The Clark County School Board recently made a decision in a 5-2 vote not to pursue an appeal on a court ruling regarding the rights of nonvoting trustees. The ruling overturned a district policy that limited the abilities of these trustees to make motions and ask for previous decisions to be reconsidered. Instead of engaging in a lengthy legal battle, the board has chosen to focus on the search for a new superintendent.
The issue at hand stems from a law passed in 2023 by state lawmakers, which created four nonvoting positions on the board. These positions are filled by appointments from Clark County, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson. According to the law, these nonvoting trustees have the same rights and responsibilities as the elected members but cannot vote in the election of new board officers or serve as board officers. Although this law was opposed by Nevada school boards and districts, it passed with bipartisan support.
Shortly after the new trustees took office in January, the board passed a policy that restricted their powers, leading to a lawsuit from the cities of Henderson and North Las Vegas. In a ruling on May 29, Clark County District Court Judge Nadia Krall sided with the municipalities, stating that the policy violated the law.
The decision not to pursue an appeal was supported by Trustees Lola Brooks, Linda Cavazos, Lisa Guzman, Brenda Zamora, and Irene Bustamante Adams. Trustee Cavazos, who made the motion, emphasized that the board’s main focus should be on the superintendent search. Nonvoting Trustees Ramona Esparza-Stoffregan and Dane Watson agreed that an appeal would be a waste of time and resources.
However, Board President Evelyn Garcia Morales and Trustee Katie Williams voted against the motion. Garcia Morales expressed concerns that the ruling could potentially allow municipalities to exert authority over an independent school district and its policies. Guzman also pointed out that individuals appointed to a board typically do not have the privilege of making motions under Robert’s Rules of Order.
Trustee Brooks, although disagreeing with the court ruling, voted in favor of the motion to avoid potential future conflicts between elected and nonvoting trustees. She expressed worries about the board descending into chaos if tensions were to rise between members with voting powers and those without.
Cavazos defended the nonvoting trustees, highlighting their significant contributions to the board despite their lack of voting rights. She dismissed Brooks’ concerns as “ludicrous” and emphasized the valuable input and experience that the nonvoting trustees bring to the table.
Overall, the board’s decision not to pursue an appeal reflects a desire to move forward and focus on important matters such as the superintendent search, rather than getting caught up in a legal dispute over the rights of nonvoting trustees.
