Henderson Mayor counters calls for transparency amid launching re-election bid
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — From the Water Street Farmers Market to the White House, Mayor Michelle Romero has had a hand in Henderson's three decades of progress but now she faces her next test—re-election.
Romero, a Henderson native, can trace her work in city government back to 1999 with her help in the opening of the Water Street Farmers Market and later the Super Run Car Show alongside business leaders. By 2007, she worked for the Henderson Redevelopment Agency and continued efforts to grow the city's residential and commercial capacities.
Following a term as a Henderson Ward I councilmember, Romero was elected mayor in June 2022 and said she hopes residents look to her voting record to maintain rural neighborhoods, protect businesses, and support public safety. She acknowledged Henderson, along with other cities, is facing a tighter budget amid an initial $10 million deficit.
'We started with that, we were actually able to address it very quickly,' she said. 'And our tentative budget that we approved a couple of weeks ago, there's no deficit.'
During an 8 News Politics Now interview, Romero addressed the city manager's decision to fire the police chief, her legal action against another councilmember's 'spurious rumors,' and what transparency means.
On Feb. 14, Henderson City Manager Stephanie Garcia-Vause made the decision to place the then-police chief, Hollie Chadwick, on leave. Garcia-Vause said she and Chadwick had differing leadership styles and declined to provide further explanation.
The departure has been at the center of numerous calls for more information regarding the decision, but both Garcia-Vause and Romero said residents are not entitled to employee information, citing city policy.
'We don't talk about personnel issues,' Romero said. 'That's not fair to the employee.'
Romero said the departure is not indicative of any discord between the city and the police department.
'The city police department is wonderful,' she said. 'They keep us one of the safest cities in America, and it's because of the hard work of the men and women in that department. Changes at the top don't really affect their job, and don't affect impact their ability to do their job well, and so it really has no bearing, one way or the other, on operations at the city, or how we view how we move forward.'
Amid Garcia-Vause's decision to fire Chadwick, dismiss a police volunteer, and cancel city some 'Morning Meet ups,' Romero said she supports the city manager's decisions.
'I support the city manager in her right to do that, and I have full faith that she didn't do it arbitrarily, that she followed the appropriate processes,' Romero said. 'She values our employees very much. She's not afraid to make a hard decision if that's what's best for the city. And I have faith in her ability to do that.'
Following the announcement of the interim police chief Itzhak Henn's retirement, Romero faces the chance of a new police chief becoming the fourth person in the position in two months.
'We knew going in that the acting chief was going to be retiring very soon,' she said. 'We knew that was happening. It wasn't a surprise. And I think it will be very close to, if there's any gap at all, it'll be very close to when he retires and we have a new chief in place.'
Distrust between Romero and Henderson Councilwoman Carrie Cox has reached a boiling point inside City Hall amid recent legal action.
On Jan. 7, the law firm Pisanelli Bice served a cease and desist to Cox on behalf of Romero. The purpose: to stop the spread of alleged rumors of an extra-marital affair, according to a copy of the letter 8 News Now obtained.
'I had people, both in person and written statements from a multitude of people that notified me of the things that she was saying,' Romero said. 'My attorney has letter, after letter, after letter from people. Some of them I don't even know. Some of them inside city hall. Some of them outside city hall that wrote to me and said we were approached by her.'
Romero said she has a strong relationship with her husband, whom she met almost 40 years ago in school.
'We are high school sweethearts,' she said. 'We have a rock-solid relationship, and anytime anybody tries to infringe upon that or make it look bad; I will take action against it.'
Cox told 8 News Now she denies spreading rumors about Romero and claims she had no knowledge of what spurred the cease and desist.
'It was completely unnecessary, and I don't know what the motivation was,' Romero said.
The cease and desist is one of multiple 'made-for-TV' moments the city council has experienced. An abrupt call for recess and a plea for 'transparency' have posed tense moments for elected officials.
'I think generally speaking, we have really strong relationships with each other,' Romero said. 'At the council level, we try to focus on the work. Whenever there are issues at a council meeting, sometimes passions get high. People feel very strongly one way or the other.'
Romero said she views her role as mayor is to course correct during the meetings and keep the focus on the agenda and residents' interests.
'If we need to take a recess and let people cool down, that's what we'll do,' she said. 'Doesn't mean that there's chaos, you know, people like to portray that there is, you know, all kinds of chaos going on. That's not what's happening.'
Romero said the criticism of the city's transparency is not factoring in the multiple opportunities residents have to get to know their elected officials.
