Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BETWEEN
DISTRICT.
_________________________________________
BEFORE
ERIC B. LINDAUER
ARBITRATOR
__________________________________________
REPRESENTATION
Las Vegas, Nevada, regarding the terms of their 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Collective
Bargaining Agreement. During the negotiations over the terms of the successor
Agreement, the parties reached agreement on all contractual issues, except the
reaching impasse, the parties submitted the compensation and benefits issues to final
and binding arbitration. In accordance with NRS 288.217, the Arbitrator is to issue an
Award by choosing between the parties written final offers, based on the statutory
The arbitration hearing was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on December 7-8, 2016,
and March 14-16, 2017. During the course of the five days of hearing, each party had
examine witnesses on all matters relevant to the issues in dispute. A court reporter was
present during the hearing and prepared a transcript of the hearing, which was
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties agreed to submit their respective
positions to the Arbitrator in the form of written post-hearing briefs, which included
their final written offers. Upon receipt of the post-hearing briefs, the hearing record
was closed. The Arbitrator now renders this decision based on which parties final
written offer is the most reasonable based on the statutory criteria set forth in
NRS 288.200.
!2
ISSUE
Pursuant to NRS 288.200 7(b), the Arbitrator frames the issue to be decided in
Bargaining Agreement and the Nevada Revised Statutes are relevant to determine the
issues in dispute.
ARTICLE 20
PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION
***
20-8 For the 2013-1014 contract year and beyond, the compensation for
administrators covered by this Agreement shall be as follows:
!3
increase will become effective on July 1, 2013, for 12-month
administrators and on August 1, 2013, for 10- and 11-month
administrators.
20-9 The salary schedule for the 2014-2015 contract year will be
determined through negotiations. The salary schedule in effect for
2014-2015 will be increased by 2.79%. This salary increase will be
retroactive to July 1, 2014, for 12-month administrators and
retroactive to August 1, 2014, for 10- and 11-month administrators.
ARTICLE 21
HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS AND TRUST
***
21-2 Health Benefits
NRS 288.217
!4
Submission of dispute between school district and employee organization
to arbitrator: Selection of arbitrator; hearing; determination of financial
ability of school district; negotiations and final offer; effect of decision of
arbitrator; content of decision.
***
3. If the parties to a negotiation pursuant to this section have failed
to reach an agreement after at least eight sessions of negotiation, either
party may declare the negotiations to be at an impasse and, after 5 days
written notice is given to the other party, submit the issues remaining in
dispute to the arbitrator selection pursuant to subsection 2. The arbitrator
has the powers provided for fact finders in NRS 288.210.
5. The parties to the dispute shall each pay one-half of the costs of
the arbitration.
!5
8. If the parties do not enter into negotiations or do not agree
within 7 days after the hearing held pursuant to subsection 4, each of the
parties shall submit a single written statement containing its final offer for
each of the unresolved issues.
9. The arbitrator shall, within 10 days after the final offers are
submitted, render a decision on the basis of the criteria set forth in
NRS 288.200. The arbitrator shall accept one of the written statements
and shall report the decision to the parties. The decision of the arbitrator
is final and binding on the parties. Any award of the arbitrator is
retroactive to the expiration date of the last contract between the parties.
(a) Giving the arbitrators reason for accepting the final offer
that is the basis of the arbitrators award; and
NRS 288.200
***
7. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 10, any fact finder,
whether the fact finders recommendations are to be binding or not, shall
base such recommendations or award on the following criteria:
!6
(c) A consideration of funding for the current year being
negotiated. If the parties mutually agree to arbitrate a multiyear contract,
the fact finder must consider the ability to pay over the life of the contract
being negotiated or arbitrated.
NRS 354.6241
***
(f) The balance and retained earnings of the fund.
3. For any local government other than a school district, for purposes
of chapter 288 of NRS, a budgeted ending balance of not more than 25
percent of the total budget expenditures, less capital outlay, for general
fund:
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. Background
The Clark County School District (District) and the Clark County Association of
2015. (JX 2) The parties negotiated a two-year Successor Agreement and agreed their
!7
expired contract would remain in effect during their negotiations. The parties reached
Upon reaching impasse on the compensation and benefits issues, the parties
invoked the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) governing the submission of
NRS 288.217 sets forth the process the parties are to follow if an agreement is not
Following the selection of the arbitrator and the convening of the hearing, each
party is to submit ...a single written statement containing its final offer for each of the
unresolved issues. (NRS 288.217(8)) Following the submission of final written offers,
the arbitrator shall decide which of the final offers is the more reasonable on the basis
of the criteria set forth in NRS 288.200. (NRS 288.217(9)) The arbitrators Award is to
be retroactive to the expiration date of the last contract between the parties. (Id.)
