CCSN salary case unfolds

Jennifer Knight

Wednesday, July 25, 2001 | 10:59 a.m.

Ever since Duane Stevens was hired at the Community College of Southern Nevada in 1991, he has been considered a good employee. He's done his work well and knows more than most about heating and air conditioning systems.

Stevens' reward for his good work over the years has come in the form of two promotions and a series of salary increases worth more than $27,000 over an eight-year period, according to grand jury transcripts.

The yearly contract renewals, promotions and large salary increases for Stevens had the final approval of one man -- his boss and son-in-law Orlando Sandoval, according to CCSN employees who testified before the grand jury.

As Sandoval faces charges of unlawful employment of a relative in District Court on Aug. 2, grand jury testimony of key witnesses was released to the public last week, giving a closer look at the case against him.

Sandoval stepped down as associate vice president of planning for CCSN in January 2000 to become the interim vice president of administration at the proposed state college in Henderson. His contract at the state college expired June 30, two days after the grand jury indicted him. The charges against him stem from activities while he was at CCSN.

During a full-day of testimony, witnesses were asked about Sandoval's involvement in the hiring, promotion and salary increases of his father-in-law.

Sandoval did not testify before the grand jury on June 28, but he said this week that he was unaware of the anti-nepotism law and said he will enter a plea of not guilty.

"I never needed to know (about the anti-nepotism law)," Sandoval said. "I'm innocent. I never hired my father-in-law. He was treated like everybody else."

The crime, a gross misdeameanor, has been on the books since 1927 and is designed to prevent public employees from using positions of influence to hire or benefit relatives. The maximum penalty is one year in prison.

When Stevens applied for the job 10 years ago, he had asked Sandoval about the potential conflict of interest, he testified.

"I says well, is there a law against, you know, applying?" Stevens testified. "I mean you work there. 'No, there's no law,' (Sandoval said), but he did make it clear to me that there was no guarantee that I could get a job, because, you know, he did work there, and he could not have anything to do with it."

Stevens was hired at an entry-level position as a heating and air-conditioning specialist making $32,862 a year and placed under the immediate supervision of Sal Saporito, who reported to Sandoval.

That connection is a key element in the case, since all paperwork for promotions and salary increases went through Sandoval, according to grand jury testimony.

Over the course of eight years Stevens was promoted twice, first in 1995, when he was made special projects manager with a salary of $42,000 a year. The job title upgraded him to professional staff, a classification that provides better job security and benefits.

Then in 1999 Stevens was given the title of associate director of operations for his division with a salary of $60,000 a year, almost double his starting pay.

Those promotions, along with merit raises, gave Stevens average increases of between 7 percent and 11 percent a year during his CCSN career. By comparison, out of 60 college administrative employees eligible for merit increases last year, 22 got 5 percent raises. The remaining 38 people were passed over, according to figures released by the attorney general's office.

Neither promotion changed the chain of command that Stevens was under, nor did they change the management structure, said Brian Kunzi, the prosecuting attorney on the case.

Testimony showed that Stevens went through a different raise process than others. While his immediate supervisor, Saporito, would make recommendations for a pay increase, the final approval rested with Sandoval, Stevens told the grand jury.

On at least two occasions, Stevens got more than the recommended amount through a process called equity adjustments.

So-called equity pay was a process used by Richard Moore, then-president of the college. Employees were chosen at random to receive a pay increase that was above the normal merit raise.

"... we would basically receive no justification (for equity pay raises), just a special adjustment for some purpose," Patty Charlton, interim associate vice president for finance administration, said in her testimony.

In order to pay for such increases, Charlton said, she would have to "find other sources through salary savings, freezing positions or adjusting the operating structure of the budget in order to accommodate those salary adjustments."

Those types of raises have since been stopped, Charlton said.

According to Saporito's testimony, he never recommended that Stevens get any equity adjustments. He wasn't aware that they existed.

Of the 22 employees working under Sandoval, Stevens, Saporito and two other employees were the only ones to receive such increases.

Equity adjustments needed special approval from the president, because they exceeded the normal 2 percent to 5 percent annual salary increases.

When Stevens was up for such a raise, Charlton said, she was called into Moore's office. With Sandoval sitting beside him, Moore asked that Stevens' pay be made "an even $60,000." No explanation was given and, "that was that," Charlton said.

"Actually, it was obvious that it had been discussed previously," Charlton testified.

"I don't want to dispute Patty's (Charlton's) memory," Sandoval said. "I appreciate the job she did as budget director, but I don't remember that."

In each of the two promotions received by Stevens, a new job title was created for him, which bumped him up in salary at the same time. Each time the recommendation was made by his immediate supervisor, and each time Sandoval signed off on it, according to witness testimony.

A trial date will be set for Sandoval during his initial appearance on Aug. 2. It is not clear yet whether Moore will be called as a witness in the case.

Moore said he would wait for the judicial process to be completed before commenting.