fbpx
Nevada Policy

Press

Press Releases

Hundreds of teachers left CCEA union this summer

LAS VEGASMore than 465 teachers opted out of the Clark County Education Association teacher union between July 1 and 15, 2013, according to the Clark County School District.

That two-week period is the only part of the year, according to the union’s contract with CCSD, during which current union members can drop their CCEA membership. For the last two years, the short window has been the subject of a Nevada Policy Research Institute informational campaign directed at teachers.

Currently, only 10,648 of CCSD’s 17,908 teachers are members of CCEA. The 469 teachers who left the union this July joined more than 800 teachers who left the previous summer. Union teachers now constitute only 60 percent of the district’s teacher workforce.

Responding to this news, NPRI Communications Director Victor Joecks released the following comments:

This summer, hundreds of teachers voted with their feet and left the Clark County Education Association. Because teachers can only opt out of CCEA between July 1 and 15, NPRI has been informing teachers of this narrow window and how they can use it. Many teachers are otherwise unaware of this limited and inconvenient drop period.

By leaving the union, 469 teachers decided they would keep $773 more of their own money each year, instead of sending their money to an organization that recently paid a union boss over $625,000 annually. Other teachers are turned off by the union’s terrible customer service or prefer getting their liability insurance from groups — such as the Association of American Educators — that charge only a fraction of what the union does.

In 2007, CCSD records show that CCEA membership exceeded 13,000. Today it is under 10,700. CCEA represents less than 60 percent of teachers, which is down from 65 percent in mid-2012.

The limited and inconvenient drop period written into the union’s contract with CCSD has been a transparent attempt by union bosses to keep their power by restricting teachers’ ability to leave CCEA. That contract language shows that union officials see teachers more as dupes to manipulate than as professionals entitled to respect.

To avoid this problem, Nevada’s Legislature should eliminate the restrictive drop periods union officials insert into collective-bargaining contracts to keep teachers captive.

“While NPRI's information campaign reached thousands of teachers,” said Joecks, “there still were thousands we weren’t able to reach. We will continue our efforts to provide every teacher in Nevada with this information.

“Unlike union bosses, NPRI trusts teachers enough to think they should be allowed make their own decisions about union membership — and act on those decisions when they choose to.”

Read more:

###

NPRI files notice of appeal in CCSD open-records case

LAS VEGAS The Nevada Policy Research Institute today took its fight to get Clark County School District public records to the Nevada Supreme Court, in filing a notice of appeal with the Eighth Judicial District Court.

NPRI sued CCSD after the district refused to release the email addresses it issues to teachers. Last month, in a widely criticized decision, District Court Judge Douglas Smith granted CCSD’s motion to dismiss.

In announcing the filing, Joseph Becker, the director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, released the following comments:

Nevada’s Supreme Court has a history of overturning judicial district decisions that errantly attempt to limit Nevada’s Public Records Act. NPRI’s open-records case needs to be the next example of the Supreme Court defending the public-records law by reversing a misguided lower-court decision.

We are appealing to the Supreme Court to uphold both the clear language of the law and a recent Supreme Court ruling finding that the Nevada Public Records Act’s provisions should be “construed liberally.” Additionally, the redefining by the district judge of NPRI’s request for records as a “request for a communication device or method” is a dangerous precedent that must be overturned. If not, government officials will be able to deny legitimate requests for public records based on their interpretations of how those records will be used.

Becker noted that a diverse group of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and the Nevada Press Association, strongly disagreed with the judge’s ruling.

Allen Lichtenstein, ACLU Nevada attorney, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that “[t]he Nevada Supreme Court has been quite clear that government records are public, with very limited exceptions.” Of the directory of email addresses NPRI is seeking, Lichtenstein added: “It’s a public record.”

Barry Smith, who helped craft Nevada’s Public Records Act, stated, “I’m not following the judge’s logic. This is clearly a matter of public record.”

Two voices within the Review-Journal that often disagree with each other, the paper’s editorial board and columnist Steve Sebelius, both criticized the judge’s decision. The editorial board wrote that the “poorly reasoned decision begs to be overturned,” while Sebelius produced a column entitled “Plenty of grounds to appeal teacher email decision.”

Concluded Becker:

The Nevada Public Records Act exists to further the democratic necessity of an accountable government — ensuring that public records are broadly accessible by the public. The Nevada Supreme Court needs to defend this principle by overturning the judge’s decision to grant CCSD’s motion to dismiss.

Case documents:

The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is a public-interest law organization that litigates when necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals as set forth in the state and federal constitutions.

Learn more about the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and this case at http://npri.org/litigation/.

###

NPRI to appeal CCSD open-records lawsuit to Nevada Supreme Court

LAS VEGAS — Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Douglas Smith has granted the Clark County School District’s motion to dismiss the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s public-records lawsuit seeking government-issued email addresses.