The Clark County School District is the fifth largest school district in the nation,
metropolitan Las Vegas area and surrounding communities. The District employs 1,400
principals and associate principals, deans, administrators and coordinators who are
!8
Technical Employees. The school principals and administrators are responsible for
supervising the over 18,000 teachers assigned to teach in the 300 elementary, middle,
and high schools located throughout the District. The teachers, support staff and
school police all have separate collective bargaining agreements and have previously
reached agreement with the District on the terms of their successor Agreements,
including wages and benefits. The School Administrators is therefore the only
unresolved Collective Bargaining Agreement between the District and the four Unions
The 2013-15 Agreement between the District and the Administrators represents
the eighth contract between the parties and the first in which the parties have been
are the two articles governing professional compensation and health benefits and the
which led to the parties being at impasse and invoking the interest arbitration provisions
of NRS 288.217.
NRS 288.217 (8) states that in the event the parties are unable to reach
agreement during their negotiation over the terms of a new agreement, each party
shall submit a single written statement containing its final offer on each of the
!9
unresolved issues to the interest arbitrator. In this proceeding, the parties agreed to
submit their written final offers with their post-hearing briefs. The Associations final
offer on each of the unresolved issues is attached as Exhibit A, and the Districts final
reinstate the 1.125% PERS reduction, as well as the steps and longevity increases. The
projected cost of the Associations final offer is $19,504,305. In summary, the Districts
final offer requests that the Arbitrator award a 1.125% salary increase effective January
1, 2017, an additional 1.125% increase effective April 1, 2017, a two-step increase for
annual step and longevity pay for 2016-2017 effective July 1, 2016, and movement of
full steps from F to G on the salary scale effective July 1, 2015. The total cost of the of
the Districts final offer is $6,159,789. Therefore, the difference between the two final
offers is $13,344,516. The Arbitrator must determine which partys Final Written Offer
on the Compensation and Benefits for the 20152016 and 2016-2017 Collective
Bargaining Agreement is the more reasonable based on the criteria set forth in
NRS 288.200, Section 7 (a) and (b), sets forth the decision making criteria for an
interest-based award. In applying the statutory criteria in this case, the Arbitrator must
first determine whether the District has the financial ability to pay the Associations
requested increases in compensation and benefits. (NRS 288.200 (7)(a)) If the District
!10
has the financial ability to grant the requested compensation and benefits, then the
Finally, the Arbitrator is to consider the Districts financial ability to pay over the
life of the contract being administered, which in this case is a two-year contract.
NRS 288.200 (7) (a) and (b), the interest arbitrators decision must include a statement:
(a) Giving the arbitrators reason for accepting the final offer
that is the basis of the arbitrators award; and
Based on the criteria and requirements set forth in NRS 288.217 and
NRS 288.200, as applied to the evidence submitted in this case, the Arbitrator has
reached the following decisions on which partys final offers, on the Administrators
Compensation and Benefits for the 20152016 and 2016-2017 Collective Bargaining
DECISION
I. The District has the Financial Ability to Pay the Associations Requested
Monetary Benefits
The threshold issue for an interest arbitrator under the Nevada Revised Statutes
is a determination of the financial ability of the local government entity, in this case the
Clark County School District, to pay the Associations requested monetary benefits.
!11
This initial determination, as it applies to school districts, is set forth
NRS 288.217 (3) states that an interest arbitrator has the powers provided under
the fact finder statute, NRS 288.200. Under the fact finder statute, the financial ability
!12
In reaching a determination regarding whether the District has the ability to pay
makes the following findings based on the criteria set forth in the NRS 288.217 (6) and
NRS 288.200 (7)(a) and the testimony and exhibits submitted during the five-day
hearing.
