Judge’s ruling sides with school police
Clark County School District police won a legal victory this month when a District Court judge upheld a state labor board’s ruling that said the group is entitled to be covered by the same collective bargaining rules that apply to other police officers and firefighters.
Bill Hoffman, the district’s general counsel, had argued that school police should be treated as school support staff during labor talks.
The significance of the distinction is that police and firefighters have “expedited” access to an arbitrator to resolve impasses in talks, according to the legal decision. The contract between the district and school police expired in 2007, and a new deal has not been negotiated.
District Judge Allan Earl affirmed the status of school police as regular police officers under Nevada law. Earl said school police have evolved from campus security to law enforcement officers with the authority to arrest suspects and access confidential criminal databases.
“Long gone are the days when security officers worked out of the School Maintenance Department,” Earl wrote in his Jan. 11 opinion.
The judge said that “long, drawn-out, ‘hard ball’ labor negotiations on collective bargaining are not in keeping with a smooth, efficient and orderly resolution of labor disputes.”
Sgt. Phil Gervasi, president of the Police Officers Association of the Clark County School District, said he was eager to return to the negotiating table . The state’s Local Government Employee-Management Relations Board found in favor of school police in 2009. The district first argued against recognizing school police as police in 2008.
“We’re not asking for anything,” Gervasi said. “All we want is honest and fair negotiation.”
Gervasi estimated school police spent $150,000 in attorney fees to fight the case and said it would be a financial “waste” for the district to appeal the case again.
Hoffman said the district has not decided whether to appeal and defended the district’s argument.
“The difference is that the arbitrator in education personnel disputes considers the district’s obligation to provide educational services to children, while under the court’s ruling, the education of the children is not the primary concern in addressing financial matters,” he said.