Proposed Ordinance Reins In Subcommittees

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

The Mesquite City Council voted to introduce an ordinance that would limit auxiliary committees or advisory boards from summoning city employees to appear in public meetings to consider their character, job performance or fitness to serve in their position.

The proposed ordinance would prohibit public bodies from taking this kind of action unless expressly authorized to do so by the City Council, the Mesquite City Charter or the Mesquite Municipal Code.

The ordinance, which was introduced with a 4-1 vote of the Council at a meeting held Tuesday, Mar. 23. Before a final vote on the matter takes place, a public hearing must be held at the upcoming April 13 City Council meeting.

The proposed measure was, at least in part, a response to a recent special meeting of the Virgin Valley Community Education Advisory Board (CEAB). In this Mar. 3 meeting, the CEAB discuss the role of School Resource Officer (SRO) Larry Stewart of the Mesquite Police Department.

Stewart had come under internal disciplinary proceedings when he allegedly failed to report an incident of possible child abuse/neglect to the Child Protective Services as required by law. This incident reportedly took place in an at-work incident which was entirely separate from his role as SRO.

But CEAB members had said that they had heard parents expressing concerns to them about Stewart continuing to serve as SRO because of this incident. Thus, the board had agendized the item and asked Stewart to appear to address these parent concerns.

Council member Sandra Ramaker, who had submitted the ordinance for consideration, acknowledged in last week’s Council meeting that matters of concern do arise where advisory boards and committees may feel obliged to investigate into them. But she said that these committee meetings may not be the appropriate venue to do so.

“I understand that there are things that you can be concerned with, and we appreciate that you want to answer those,” Ramaker said. “But if you have a complaint against a City employee there is a complaint form to report it. There is a process. Let’s work through the system. We don’t want anyone to just be able to bring somebody up in a public forum because they think something is wrong without going through the process.”

Council member Brian Wursten agreed that the complaint-filing process should be followed in these matters. But he voiced opposition to the idea that the Council should limit the ability of these committees or advisory boards in this way.

“I think that people go to this board, or the other boards, and talk about things, and if they have questions that are being brought to them by the public, I think the boards should be able to do this,” Wursten said. “We didn’t act on this matter as a council. We could have but we did not. So I think that if there are people coming to (these boards) with concerns, they need to act on it if we are not going to”
Wursten cited that the rules for such a discussion before a public body are already set forth in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He pointed out that in the case of the CEAB meeting those rules had been followed to the letter, under the supervision of Interim City Attorney Adam Anderson.

“This situation was done 100 percent legally and exactly the way it was supposed to be done according to the NRS,” Wursten said. “By turning around now and saying that this has to be approved by the City Council goes against the statute as it is written.”

Interim City Attorney Adam Anderson explained that these subcommittees and boards are a “creature” of the City Council, meaning that they are subject to the Council in sticking to the scope of what they have been commissioned to do. That does not include review of City personnel, he said.

“The normal order is that if I am not doing my job or (City Manager) Aaron (Baker) is not doing his job, then the Council can say ‘Hey! you’re out of here.’” Anderson said. “But an individual employee of any of the City Departments, those matters fall on the department heads.”

Anderson emphasized that employee disciplinary matters are often confidential. He added that it was not a specified role of the subcommittees or CEAB to evaluate job performance of city employees.

“It seems inappropriate to have a specific committee bring in certain employees; to serve them with notice and to have their attorneys present and to evaluate them; when those subcommittees have no authority to discipline, to take action, to terminate, or to make any kind of employment decision,” Anderson said. “That sits with the attorney, or the City Manager or the appropriate department head.”

Sensing the direction that the item might go, Wursten said that his door would be open to the city CEAB and city subcommittees to propose such discussions in their meetings.

“If this happens to pass, they can bring it to me, whether I agree with it or not, and it can be brought up in a City Council meeting,” Wursten said.

Wursten first made a motion to reject the introduction of the bill as an ordinance. The motion died for lack of a second.

Ramaker then made a motion to approve the bill’s introduction. This motion was passed with only Wursten voting in opposition.