A. The District has the Financial Ability to Pay the Associations Requested
Benefits Without Compromising the School Districts Obligation to
Provide an Education to the Children Residing within the District
In reaching a decision on the Districts financial ability to pay, the Arbitrator must
first consider the obligation of the school district to provide an education to the
children residing within the district as set forth in NRS 288.217(6)(a) and its obligation
to provide facilities and services guaranteeing the health, welfare and safety of the
people within the political subdivision, as required by NRS 288.200(7)(a). The District
offered no specific evidence indicating that teachers would be laid off if the
Associations final offer was granted, class sizes would be increased, days in the school
year would be curtailed, or the Districts ability to educate children within the District
The evidence did establish that cuts in the Districts budget would have to be
made, but there was no compelling evidence indicating the District would be unable to
fulfill its primary obligation of providing education to the children residing within the
school district if the Associations Final Offer was granted. In the absence of such
evidence, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the financial ability to pay the
!13
B. The District has the Financial Ability to Pay the Associations Requested
Benefits over the Term of the TwoYear Contract
The parties final offers recognize the monetary funds that will be necessary for
the requested increases in compensation and benefits will necessarily extend over the
life of the two-year agreement. Therefore, the Districts financial ability to pay must be
considered in the context of a two-year obligation for fiscal years 2015-2016 and
20162017. The Arbitrator has considered this two-year obligation in determining the
The Districts budget over the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 contract is projected at
$4.6 billion. (DX 5)1 The parties final offers are basically $13 million apart. (See
Exhibits A and B) As argued by the Association, its final offer represents less than
half of one percent of the Districts $4.6 billion budget over the two-year contract and
therefore is clearly within the Districts financial ability to pay the requested increases.
Further, the Association argues the District has historically, and by a significant amount,
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and its Comprehensive Annual Budget
Report (CABR), the Districts annual expenses are consistently well below its budget
projections. Annual expenses were over $31 million below budget in 2015; $37 million
1 In this Decision, the Associations Exhibits shall be identified as AX, the Districts Exhibits shall be
DX, and Joint Exhibits shall be JX. Transcript references shall be TR. Date __, page __.
!14
The parties disagree as to whether an interest arbitrator in Nevada is foreclosed
from considering a school districts ending fund balance in determining whether the
school district has the financial ability to pay the requested monetary benefits.
underestimating its ending fund balance and recently used the ending fund balance as a
source of funding to resolve the interest arbitration with the Support Staff. As reflected
in the 2016-2017 Amended Budget, the District allocated $6.3 Million from its ending
NRS 288.217(6) states the financial ability of a school district to pay the
established by the school district and within the limitations set forth in NRS 354.6241.
NRS 354.6241 states an interest arbitrator, in determining the issue of financial ability to
pay, may not consider an ending fund balance if the balance is less than 25% of the
total budgeted expenditure. However, NRS 354.6241 (3) establishes the statute applies
to local governments other than school districts. (JX 1) In the Arbitrators view all
undesignated ending fund balances to the extent they are not restricted from
consideration in this proceeding by Nevada statues. The most compelling support for
this contention is the Districts use of $6.3 million from the ending fund balance to fund
the Support Staff contract. It is therefore disingenuous for the District to now argue
the ending fund balance cannot be used to fund the Administrators contract.
!15
C. The Districts Evidence Failed to Establish its Inability to Pay the
Associations Requested Monetary Benefits
The burden of proving an inability to pay in an interest arbitration case rests with
the employer. Whether in private or public sector interest arbitrations, the employer
has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it does not have the
Employers who have pleaded inability to pay have been held to have the
burden of producing sufficient evidence to support the plea. The alleged
inability must be more than speculative and failure to produce sufficient
evidence will result in a rejection of the plea.
Even without a consideration of the Districts ending fund balance, the Arbitrator
concludes the Districts evidence failed to establish an inability to pay the Associations
witnesses, or other direct evidence, that it lacked the financial ability to pay the
Associations requested monetary proposal. Nor was there evidence that accepting the
Associations monetary proposal would result in the District being required to lay off
education to the children residing within the district as required by NRS 288.217(6).
As argued by the Association, if the District had the financial capacity to fund the
$135.5 million to settle the Teachers contract, and $18 million to settle the Support
Staff contract, it has the financial ability to fund the Association's requested
$19,504,305 in compensation and benefits for the term of their two-year agreement.