In response, Joseph Becker, the director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, announced the Center will appeal. He released the following comments:

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for those seeking information under the Nevada Public Records Act, and that’s why we will appeal this ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Despite both the clear language of the law and a recent Supreme Court ruling finding that the Nevada Public Records Act’s provisions should be “construed liberally,” this district court has misapplied the law and denied our request for a public record.

Bizarrely, the court redefined NPRI’s request for CCSD’s government-issued email directory for government employees as not a request for records, but as a “request for a communication device or method.” While a list of email addresses may lead to communications, that’s distinctly different from requesting a communications device.

If allowed to stand, this harmful precedent will allow government agencies or judges to deny public-record requests based on their interpretation of the function the information will have once received. The law provides no such leeway — and for good reason. Public information should be available to the public upon request, not available only if government bureaucrats want that information released.

The district court also misapplied NRS 239B in ruling that the records NPRI requested are confidential. That statute does make email addresses that individuals provide to government agencies confidential, with some exceptions.

That’s the opposite of what’s happening here, however, because CCSD is creating the email addresses and providing them to its employees. NPRI seeks the list CCSD created, not anything citizens submitted to CCSD.

The Court is bound to enforce the plain, unambiguous language of NRS 239B.040, but the Court’s misreading of the law here is mystifying.

The Nevada Public Records Act exists to further the democratic necessity of an accountable government — ensuring that public records are broadly accessible by the public. Unfortunately, district courts have a history of limiting the public’s access to public records, only to be later overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court.

That needs to happen in this case as well.

Case documents:

The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is a public-interest law organization that litigates when necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals as set forth in the state and federal constitutions.

Learn more about the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and this case at http://npri.org/litigation/.

###

NPRI announces college scholarship winner

LAS VEGAS — Julianne Newman, a co-valedictorian of Foothill High School in Henderson, has been chosen as the third recipient of the Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship, the Nevada Policy Research Institute announced today.

​NPRI awarded Julianne the scholarship in recognition of her academic excellence, volunteer and extra-curricular activities, including 300 hours of community service, and her well-written essay answering the question: “What impact would raising taxes have on the economy in general, on Nevada's unemployment rate and on struggling businesses and families?”

“It was a privilege to award this scholarship to Julianne,” said Swadeep Nigam, who has generously funded the scholarship program. “Her academic achievements, several hundred hours of volunteer work and excellent essay on the destructive impacts of raising taxes made her a worthy winner. Julianne continues the tradition of talented and accomplished scholarship recipients.”

“Julianne’s essay and achievements set her application apart from the field,” said NPRI President Andy Matthews. “It’s great to be able to reward such a talented young person as she is about to enter one of Nevada’s fine universities.”

Beginning in the fall of 2013, Julianne will be attending the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to pursue a Bachelor’s degree in business.

Professor R.S. Nigam, the scholarship’s namesake, was a director of the Delhi School of Economics at the University of Delhi, a visiting professor at the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and a senior fellow at the University of Wisconsin, in addition to academic engagements in Europe, the West Indies and Asia, including North Korea. The scholarship was made possible through a generous donation from Professor Nigam’s son, Swadeep Nigam, who is an active member of NPRI and has resided in Las Vegas for the past 25 years.

Previous recipients of the Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship include Katarina A. Krouse and Daniel Waqar.

“This scholarship and its third recipient are a fitting way to honor Professor R.S. Nigam, a man devoted to education and who has taught at UNLV and around the world,” said Matthews. “We appreciate this opportunity to honor Professor Nigam, and also to help provide Julianne with assistance in continuing her education.”

NPRI will offer its fourth annual Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship to eligible high school seniors in Clark County in the spring of 2014.

Photo cutline: Swadeep Nigam awards Julianne Newman the Professor R.S. Nigam & NPRI Freedom Scholarship.

###

Chief Judge denies United States’ motions to dismiss in NPRI’s pursuit of justice for Solid Rock Church

LAS VEGAS  The chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada yesterday rejected all attempts by U.S. attorneys to dismiss claims brought by NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation on behalf of Pastor Victor Fuentes and Ministerio Roca Solida Church (Solid Rock Church).

The suit — before Chief Judge Robert C. Jones — seeks restoration of the church’s water, declaratory and injunctive relief, takings relief, and restitution from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for negligent actions by the agency resulting in more than $86,000 in damage to the church’s property.

Patch of Heaven, in the Amargosa Valley, is a church retreat that suffered significant damage in 2010 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service illegally rerouted a stream that has historically flowed through Patch of Heaven. Less than three weeks after being rerouted, the stream overflowed the federal agency’s poorly engineered new banks during rain showers — sending destructive floods of mud and muddy waters through the camp.

