Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2005 | 8:30 a.m.
The key figure in Monday's vote to deny a new Metro Police contract said he rejected the deal out of deference to Clark County officials, and not because he objected to the four-year contract's 25.6 percent increase in salary and benefits.
The revelation that Thomas, chairman of the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee, may have personally favored the contract sparked debate about whether he should have let political considerations determine his "no" vote.
In a move harshly criticized by top police officials, Thomas sided with Clark County Commissioners Rory Reid and Chip Maxfield against the wishes of Las Vegas Councilmen Gary Reese and Larry Brown, who favored the compensation hike.
Thomas, a Las Vegas developer who has served on the five-member committee for 12 years, said he sided with the county because the wishes of taxpayers should supersede his own opinions.
"Had I voted to move this contract forward, it would have meant that voters in the county didn't have a say in it," he said. "I probably would have felt different had it not been for six of seven commissioners against it."
"Where my sympathies lie and the way I voted don't necessarily coincide."
Thomas said if residents disagree with their commissioner's stance on the contract, they have the ability to elect someone else. However, if Thomas had gone against the county, unhappy voters would have no way of ousting him.
Among county commissioners, only Tom Collins supported the Metro contract, which would have boosted salaries by 16.8 percent over four years and increased health care contributions by 70 percent.
Collins had been on the Fiscal Affairs Committee until last week, when the commission voted to replace him with Reid in an unprecedented 11th-hour swap.
The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, of which Thomas is a former chairman, also publicly opposed the contract as part of an ongoing campaign to curtail government spending.
Sheriff Bill Young said he respects Thomas and understands the difficult position he was in, but Young said the longtime committee chairman should have focused solely on the merits of the proposed contract.
If Thomas believed the proposed pay and benefit increase was excessive, that would be a valid reason to vote against it, the sheriff said.
"That's not what he said. He said he was merely representing the county commissioners," Young said.
David Kallas, executive director of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, said there is no reason why Thomas should have sided with county instead of city representatives.
"It's a disservice to the city of Las Vegas because they, too, have duties and responsibilities proportional to those of the county," Kallas said.
But Thomas said the County Commission represents all of the residents Metro serves, while the City Council only speaks for those within city limits.
"What kind of frustration are all those voters going to have if they're taken out of the picture?" he said.
Young said the Fiscal Affairs Committee was created by the 1973 Legislature to approve financial decisions for Metro, which serves Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County.
In addition to placing two elected representatives from each local government on the committee, lawmakers decided to include a fifth, appointed member to settle possible ties.
Thomas said former Sheriff John Moran asked him to serve, and he has done so ever since.
Although the process of approving new police contracts has generally gone smoothly, Reid said it is an outdated system that doesn't provide adequate county representation.
"I think it's obvious to everyone that this process is flawed," Reid said. "It's antiquated -- it makes no sense."
But Brown and Reese focused on the contract itself, arguing that it would provide much-needed relief to a police force that is struggling to stay competitive with neighboring law enforcement agencies, and whose health care benefits rank 162nd nationally among police organizations.
"For some reason, a lot of the facts have been ignored," Brown said.
Thomas said he labored over the decision and did not make up his mind until the weekend.
Thomas said he is confident that most of the contract's components will be preserved.
County officials plan to begin a fact-finding process to determine how much compensation Metro officers should receive, although Young said it won't work because union officials won't accept the results.
If the nonbinding process fails to reach a mutual agreement, the next step would involve the use of an arbitrator whose ultimate decision would be legally binding, although Young said such decisions can be appealed.
Young said he doesn't agree that the bulk of the contract will stay intact, and he thinks it will probably take six to eight months to develop a new one.
"I think we're basically back to square one with the negotiations," he said.
J. Craig Anderson can be reached at 259-2320 or [email protected].
archive