The evidence established the School District Board of Trustees did not reject the
Association's proposal based on a lack of ability to pay but instead did so as a matter of
!16
the District's financial priorities. (AX 53) Jim McIntosh, the Districts former Chief
Financial Officer, testified he was not aware of any evidence to suggest the District
Board rejected the Associations proposal based on an inability to pay and it was simply
pages 266-267)
statutory mandated criterion and is the first step in determining which of the final offers
is the more reasonable. In this case, no evidence was offered to suggest the District
had reached a point that, if the Associations proposal was granted, it would be unable
to adequately provide educational services to the children in the Clark County School
District.
In absence of such evidence, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the
financial ability to pay the Associations requested monetary benefits in the form of
increased compensation and benefits over the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Collective
Bargaining Agreement. However, simply because the District has the resources to pay
the Associations requested monetary benefits is not sufficient to justify the adoption of
the Associations proposal. The remaining issue focuses on which of the two final
written offers is the more reasonable when considered in the context of the remaining
statutory criteria.
!17
If an interest arbitrator determines the employer has the financial ability to pay
the requested monetary benefits, Nevada law instructs the arbitrator to consider
determining which of the two final offers is the most reasonable. NRS 288.217 6(b)
states:
Once the fact finder has determined in accordance with paragraph (a) that
there is a current financial ability to grant monetary benefits, and subject
to the provisions of paragraph (c), the fact finder shall consider, to the
extent appropriate, compensation of other governmental employees, both
in and out of the State and use normal criteria for interest disputes
regarding the terms and provisions to be included in an agreement in
assessing the reasonableness of the position of each party as to each
issue in dispute and the fact finder shall consider whether the Board found
that either party had bargained in bad faith. (JX 1)
Consistent with the above Nevada statutory criteria, the Arbitrator has
districts within the State of Nevada and in large school districts in other states. The
parties offered no evidence to suggest that during their past negotiations they have
agreed on a group of school districts to use for comparison purposes. In the absence
of such evidence, the Arbitrator must rely on the evidence of comparable school
districts submitted by the parties during the hearing, as well as internal equity with the
compensation increases paid to the other bargaining units within the District.
!18
The Association contends the Administrators in the Clark County School District
are paid considerably less than their counterparts in comparable school districts both in
the State of Nevada and in other states throughout the country. Bill Garis, the
throughout the country. (AX 14, 59) Based on this analysis, Mr. Garis testified that,
school districts in geographic proximity to Las Vegas, the District's Administrators are
Administrators in the Clark County School District have not received their negotiated
annual salary step increases since July 1, 2014. (TR. 12/8/16, page 25) Mr. Augspurger
explained that, pursuant to Senate Bill 241, Administrators will not receive the
negotiated pay increases until the conclusion of this proceeding when the new CBA
takes effect. Senate Bill 241 also places on hold all increases in longevity pay that have
been in place since July 1, 2015, until the effective date of the new CBA. (TR. 12/8/16,
page 28) Although beyond the control of the CCSD, the legislative impact of Senate
Bill 241 has compounded the economic consequences for Administrators pending the
The District submits the only reliable evidence of comparable school districts is
set forth in its exhibit, which utilizes the median salaries paid to school administrators
as the basis for comparison. (DX 3) The District argues that when the median salaries
are compared, the District's Administrators are being paid at a level that is consistent
!19
with the median salaries in other school districts throughout the country. The
fails to take the school district size into consideration and, even when it does, half of
the nations school administrators are still being paid more than the District
his testimony that in considering comparable school districts ...you first need to start
comparing with the larger districts because we are in that group. (TR. 3/15/17,
page 209)
The Clark County School District is the largest school district in the State of
Nevada and the fifth largest in the United States. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain
what would constitute a comparable school district within the State of Nevada that
County School District, in the Reno area, is the next largest school district in Nevada
Washoe County School District consistently compensates its school principals and
administrators at a higher rate of pay than the District pays its Administrators. (AX 59)
necessarily must provide compensation and benefits that are comparable to those paid
Based on this record, the Arbitrator finds that the Administrators in the CCSD are
being compensated at a level that is less than their counterparts holding similar
positions in other similar sized school districts in and out of the State of Nevada.
B. Internal Equity
!20
The consideration of internal equity in terms of compensation among the
employer bargaining units is an additional criteria used to determine which of the final
internal equity, the Association contends the Administrators salaries are not keeping
pace with either inflation or the salary increases the District has granted the teachers.
receive higher pay than teachers, when the salaries are compared on an hourly rate
basis, Administrators receive a lower rate of compensation than the teachers they
nature and thus without merit and unreliable. The District argues the more reasonable
staff based on the cost per full time equivalent. (FTE) Utilizing the FTE method, the
District argues the cost of the Associations $19 million final offer proposal is nearly
twice the amount spent per FTE on the Teachers contract and eight times the amount
spent per FTE on the Support Staff contract. In order to preserve internal pay equity,
than awarded to the teachers or support staff. Therefore, the District argues its final
offer is the more reasonable and is internally consistent with compensation increases
paid to the other bargaining units and should be awarded by the Arbitrator.
