Las Vegas Sun

October 22, 2014

Currently: 82° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Top state court to take up Clark County school ballot initiative

Updated Friday, Aug. 31, 2012 | 9 a.m.

School district officials consider bond proposal

KSNV coverage of the Clark County School District considering a new bond that would help repair schools and increase taxes, April 12, 2012.

Rex Bell Elementary School

Principal Tim Adams of Rex Bell Elementary School checks out a roof leak on school grounds in Las Vegas Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011. Launch slideshow »

The Nevada Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge that would keep the Clark County School District from asking voters this fall to approve a $720 million ballot initiative to fund six years of renovations and replacements at some of the district's oldest and deteriorating schools.

The court, which is opening its fall term next week, has set an 11:30 a.m. Sept. 5 in Las Vegas of an appeal by the Nevada Policy research Institute to a ruling by Clark County District Judge Valorie Vega, who last week ruled the School District's "pay-as-you-go" measure could remain on the November ballot. Nevada Policy Research Institute alleges the Clark County Regional Debt Management Commission violated Nevada's open meeting law when it approved the School District's ballot language earlier this year.

Karen Gray, an employee of the research institute, said she was not given a chance to speak before the debt commission vote. The institute, a conservative think tank, and Gray say this violates the open meeting law, a charge the debt commission denies.

According to published reports, Clark County Commissioner Susan Barger, who was chairwoman of the debt committee at the meeting in question, said she made eye contact with Gray who was the only member of the public present.

Barger said she then asked if anyone had any questions or comments and added, "We don't want anyone to be stifled. Huh?"

Gray, in court depositions, says, however, that Barger looked at her and that there was "nonverbal action." She didn't understand that was to invite public comment. Public comment was permitted at the end of the meeting.

Vega declined to issue a preliminary injunction to keep the question from being presented to the voters while controversy of an open meeting violation is being decided.

Chief Justice Michael Cherry denied a motion by lawyers for the policy institute to delay the Wednesday hearing because of a scheduling conflict. The court set the hearing date last Friday and Cherry said it will go forward in Las Vegas at 11:30 a.m.

The Clark County Election Department said the issue must be resolved quickly because it was getting ready to print sample ballots and they must be sent out overseas by Sept. 21.

In denying the institute's motion for a preliminary injunction, Vega noted it waited 57 days after the meeting to file its petition. Vega said Brager's recollection of the events was backed by others.

Vega said even assuming a violation of the open meeting law occurred, the institute "failed to establish why that necessarily would prevent the public from voting on the ballot question in November."

CORRECTION: This corrects earlier versions that mischaracterized the ballot initiative and the proposed amount to be spent. | (August 31, 2012)

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 2 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The NPRI should be ashamed of wasting CCSD's time and resources with such a ridiculous lawsuit. Let the voters vote. The reality is that some of our schools are falling apart and need this bond money. If we don't fix the problems now, the repair costs will be out of control. The NPRI's ultra-conservatism has stood in the way of Nevada's educational system for too long and it's time Nevada's demand a quality education.

  2. @Nick - Every kid in the district in not getting an IPad. There are 5 schools that are part of this "1:1 IPad Project." and from my understanding, the money is coming from a federal grant specifically for this project.

    That being said, as a teacher at one of this schools, I can't say the idea of getting an IPad handed to me while a few of my colleagues received pink slips sat too well with me either. However, at the same time, all we did was joke about how long it would be before they were re-hired anyway.

    In regards to those IPads, there are definitely concerns regarding how they'll be used by the students, but I will say that the educational applications, if implemented properly, are limitless. That's not to say I'm not skeptical to see how this all works out at my school and if the staff can indeed coerce students into actually using the IPads for their intended use. Of course, none of this actually relates to the story.

    Regarding the bond issue: Doesn't it seem a bit more, I don't know, democratic to simply allow the issue to be votd upon by the very peopLe who would be affected by the issue? I know we're all slowly slipping into socialism anyway, but wouldn't it be best to at least keep up appearances for a bit longer?