'I believe we are one of the most transparent governments out there,' she said. 'We regularly hold meetings, informal meetings with our residents. We have coffee with the council. We have meetups with the mayor. We have quarterly meetings where we allow the residents to come and ask anything that's on their minds, and we answer their questions right there.'
8 News Now staff attend the public morning meetings regularly and have been told by city public information officers not to directly quote elected officials or ask questions for reporting purposes at the 'Morning Meetups' and instead request statements through the communication office. City staff previously defended the meetings as an opportunity for specifically Henderson residents to be provided with access to their elected officials.
'I have had questions from reporters at morning meetups regularly,' Romero said. 'And I answer them on a regular basis.'
Romero said that between the city's public records portal and quick reply to residents at 'Morning Meetups ups' the city is a leader in transparency.
'If we've heard something that's popping up, traffic or something like that. We try to focus on that, but at the end, we still allow questions and answers that are free flow,' she said.
When it opened in 1998, The Reserve was a hotspot hotel and casino for Henderson residents, later becoming the Fiesta Henderson in 2001.
In Mar. 2020, Station Casinos closed the Fiesta Henderson property due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The casino and hotel property never reopened, and its land was later purchased by the city for $32 million using city redevelopment agency funds.
Woodbury Corporation entered into a negotiating agreement with Henderson on the Fiesta site in 2024, only for it to end inconclusively.
'They were asking for more than we were willing to give to a private project,' Romero said. 'And so we let the exclusive negotiation expire.'
Romero said the end of talks with Woodbury is not indicative of no plan, instead pointing to other proposals they have received.
'We will come forward again with a proposal,' she said. 'But we're not going to irresponsibly spend public dollars on a project that we don't think gains the public benefit to that degree.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump aides once helped elect Netanyahu, reflecting leaders' deep ties
The U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities have focused attention on the long-standing, complex relationship between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump has spoken with Netanyahu almost every day since Israel attacked Iran last week and gave him a heads-up before the strikes, a senior White House official said, highlighting the familiarity between the two men who have known each other for decades.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Blasts Tulsi Gabbard as ‘Wrong' About Iran Nuclear Capabilities
President Donald Trump took direct aim at his Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday amid questions about how close Iran is to obtaining a nuclear weapon. The U.S. intelligence community has stood by its opinion that Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium but isn't close to building a nuclear weapon, but the president disputes that. A reporter asked the president what intelligence he had that Iran was building a weapon, because his intelligence community did not have evidence. 'Well then my intelligence community is wrong,' Trump said before asking the reporter who in his intelligence community had said that. When Gabbard was named, Trump blasted back: 'She's wrong.' It was the president's most direct criticism of his own director of national intelligence after he also told reporters on Tuesday he did not care what Gabbard had said about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Gabbard testified before Congress in March that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, but the president rejected that this week, and said he believes Iran is close to having a weapon. Earlier this week, the White House posted a video of Gabbard testifying on Iran, but it did not include her explicitly stating the U.S. intel community did not believe Iran was building a nuclear weapon. The president was speaking to reporters Friday afternoon after arriving in Morristown, New Jersey, to attend a Friday-evening fundraiser at his golf club. It was Trump's first public comment since he announced in a statement that he would make a decision on the U.S. getting involved in Iran within two weeks, as the conflict with Israel escalates. 'We're ready, willing, and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens,' Trump said. Trump indicated the two-week deadline was his decided-upon timeframe to see if people 'come to their senses.' Trump said he was open to a ceasefire while potential negotiations take place but did not call for one directly. 'It's very hard to stop,' Trump said. 'Israel's doing well in terms of war, and I think you would say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop.' The president would not talk about the possibility of sending in ground forces, but he did say it was the last thing he'd want to do. The president said he's 'always a peacemaker' but argued it doesn't mean you don't need 'toughness to make some peace.'