!21
The Arbitrator has considered the contentions advanced by the parties on the
determining internal equity among the Districts bargaining units is the comparison of
not only compensation but comparable job responsibilities. Based on these two well-
are much different than the teachers and it is inappropriate to compare them for
consider whether there has been an increase in job responsibilities. The evidence
before the Arbitrator clearly established the workload of Administrators has significantly
increased since their last salary increase. The three school principals called as
principals. School Principals Anthony Nunez, Louis Markouzi and Debbie Brockett, each
described their work schedule during the day at school, at home after school, and on
testimony of the three principals was persuasive in establishing they are not only
working much longer hours but are also dealing with a much more complex myriad of
issues and obligations for which they receive no additional compensation. Specifically,
the Principals testified they are now required to comply with and perform duties
associated with the new anti-bullying law, a new teacher evaluation process, a new
!22
The Principals testified they spend an additional 100 to 200 hours a year in
The Arbitrator found the testimony of the three Principals to be credible and
District acknowledged the critical role school principals and administrators serve in
supervising teachers and ensuring student achievement. Ultimately, they are held
accountable for the performance of the teachers and the academic achievement of the
students. As stated by Andre Long, a former teacher, assistant principal and school
principal, and currently Chief of Human Resources, the work of the District's
Jim McIntosh, the District's former Finance Director, in reviewing the Districts
Open Book, acknowledged the District's Administrators ranked last in the State in the
number of administrators per student, reflecting they are the most overworked
administrators in the state. (TR. 3/14/17, page 247) (AX 44, pages 6 -7)
Based on this record, the Arbitrator concludes the evidence established the
The Association argues the Administrators salaries are not keeping pace with
inflation or the salary increases granted to the teachers they supervise. Therefore, the
Association submits there is a clear absence of internal pay equity that can only be
!23
remedied by the pay increases requested in its final offer. In calculating internal equity
Administrators work a minimum 8-hour day, 10, 11 and 12 months a year depending on
the position, and teachers work a 7-hour-and-11- minute day, and only during the
school year, the only fair basis for comparing their respective levels of compensation is
to convert the Administrators and the teachers salaries to an hourly pay rate.
hourly rate. Mr. Trenholm testified that, based on his analysis, he concluded
Administrators are currently making less per hour than the teachers. (TR. 12/7/16,
pages 96-97) As a part of his analysis, Mr. Trenholm testified he analyzed the 160
teachers who were promoted to Administrator positions during the time period
extending from August 2015 to October 2016. Based on hourly rate comparison,
Mr. Trenholm concluded the teachers who were promoted to an Administrator position
took an average hourly pay reduction of $4.81 per hour. Based this analysis,
Mr. Trenholm concluded it would take an 11% pay increase to equalize the
compensation of Administrators with the teachers. (TR. 12/7/16, page 11 7) (AX 15A)
Using the hourly rate comparison, the Association contends the Administrators
deserve the pay increases set forth in its final offer in order to begin to equalize their
The District places little value on the Association's use of an hourly rate
administrators and argues it is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the job
!24
responsibilities of the Administrators and the teachers are very different and therefore it
otherwise. Second, the Association's use of an hourly rate analysis fails to take into
consideration the generous fringe benefits that are received by Administrators but not
afforded the teachers. Third, there are far more applicants for administrator positions
than there are positions available. (DX 20) Thus, based on the supply and demand for
measured against the market, is reasonable. For these reasons, the District contends
the Arbitrator should reject the Association's hourly rate compensation analysis.
finding that Administrators' compensation has not kept pace with either inflation or the
increases granted the teachers. The Arbitrator has reached this conclusion based on
The last pay increase received by the Administrators was 2.79% increase on
July 1, 2014. A year later, on July 1, 2015, 1.125% of that increase was taken back as
a result of the mandatory PERS contribution. In addition, although beyond the control
of the District, the Administrators have not received their negotiated longevity pay
both the teachers and support staff. Although the District argues the pay increase
offered and agreed to by support staff is the same as being offered to the
!25
administrators, there was no evidence indicating there has been a corresponding
expansion of work responsibilities for the support staff as there has been for the
Administrators.
