Judge rules tax increase for education can appear on ballot

A conservative think tank failed Monday in its quest to erase a question for increasing property taxes from the November ballot.

District Court Judge Valorie Vega ruled in favor of Clark County School District, which seeks the tax increase to produce a maximum of $120 million a year for six years to renovate aging schools, buy equipment and construct schools.

"We're trying to put an issue on the ballot for the people to decide," said the district's lawyer, Dan Polsenberg, implying that the Nevada Policy Research Institute is trying to decide for voters and not merely fight for the transparency of government, as it has said. "I think this is bizarre. I think this case is a sham."

Now that the judge decided to allow the ballot question, voters have the choice of increasing property taxes by about 21 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Homeowners with a residence assessed at $100,000 would see an increase of $74.20 annually.

Jacob Hafter, lawyer for the institute, argued the ballot question should be stricken because the Regional Debt Management Commission didn't follow the open meeting law on June 7 when it unanimously approved it. The law requires public comment to be taken before a vote.

Hafter asserted that public comment wasn't taken before the vote because Chairwoman Susan Brager didn't formally ask for "public comment" but turned to Karen Gray, institute researcher and the only person in the audience, and asked, "Do you have any other questions? We don't want anyone to be stifled," according to the meeting's official audio recording.

"But she doesn't say 'public comment,'" said Hafter, contending "this is about the open meeting law" and not quashing the ballot initiative. "A wink and a nod is not a way to call public comment."

Polsenberg replied by pointing to the law, which doesn't spell out how public comment must be taken. It says, "Comments by the general public must be taken."

He called the case a "manufactured crisis," noting that Gray did not even speak up after the vote when Brager asked, "Any other comments by the general public?"

Not to mention, the institute waited 57 days to file its complaint, just shy of the 60-day limit. Polsenberg and school officials have said this was done because the commission had a July 16 deadline to get anything on the ballot. If the institute immediately made its complaint, the ballot question wouldn't be in danger. The commission could simply vote again.

Joyce Haldeman, associate superintendent for the district, asserted after the ruling that the institute's motivations have clearly been: "How do we keep this off the ballot?" The open meeting law was not violated, she contended.

Vega agreed, finding the commission's actions had no "harm," and the ballot question would therefore remain.

Though his group lost in District Court, NPRI President Andy Matthews asserts that it should have been an "open and shut" case in its favor. He said the group will appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

"We have no problem with the public being allowed to vote," he said.