Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2005 | 8:27 a.m.
When the police contract was voted down Monday, it was not the end, but in the Churchillian formulation, the end of the beginning.
It wasn't World War II. But the battle that the cops lost at the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee was but a skirmish in what will turn out to be a much more global conflict that will play out during a campaign season and define the power of the police union, the future of certain elected officials and the accountability (and accounting) of Clark County.
In the short term, this is about a broken, antediluvian process that allows a private citizen to determine whether a substantially higher police benefits package (26 percent over four years) is a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer money.
In fact, 32 years ago, when Metro was constituted, the progenitor of the fiscal affairs panel had three city folks and three county reps. Four years later, lawmakers gave the sheriff a seat and allowed him to be the tie-breaker. And in 1981, the fiscal affairs panel was changed to have its current makeup of two councilmen, two commissioners and one private citizen.
Businessman Peter Thomas' rationale for his vote -- that he wouldn't go against the will of six of the seven county commissioners even though he indicated he supported the agreement -- goes against the very reason for having him there.
If there is any argument for a non-elected official to cast a tie-breaking vote, it is that the person can be independent of the caprices that often afflict elected officials beholden to their constituents or special interests.
Imagine how Thomas would have been pilloried by the same contract opponents now lauding him if he used that "will of the commission" argument to vote for the pact if it had been supported by the county.
This is Lewis Carroll meets legislative overthink. Either give the sheriff control of his own budget or allow the council and commission to vote on the contract, with an arbitrator getting involved if the boards split.
The current pact is now going to arbitration, with a furious police union against a government whose steward, Manager Thom Reilly, has shown a dogged commitment to slashing personnel costs. Reilly, who has made the case to the media and his board that this fight is worth fighting, is about to find out what he is up against.
The Police Protective Association has hired experts from www.policepay.net to prepare a report that it hopes will sway an arbitrator. Sources say the report alleges that the county has tens of millions of dollars not allocated that could easily pay for the contract.
Expect the cops also to bring up the comparison of the commissioners' and county staff health benefits to their own, which are, like their salaries, low for law enforcement agencies.
The union folks are incensed that in their zeal to ensure a benchmark is not set for other unions, the county chose to make its stand against the police. My guess is the county would prefer a deal where the health benefits portion is kept intact but the cost-of-living-adjustments and retirement contributions are erased or scaled back -- along the lines of what the Culinary union negotiated for its members.
This kind of brinkmanship can be dangerous because an arbitrator has to choose one submission or the other. That is, if the cops, as they have indicated, submit this contract or an even richer proposal to the arbitrator, and the county puts in a significantly lower one, there is no middle ground.
This has to be making some elected officials nervous, especially county commissioners up for re-election. This may be the end of the beginning of this contract fight. But for some politicians, if the cops get their way, this may be the beginning of the end.
archive