teachers, the Arbitrator necessarily must decide which of the two methods of
compensation analysis is the more reasonable the hourly rate conversion submitted
by the Association or the cost per FTE comparison contended by the District. The
Arbitrator resolves this issue in favor of the Association primarily based on parties
existing use of this conversion methodology in both the Administrators and teachers
CBAs. Articles 15.15 states that Administrators who perform District related
Schedule . (JX. 2)
The District offer no evidence indicating the use of the cost per FTE of the
nor were any expert witnesses called to establish this as an accepted method of
compensation comparison.
analysis, finds the testimony of Nathan Trenholm and his accompanying exhibits
established that, when compared on an hourly rate basis, Administrators are being paid
less than teachers. Mr. Trenholm testified that, when measured solely on the basis of
hourly pay comparison, school principals at every level and classification are being paid
less than the teachers they supervise. (TR. 12/7/16, Pages 116-117) (AX. 15, Tab A)
!26
The Arbitrator recognizes, in reality, the District's administrators are paid more
than teachers in terms of total compensation and benefits. However, for the sole
equity, the hourly rate comparison advanced by the Association supports a finding the
teachers compensation.
The most persuasive evidence in support of the District's contention that there is
currently internal pay equity between the teachers and administrators is supply and
demand. Andre Long, the District's Chief Human Resources Officer, testified a majority
of the applicants for administrator positions are teachers within the District and when
vacancies are posted, the positions are immediately filled. (TR. 3/15/17, page 180) The
District's evidence established there are more teachers applying for administrator
positions than there are available positions. (DX. 20) Thus, in the District's view,
teachers would not be applying for the administrator positions. However, a teacher may
reasons that a teacher may apply for an administrator position and since there are
vacancies.
!27
For the reasons set forth above, the Arbitrator has concluded the Administrator's
compensation has not kept pace with either inflation or the increases in pay that have
been granted to the teachers. Therefore, based on the criteria of internal equity, the
evidence supports a finding the District has not treated the Administrators equally with
NRS 288.200 7 (b) states, in part, that once an interest arbitrator has
determined there is a current ability to pay the requested monetary benefits, the
interest arbitrator, as fact finder, shall consider the use of ... normal criteria for interest
Administrators and internal equity considerations, the Arbitrator has also considered the
District's budgetary capacity and the parties bargaining history leading up to impasse.
The Arbitrator has previously concluded the District has the financial ability to
pay the Association's requested monetary benefits. The District's financial ability to pay
The two-year budget to fund the operations of the Clark County School District is
$4.6 billion. Approximately 88% of the budget is allocated to employee salaries and
benefits. (DX. 1) In contending the District has the ability to pay its final offer, the
Association advances two basic arguments. First, the District can access its ending fund
balance to fund the requested monetary benefits. The ending fund balance for the
!28
fiscal year ending 2017 is projected to be in excess of $42 million. (AX. 12) Despite the
District's contention to the contrary, the Association argues the ending fund balance
may be used to fund the Association's final offer, as it did, in part, to fund the
$18 million Support Staff contract. Second, the Association argues its final offer of
$19 million represents only a small fraction of the District's total two-year budget. The
District can realign its budgetary priorities, as it did to fund the $135.5 million Teachers
contract.
The District argues that it should not be punished for being fiscally conservative
in its budgeting process, which results in a fiscal year end in which revenues have
exceeded expenditures. Although Mr. McIntosh went through the menu of potential
budget cuts that were prepared for the February meeting of the Districts Board of
Trustees, he explained why few, if any, of the potential budget cuts were realistic.
