School board looks for necessary ruling

It is unfortunate you did not have a reporter present at the Douglas County School Board meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 14. If you had, I am confident your reporter would have accurately and fairly presented the facts of the meeting to you and your readers and you would not have made so many errors in your editorial of Thursday, Nov. 16.

This board engaged in what was one of the longest, most in-depth discussions held in the past three years. When voters get their information only from the local newspapers, it is no wonder they are unacquainted with the facts of community issues. Your scathing editorial in Thursday's Nevada Appeal is an example of blatant media arrogance.

There was not a vote taken to "fight the voters' will." There was a 7-0 vote to seek a district court opinion on whether it was legal for Mr. Green to be seated on the board in January. Never did the board "threaten legal action if Green won." It was clear from legal counsel advice this board had no choice but to seek declaratory relief for clarification on a law that has no recorded case law. This was no threat.

Contrary to your Polyanna version of facts, trustees do not have the authority to arbitrarily pick and choose what laws they will uphold. There are many times in a democracy that governing bodies must go against what seems on the surface to be majority opinion. This, sir, is never easy to do.

If you had had a reporter present, I am sure they would have conveyed to you everything we heard from our legal counsel during the two-hour discussion.

It was clear the Howard Rosenberg case does not apply to the matter before our board. In fact, while they appear to be similar, the board of regents operates under a completely different set of Nevada Revised Statutes. Regents do not negotiate contracts and do not bear responsibility for said contracts. Our district is subject to the Government Purchasing Act and thus the decision of the Commission on Ethics on the Rosenberg case is inapplicable.

To the contrary, there have been two decisions from the ethics commission directly related to our issue, both of which went against employees like Mr. Green. There is no ambiguity on the issue. None.

I am dismayed as to why you, Mr. Green or anyone else would hesitate to have this law clarified by one of our very capable district judges. There is no better way to handle this issue. Until this district has court assurance that our district would not be in jeopardy if Mr. Green were to take his seat, it is our duty to seek an injunction.

Mr. Green has two years to take this issue to the legislature. He has chosen not to. The Nevada State Assembly, as you noted, is filled with teachers. Mr. Green should have no problem getting this issue heard. He has been indicating for two years that he wanted to challenge this law, why did he not go last session?

The law is clear, "a member of any board of trustees shall not be financially interested in any contact made by the Board of Trustees of which he is a member." It does not say, "some contracts" or "salary contracts" it says any contracts.

Looking over the past three agendas this board has had, Mr. Green would have been able to vote on only one issue. I now ask you, is that representative government? A governing board should never have to work with its hands tied in this way.

Personal opinion aside, this board has an obligation to this community to be prudent. Every board member that night did the right thing. I would say if we had voted not to seek district court opinion then and only then could you say we were acting against the will of the people. All seven board members who voted on Tuesday night took an oath to uphold the law. We did so.

By the way, there were three trustees who will not be back in January who voted, not two as you wrote in your editorial. It is my hope the district court will expedite this decision and we can have this resolved before Christmas. When adult issues take the foreground, students lose.

None of this is in the bet interest of students. To the contrary, the inflammatory rhetoric coming from both camps simply hurts our students. It is my sincere hope that we can get this issue behind us and move forward with the business of the district, student achievement and higher standards.