's findings are devastating to Clinger’s
claims of innocence, Ms. Atkinson found a clear pattern, which explains the strange promotion
of Ms, Kate Thomas to the position of Assistant City Manager, notwithstanding the fact her
lack of competence hed, just prior to her promotion, cost the City millions of dollars, That
promotion was accompanied by an extraordinary raise, And, of course, Clinger’s willingness
to use his authority to facili
te sexual predation towards pretty women by bestowing favors on
them explains his machinations re transferring some of Ms. Thomas’ duties to Ms, McKissick;
his lies to Thomas as to how those duties (and eccompanying staf) eame to be transferred; and
Page 3o1izi2018
awa un
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
W
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15445 Mark Mausert ESQ (FAN)775 786 S658 004011
Case 3:17-cv-00458-MMD-VPC Document 35 Filed OV/11/18 Page 4 of 11
his sexual pursuit of Deanna Gescheider.
It is within this context Mr. Hall and his office attacked the plaintiffs and implicitly
invited other City employees to attack and isolate them. It is within the context of Ms.
Atkinson's investigation, and the communication of her findings to the City, Hell apparently
oversaw withholding information regarding Ms. Atkinson from Judge Wall. And, of course,
there is the matter of the first investigation, conducted by attomey Alice Mercado, Esq.
Notwithstanding knowledge of which he knew, or should have known re Ms. Atkinson's
findings, Hall placed severe strictures on Ms, Mercado’s investigation ~ so as to ensure
Atkinson's 2015 findings would not see the light of day,
The waste of almost a quarter of a million dollars, orchestrated by Hall, pales in
comparison to the licbility Hall and his Office created, Instead of viewing the plaintifis’
ellegations in the context of the findings of a member of the Reno Civil Service Commission,
‘who authored the City’s sexual harassmentretaliation poliey, Hall attacked the plaintiffs, To
all appearances, Hall committed legal malpractice by doing so. He is now possessed of a
motive to cover up that malpractice ~ as opposed to properly representing the City, Mr, Hall
and his Office should be recused.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2017,
fark Mausert
Poge 4