Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2005 | 8:16 a.m.
Jeff German's column appears Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday in the Sun. Reach him at [email protected] or (702) 259-4067.
No one expected Las Vegas police to stay on the canvas for long in their heavyweight battle with the county to win a new contract.
The cops have risen to fight again, throwing a solid punch to the county's kisser late Monday.
Taking the brunt of the blow is County Manager Thom Reilly, the man the cops believe orchestrated the demise of a tentative collective bargaining agreement they reached with the Metro Police Department in September.
Lawyers for the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the union that represents 2,400 officers, filed a lawsuit in District Court against Reilly, the Clark County Commission and the police department as part of an effort to obtain an order to enforce the four-year agreement.
The 15-page lawsuit argues that the contract, by state law, did not even have to be brought before the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee, which last week rejected the agreement following some unprecedented political maneuvering by the county.
The panel, which oversees the police department's budget, rejected the deal even though rank-and-file PPA members overwhelmingly ratified the contract, 1,191 to 76.
According to the lawsuit, the PPA targets Reilly, a critic of the agreement, which guaranteed the cops a hefty pay raise.
" ... based upon information and belief," the complaint says, "Reilly has disseminated misinformation for the purpose of confusing the citizens of the county and the city.
"Further ... the Las Vegas Review-Journal has widely reported this matter and, in news articles, editorials and the printing of letters to the editor, has engaged in a public campaign of misinformation, seemingly in collusion with Reilly, the county and the six named members of the commission."
The suit does not explain what "misinformation" was made public.
But the allegation pretty much confirms that this fight is going to be as ugly as predicted in this space.
Days before the Fiscal Affairs vote, the County Commission removed Commissioner Tom Collins, who supported the contract, from a seat on the five-member panel and replaced him with Chairman Rory Reid, an opponent of the agreement.
That gave the county three votes to reject the deal.
But it also gave the PPA an argument in its complaint to accuse the county of interfering with the negotiations "with actual malice, fraud and/or oppression."
Ironically, the complaint explains, there is nothing in NRS 280, the 1973 state law that created the Fiscal Affairs Committee, that obligates the union and the police department to bring a labor agreement to the panel.
" ... NRS 280 indicates that Fiscal Affairs must approve the department's budget, but does not indicate that it must approve collective bargaining agreements," the PPA complaint says.
"Further ... Fiscal Affairs is not a government employer pursuant to NRS 288 and therefore has no right to approve a collective bargaining agreement."
Past contracts, the PPA contends, were merely submitted to the committee as a courtesy and were routinely approved.
I'm told the police department, though it has been an ally of the cops in this fight, was named as a defendant because of its alleged mistaken belief that the contract had to win the blessing of Fiscal Affairs.
It's an intriguing argument that, if successful, could turn things around for the cops in their quest for the pay raise they want.
But in the meantime, the reputations of a lot of people -- including those in the news media -- will be on the line.
archive