(TR. 3/14/17, Pages 30-90) As to the availability of the ending fund balance, the
District contends the Arbitrator is precluded from requiring the District to access those
funds for purposes of satisfying the Associations final offer, as those funds are left to
The starting point in evaluating the District's capacity to fund the Association's
that in recent years the Clark County economy, like the rest of the nation, has
rebounded from the 2008 recession, which has resulted in an increase in tax revenues
for the School District. The Association's evidence established that tax revenues for the
District have increased by $23 million for fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, while the
District's overall budgetary expenditures came in below budget by nearly $22 million for
!29
the same year. (AX. 12) During the same period, property taxes received by the District
were $8 million over projected budget for FY 2016-2017. (AX. 54) Therefore, in the
Association's view, the District has underestimated its revenues and over estimated its
expenditures resulting in an ending fund balance that in recent years has exceeded $30
million. The Association argues the District has the capacity to fund its final offer but,
as a matter of budgetary priority, the School Board has simply elected not do so. The
District's former Chief Financial Officer, Jim McIntosh, acknowledged as much when he
testified he was not aware of any evidence to suggest the District Board rejected the
priorities, and the budget is a matter of priorities. (TR. 3/14/17, pages 266-267)
Given the sheer size of the School District's two-year budget at $4.6 billion, it is
understandable the Association would have little trouble finding items in the budget
where cuts could be made or expenditures questioned resulting in millions of dollars the
Association contends could be more appropriately used to fund its final offer. However,
as previously indicated, simply because the District has the financial resources, through
budget cuts, to fund the Associations final offer, is not sufficient to justify acceptance.
In deciding which final offer is the more reasonable, the Arbitrator is mindful of
the magnitude of the District's mission in educating over 320,000 students each day of
the school year and the necessary financial resources required to successfully fulfill that
obligation. However, the evidence also established the critical role the District's
Administrators, like the teachers and support staff, serve in ensuring student
!30
It is evident the Las Vegas region, like other parts of the country, has shown
significant recovery from the recession that began in 2008. Despite the economic
recovery, the District has not been able to restore its unassigned ending fund balance to
the 2% minimum goal it has set to protect against a precipitous drop in revenues or
it has been required to implement staff layoffs, increase class sizes, or eliminate
education to the children residing within the District as required by NRS 288.217 6 (a).
Nor did it offer evidence that, if the Association's final offer were accepted,
In the judgment of the Arbitrator, the District has the budgetary capacity to fund
the Association's final offer. As it did with the Teachers and Support Staff contracts, the
District has the ability to make any necessary adjustments in its budget and, if
necessary, access its ending fund balance to fund the Association's final offer, as it did
The Arbitrator found the testimony of the District's former Chief Financial Officer,
Jim McIntosh to be credible, forthright and persuasive. Mr. McIntosh, to his credit,
acknowledged during cross-examination that potential cuts in the current budget could
be made that would be ... well in excess of the amounts ... requested in the
Association's final offer. (TR. 3/15/17, page 25) (AX. 35) Further, Mr. McIntosh testified
that if the Association's final offer were ordered by the Arbitrator, the District staff
!31
some cases, or revenue increases or how we could go about doing some
of these things. (TR. 3/15/17, Page 13)
Mr. McIntosh went on to indicate where specific cuts could be made in the
budget to fund the Association's final offer, which included a draw down on the District's
ending fund balance, as District did in funding the support staff salary adjustment in
In the final analysis, this is an issue of the District's budgetary priorities. From
the record in this case, it is apparent the District's Administrators play a critical and
their peers in comparable school districts in and out of the State of Nevada.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the financial capacity, through the
offers the one that most closely represents what the parties might have negotiated, but
for the impasse. The Association contends that during the course of bargaining leading
up to impasse the Association and the District had actually reached a tentative
agreement that closely reflects the Association's final offer and therefore it should be
selected by the Arbitrator in this proceeding. The District denies that any tentative
Between December 2015 and April 2016, they conducted 15 negotiation sessions.
!32
During the negotiations, Executive Director Stephen Augspurger represented the
Mr. Augspurger kept extensive notes of the parties bargaining sessions, which he
shared with the District. (AX. 2) The negotiation sessions culminated on March 9, 2016,
when the Association proposed a salary and benefit package that costed out at
$16,806,104 over the two-year term of the contract. (AX. 41) The District made no
counter-offer and on June 3, 2016, the District Board of Trustees rejected the
Association's proposal. On June 6, 2016, the Association filed its Notice of Impasse.
