Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Why my friend Peter Thomas voted against the pay increase for Metro Police officers for all the wrong reasons

Thursday, Oct. 27, 2005 | 6:43 a.m.

I wouldn't exactly call Peter Thomas' vote against the new Metro Police contract "courageous."

That, of course, is what the Las Vegas Review-Journal called my friend Peter's vote that sank -- at least temporarily -- the 25 percent pay increase over the next four years for the men and women who put it on the line every day to keep the rest of us safe. But what else would you expect from a newspaper that doesn't believe in police contracts, the unions that negotiated them or the government, for that matter, that is responsible for providing such safety services to the people?

First, the Review-Journal poisons the well of public opinion by railing against our men and women in uniform and their desire to live better through higher wages and benefits, and then it pats on the back the lone representative on the Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee whose job it is to vote free of political considerations.

Then the Review-Journal follows up the "no" vote with a silly poll that says the majority of Clark County residents are against the raises in the first place, as if to say that all is well because that's what the people wanted anyway. The people want unhappy, underpaid and irate police with guns? Bet they didn't ask that question!

But rather than discuss the merits of the pay raise I think it far more important to discuss basic Government 101 and why I think Peter Thomas missed a golden opportunity to strike a blow for democracy, if not in how he voted then it how he justified his vote.

For the record, I am for paying police, firefighters, teachers and any other public servants who give up their lives and their time to better serve their communities whatever it takes to get the best and brightest to do those jobs. In my mind, we can't pay those folks enough money, especially now when we are squeezing them out of affordable housing and affordable lifestyles.

I also understand that there is always a balance to be struck by the governmental entities whose job it is to provide services at reasonable and responsible costs to the taxpayer.

That is why, quite frankly, there is a Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee, to make sure the balance remains intact.

When Peter Thomas voted "no" it wasn't because he believed the contract and the pay raises were irresponsible -- if anything, he indicated he might be sympathetic to the policemen's position -- but, rather, because he thought the people of Clark County should have the opportunity to vote on the matter or otherwise be heard.

Whether it is through a majority of the Clark County commissioners or a referendum vote of the people, I think his deference to that sentiment is where Peter got it wrong. In the first place, county taxpayers have their say through their two representatives on the Fiscal Affairs board. That's the way the Legislature decreed it should be. Two other representatives from Las Vegas and the public member --Thomas -- make the total of five, which should avoid a tie vote. Peter was not there to represent the County Commission. If you consider his sentiment in a broader context, you could make the case for referendum government so that the people will have a "vote" on all matters of importance. If so, we can abolish all of our boards, commissions, legislatures and even the U.S. Congress and just put everything to a vote of the people.

Obviously, such a plan would not work because it would be too cumbersome and far too expensive. That is why we elect and appoint people to "represent" our interests. But those people have to be willing to make the hard decisions, an area of governance in which those responsible have increasingly shrunk away from their obligations and pushed the matter over to the voters or anyone else handy.

I think that is where Peter made the mistake. As the member of the committee representing the public, he should have voted "yes" or "no" based on the substance of the contract and for no other reason. If the Legislature had wanted him to follow the lead of elected officials -- who have political considerations (like kowtowing to the Review-Journal) -- it would have just added another elected official.

By falling into the "let the voters decide" trap, Peter avoided the responsibility for which he has heretofore been known to accept. I know he was sincere, and he may have reached the right decision, but I think it was for the wrong reason. And, in doing so, he has helped perpetuate an outrageous and unworkable view of democracy that runs far afield of the intent of the framers of our Constitution.

I know he tried to do what he thought was right, but this time, my good friend Peter played right into the hands of those who hate government, hate unions and, despite what they say, aren't too keen on the people who keep us safe.

Otherwise, the Review-Journal wouldn't have called what Peter did, "courageous."

archive