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
The United States Bombed Iran. What Comes Next?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has done what he swore he would not do: involve the United States in a war in the Middle East. His supporters will tie themselves in knots (as Vice President J. D. Vance did last week) trying to jam the square peg of Trump's promises into the round hole of his actions. And many of them may avoid calling this 'war' at all, even though that's what Trump himself called it tonight. They will want to see it as a quick win against an obstinate regime that will eventually declare bygones and come to the table. But whether bombing Iran was a good idea or a bad idea—and it could turn out to be either, or both—it is war by any definition of the term, and something Trump had vowed he would avoid. So what's next? Before considering the range of possibilities, it's important to recognize how much we cannot know at this moment. The president's statement tonight was a farrago of contradictions: He said, for example, that the main Iranian nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated'—but it will take time to assess the damage, and he has no way of knowing this. He claimed that the Iranian program has been destroyed—but added that there are still 'many targets' left. He said that Iran could suffer even more in the coming days—but the White House has reportedly assured Iran through back channels that these strikes were, basically, a one-and-done, and that no further U.S. action is forthcoming. (In a strange moment, Trump added: 'I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.' Presidents regularly ask God to bless the American nation and its military forces—as Trump did in his next utterance—but it was a bit unnerving to see a commander in chief order a major military action and then declare how much 'we' love the Creator.) Only one outcome is certain: Hypocrisy in the region and around the world will reach galactic levels as nations wring their hands and silently pray that the B-2s carrying the bunker-buster bombs did their job. Beyond that, the most optimistic view is that the introduction of American muscle into this war will produce a humiliating end to Iran's long-standing nuclear ambitions, enable more political disorder in Iran, and finally create the conditions for the fall of the mullahs. This may have been the Israeli plan from the start: Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warnings about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability and the need to engage in preemption, this was a preventive war. The Israelis could not destroy sites such as Fordow without the Americans. Israeli military actions suggest that Netanyahu was trying to increase the chances of regime change in Tehran while making a side bet on dragging Trump into the fray and outsourcing the tougher nuclear targets to the United States. The very worst outcome is the polar opposite of the optimistic case. In this bleak alternative, the Air Force either didn't find, or couldn't destroy, all of the key parts of the Iranian program; the Iranians then try to sprint across the finish line to a bomb. In the meantime, Tehran lashes out against U.S. targets in the region and closes the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian opposition fades in importance as angry Iranian citizens take their government's part. One dangerous possibility in this pessimistic scenario is that the Iranians do real damage to American assets or kill a number of U.S. servicepeople, and Trump, confused and enraged, tries to widen his war against a country more than twice the size of Iraq. Perhaps the most likely outcome, however, is more mixed. The Iranian program may not be completely destroyed, but if the intelligence was accurate and the bombers hit their targets, Tehran's nuclear clock has likely been set back years. (This in itself is a good thing; whether it is worth the risks Trump has taken is another question.) The Iranian people will likely rally around the flag and the regime, but the real question is whether that effect will last. The Iranian regime will be wounded but will likely survive; the nuclear program will be delayed but will likely continue; the region will become more unstable but is unlikely to erupt into a full-blown war involving the United States. But plenty of wild cards are in the deck. First, as strategists and military planners always warn, the 'enemy gets a vote.' The Iranians may respond in ways the U.S. does not expect. The classic war-gaming mistake is to assume that your opponent will respond in ways that fit nicely with your own plans and capabilities. But the Iranians have had a long time to think about this eventuality; they may have schemes ready that the U.S. has not foreseen. (Why not spread around radiological debris, for example, and then blame the Americans for a near-disaster?) Trump has issued a warning to Iran not to react, but what might count as 'reacting'? Second, we cannot know the subsequent effects of an American attack. For now, other Middle Eastern regimes may be relieved to see Iran's nuclear clock turned back. But if the Iranian regime survives and continues even a limited nuclear program, those same nations may sour on what they will see as an unsuccessful plan hatched in Jerusalem and carried out by Washington. Diplomacy elsewhere will likely suffer. The Russians have been pounding Ukraine with even greater viciousness than usual all week and now may wave away the last of Trump's feckless attempts to end the war. Other nations might see American planes flying over Iran and think that the North Koreans had the right idea all along: assemble a few crude nuclear weapons as fast as you can to deter further attempts to end your regime. Finally, the chances for misperception and accidents are now higher than they were yesterday. In 1965, the United States widened the war in Southeast Asia after two purported attacks from North Vietnam; the Americans were not sure at the time whether both of these attacks had actually happened, and as it turns out, one of them probably had not. The Middle East, moreover, is full of opportunities for screwups and mistakes: If Trump continues action against Iran, he will need excellent intelligence and tight organization at the Pentagon. And this is where the American strikes were really a gamble: They were undertaken by a White House national-security team staffed by unqualified appointees, some of whom—including the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense himself—Trump has reportedly frozen out of his inner circle. (Given that those positions are held by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, respectively, it is both terrifying and a relief to know that they may have little real influence.) The American defense and intelligence communities are excellent, but they can function for only so long without competent leadership. Trump has had preternatural luck as president: He has survived scandals, major policy failures, and even impeachment, events that would have ended other American planes dropped their payloads and returned home safely. So he might skate past this war, even if it will be hard to explain to the MAGA faithful who believed him, as they always do, when he told them that he was the peace candidate. But perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable gamble Trump took in bombing Iran was sending American forces into harm's way in the Middle East with a team that was never supposed to be in charge of an actual war. Article originally published at The Atlantic