“We are gratified that the Court has rejected the government’s numerous motions to dismiss and is allowing our pursuit of justice for Pastor Victor Fuentes to move forward,” said Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of CJCL. “While the government is desperate to avoid accountability for its irresponsible and destructive actions, the time has now come for government and its officials to face the consequences of their actions.

“To evade responsibility for their actions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Refuge Manager cited, among other justifications, the intact, but unfortunate, judicial doctrine of sovereign immunity held over from the days of monarchies. Sovereign immunity states a government may only be sued when it gives its ‘subjects’ explicit permission to do so.”

Ironically, Victor Fuentes came to the United States to escape oppression from another government that claims “sovereign immunity.” In 1991, he swam seven miles from near his home in Santiago, Cuba, to Guantanamo Bay and gained political asylum.

“I am an immigrant from Cuba who risked death to escape Castro’s regime, only now I am in a country overrun by a federal government that reminds me of the horrors from which I fled,” said Fuentes. “In Cuba, I had this beautiful image of America as a place of freedom and liberty, but after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recklessly damaged our property through its irresponsible actions, that image has changed.”

Becker noted, however, that despite the government’s attempts to dismiss all claims and all defendants to the lawsuit, all claims and defendants remain.

The defendants’ Answer to the Complaint is expected by month’s end.

Case documents:

The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is a public-interest law organization that litigates when necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals as set forth in the state and federal constitutions.

Learn more about the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and this case at http://npri.org/litigation/.

###

NPRI comments on court hearing in public records lawsuit against CCSD

LAS VEGAS Today, Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court heard arguments in the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s public records lawsuit against the Clark County School District. At issue in this morning’s hearing was CCSD’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

After the hearing, Joseph Becker, the director of NPRI’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation, who is representing NPRI in the lawsuit, released the following comments.

The Nevada Public Records Act (NPRA) considers all government records to be public documents available for disclosure unless otherwise explicitly made confidential by statute or by a balancing of public interests against privacy or law enforcement justifications for nondisclosure.

The Legislature has declared that the purpose of the NPRA is to further the democratic ideal of an accountable government by ensuring that public records are broadly accessible. In 2007, in order to better accomplish these purposes, the Legislature amended the NPRA to provide that its provisions must be liberally construed to maximize the public's right of access. In addition, the Legislature amended the NPRA to provide that if a state entity withholds records, it bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the records are confidential.

Therefore, citizens must be given access to government records and must be able to communicate easily and conveniently with those government officials.

Both in its motion to dismiss and at today’s hearing, CCSD relied heavily on NRS 239B.040 — a statute the intent of which is to make email addresses provided to governments by citizens for the purpose of communicating with that government confidential. Clearly, this statute does not apply when a government entity creates the email addresses.

CCSD also argued that fulfilling NPRI’s public records request would create a spam issue for teachers. Becker continued:

First, it’s essential to note that efficiency is not the guiding principle in public records law. Rather, it’s about open government and abiding by the principle that government officials serve the public, not the other way around. So unless the government is considering the consequences of legitimate law enforcement or privacy concerns or statutory exemptions which explicitly make records confidential, the law doesn’t allow hypothetical consequences of releasing the records — as imagined by government bureaucrats — to be a factor in public records decisions.

Second, we don’t need to guess what happens when thousands of teachers’ email addresses are publicly available — we already know. As detailed in our opposition brief, there is a website that currently contains over 8,000 email addresses for CCSD teachers. If having thousands of teacher emails publicly available would lead to teachers not being able to do their jobs because of a spam deluge, as was suggested today, it would already be happening. But it’s not. Instead, CCSD is hiding behind an empirically disproven hypothetical to avoid following the law.

The law is on the side of NPRI and transparent government.

Becker urged Judge Douglas Smith to follow the law to include recent Supreme Court precedent and reject CCSD’s motion to dismiss.

The Eighth Judicial District court is now considering CCSD’s motion to dismiss and District Court Judge Douglas Smith said he would make a decision within a week or so.

Requested in the lawsuit are 1) the public records, 2) that the court enjoin CCSD from delaying and denying future legitimate public records requests, and 3) costs and attorney fees.

Case documents:

The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation is a public-interest law organization that litigates when necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals as set forth in the state and federal constitutions.

Learn more about the Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation and this case at http://npri.org/litigation/.

###

Media Mentions

Opinion piece by Nevada Policy president, John Tsarpalas

Nevada Policy article on business regulations in the state of Nevada

Quote from Outreach and Coalition Director, Marcos Lopez.

Nevada Policy

Media Inquiries

Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Join the fight to save Nevada.

Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.

Media Inquiries

Name(Required)