(AX. 3)
during six additional sessions in an attempt to break the impasse. Despite their
2016, the District sent a letter to the Association indicating the Board was authorizing
The Association rejected the District's offer and the parties proceeded to invoke
the interest arbitration provisions of NRS 288.217. The Association argues the
bargaining notes maintained by Mr. Augspurger are the only record of the parties
negotiations and provide a clear roadmap of where the parties were headed at the
time of impasse, which the Association argues is representative of its current final offer
reached a tentative agreement with Mr. Augspurger on the terms of the new contract
!33
and instead asserted the bargaining notes maintained by Mr. Augspurger were simply
was clear in his testimony that he never drafted any contract language, never initialed
any proposals as being agreed upon, never submitted any formal proposals to the
Association, and that his responsibility was limited to presenting the Associations
proposals to the school board. (TR. 3/16/17 Pages 31-34) Finally, Mr. Skorkowsky
testified there was never any joint settlement proposals submitted to the Districts
During the hearing and in its post-hearing brief, the Association devoted
might have agreed upon had impasse not been reached. The Arbitrator understands
the Association's contentions but did not find them persuasive. Although
Mr. Augspurger was faithful in keeping detailed bargaining notes of his discussions with
agreement as that term is typically used and accepted in the bargaining process.
considerable credit for their dedicated efforts in an attempt to reach an agreement after
impasse was declared, there was simply no evidence to indicate the District had agreed
to the proposals set forth in Mr. Augspurger's bargaining notes. Silence is not assent.
!34
did not provide a sufficient basis for the Arbitrator to reach any conclusion as to what
that settlement might have been if their negotiations had been successful. During their
District of approximately $16 million over the term of the two-year agreement. The
proposals are basically the same position the parties took at the commencement of the
impasse that either side was willing to move off their respective positions. Therefore,
From this bargaining history, the Arbitrator is unable to determine which of the
two final offers most closely represents the compensation level for Administrators the
parties might have reached had they been successful in their negotiations.
Therefore, the parties bargaining history was not found to be reliable by the
Arbitrator as a factor in reaching a decision on which of the two final offers was the
more reasonable.
NRS 288.200 7 (a) states that in reviewing final offers, the interest arbitrator
should assess the ... reasonableness of the positions of each party as to each issue in
dispute.... (JX 1) There being no further statutory directive, the Arbitrator framed the
!35
issue in terms of which of the two final offers submitted by the parties for the twoyear
contract is the more reasonable based on the criteria set forth in NRS 288.217 and
NRS 288.200.
In summary the Association, in its final offer, is requesting an Award that would
provide a 2% salary increase for Administrators for the first year of the contract and 3%
salary increase for the second year of the contract; the reinstatement of the 1.125%
salary reduction (PERS) and the steps and longevity increases set forth in the
stipend by $1,000 for Principals and $2,500 for Assistant Principals and increasing the
contract for LVISPA and SECTA Principals to 12 months. The total cost of the
In summary, in its final offer, the District is requesting an Award that would
provide a 1.125% salary increase for Administrators effective January 1, 2017 and an
additional 1.125% increase effective April 1, 2017. The District's final offer provides
annual and longevity increases will be moved two steps only for the 2016-2017 school
year and also to include the movement of full steps from F to G on the salary schedule
effective July 1, 2015. The District's final offer also includes increases in contribution to
the employee health and life insurance benefits. The projected cost of the District's
For the reasons set forth in this decision, the Arbitrator concluded the
Association's final offer to be the more reasonable of the final offers submitted by the
parties.
!36
CONCLUSION
NRS 288.217 10 (a) and (b) states the decision of the interest arbitrator must
include:
(a) Giving the arbitrators reason for accepting the final offer that is the
basis of the arbitrators award; and
(b) Specifying the arbitrators estimate of the total cost of the award.
Although the Arbitrator has set forth in the Decision the reasons the Associations
final offer was found to be the more reasonable, the Arbitrator summarizes these
reasons as follows.
First, the evidence established the District has the financial ability to pay the
benefits. The Arbitrator concluded there was no compelling evidence offered by the
District to indicate otherwise. Second, the evidence established that compensation paid
to Administrators in the Clark County School District was less than paid to
administrators in comparable school districts, both in the State of Nevada and in other
larger school district in other states. Third, there was persuasive evidence establishing
the Administrators' work responsibilities have significantly increased since their last
increase in compensation. Finally, the District has the financial capacity, through the
ending fund balance, to fund the Association's final offer. For all these reasons, and
those additionally set forth in the Decision, the Arbitrator concluded the Associations
!37
The Arbitrators estimate of the total cost of the Association's final offer, over the
In accordance with NRS 288.217 5, the costs of the arbitration are to be shared
equally between the parties. The Arbitrator shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for
period of sixty (60) days from the date of the Award for the purpose of resolving any
!38