Attorneys Ethan Thomas, left, representing the Clark County School District and Bradley Schrager, center, representing the Clark County Educational Association (CCEA), listen to District Court Judge Crystal Eller during a hearing at the Regional Justice Center in downtown Las Vegas Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2023. John Vellardita, executive director of the CCEA, is seated to the left of Schrager.
Thursday, March 7, 2024 | 2 a.m.
The Clark County Education Association is appealing the state labor board’s decision allowing Clark County School District principals to directly give bonuses to teachers using specialized funding.
The union filed a petition last week in Clark County District Court to have a judge review and set aside a February decision by the Nevada Government Employee-Management Relations Board that determined that bonuses were not subject to collective bargaining if paid for with weighted funding for students who are “at-risk” or English-language learners.
The petition doesn’t specify why the union wants to appeal. It said CCEA “has been aggrieved” and its “rights have been prejudiced because the final decision is: a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; c) affected by other error of law; d) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or e) arbitrary or capricious, and characterized by abuse of discretion.”
The teachers union complained to the Employee-Management Relations Board, or EMRB, in May after it said it learned about potential bonuses being offered directly. The bonuses could have been as much as $1,000, according to CCEA’s filings. It was unclear which schools would have offered the incentives or when they would have been paid.
On Feb. 7, the EMRB — a quasi-judicial public agency that resolves disputes between local governments and their unions, — issued an order siding with CCSD.
Nevada Senate Bill 543, which became law in 2019, established a pupil-centered funding plan that provides base state funding for all public school students plus “weighted” amounts added per student who is at-risk, or low-income; has a disability; or needs second language learned or gifted programming to provide extra services.
The agency decided that the bill’s plain language meant that schools could use the added funds on compensation without first bargaining with unions. It pointed to provisions in SB 543 specifically allowing weighted funds to be used on incentives for hiring and retaining teachers who provide services to at-risk and ELL students. The bill also said that weighted funding “may not be used to settle or arbitrate disputes” between a union and district “or to settle any negotiations.”
“The Board thus finds that it is reasonable the Legislature intended to carve out an exception to the use of weighted funding given the conditions imposed on the use of these funds,” a panel of EMRB members decided. “Standardization with some limited flexibility is the hallmark of SB 543 and it is reasonable to conclude that as a matter of policy the Legislature did not want labor organizations and school districts negotiating in a way that could alter the clear intent of SB 543.”
A district spokesman said CCSD does not comment on pending litigation. CCEA’s executive director did not return a request for comment on behalf of members.
The complaint was one of seven claims that CCEA filed against CCSD in 2023 alone, as the district and union were battling during contract negotiations. (CCSD filed three against CCEA last year, records show.)
The union also blocked one-off bonuses last year when CCSD sought to use pandemic relief funds on hefty incentives for teachers in the Transformation Network, a group of elementary schools with the lowest achievement on standardized reading scores. Unions for support professionals and administrators in those schools allowed similar bonuses.
