IMPACT

Wherein Chris G takes on Nicole Cannizzaro, CCSD, challenges Legislative Dems to put their money where their mouth is, and progressives to focus on the boring organizational stuff and offers training for both Republicans and Democrats for free. 

We are also joined by Leisa Moseley, who was the political director for the 2020 Bernie campaign, and Dr. Zaffar Iqbal, who is now the 2nd vice chair of the NV Dems. 

But honestly, folks, this is a Chris G interview.

Two bills are making their way through the Assembly right now that will have a big impact on how we handle traffic violations.

AB116, introduced by District 10 Assemblywoman Rochelle Wwyn, would make traffic violations - and their attendant fees - a civil rather than a criminal violation. That means if people don’t pay their fees, government entities in Nevada cannot put them in jail.

AB151, sponsored by District 16 freshman Assemblywoman Cecilia Gonzalez, would make it against the law to take someone’s driver’s license away for unpaid traffic fines.

Thousands of people a year end up in jail because they can’t afford to pay their fees, or have their license suspended but still must get to work. This often means loss of job, loss of homes, loss of residency status. All for making a right turn on red when they weren’t supposed to.

Back in October - you know, when we had nothing to do and weren’t stressing about the future of the free world - Nathan Trenholm and Justin White filed a lawsuit against the Clark County School District.

Trenholm and White are the proprietors of Data Insight Partners, which contracts with school organizational teams - SOTs - to provide data to admin, teachers, students and parents in over 35 schools.

Data Insight Partners started after the passage of AB469 - commonly known as the reorganization law - or “reorg” for short.

The reorg created autonomous school zones and was supposed to create a “marketplace” whereby schools could “buy” services that they needed from the central district. For instance, everyone needs maintenance, which the District provides. So a line item is taken out of each school’s budget for maintenance. If a school wanted to hire an extra maintenance person for special events, they could - out of their own budget.

They could also buy services from outside vendors. Venders like… Data Insight Partners.

I’ve talked with about half a dozen principals who all say things like, “Their data dashboards provides the school they partner with the ability to get really granular.”

Or Data Insight software allows their teachers to “get into the weeds”

But this fall, the Clark County School District forced schools to use THEIR data software. Their newly created data software. Which looks like a clone of Data Insight Partners’ software. Except… it doesn’t work as well and isn’t reliable.

One principal told me, “It’s just a smidge better than spreadsheets.”

Oops.

The entire world has been watching Nevada, and figuring out how to say our state’s name.

But as much as Las Vegas has a reputation as a fast paced, now or never kind of place, our approach to counting ballots is slow and steady. Accuracy before speed.

And we have new heroes. Steve Kornaki’s trending on Twitter is pretty hilarious. But even Stephen Colbert hailed Clark County Registrar Joe Gloria.

I can’t help but think the world is getting a glimpse of the real Las Vegas. The one filled with real people who take their obligations seriously.

We’re going to talk elections in this November 2020.

Carrie's Intro:

This week started out for me with my phone blowing up over a story from the New York Times. Erica Green, one of their education reporters, wrote a story on student suicides and other mental health issues during the pandemic.

Clark County School District was front and center.

Green said on Twitter that she had gotten her info from another school district leader, when she called him to ask if they were having bad mental health issues. He said no, but talk to Jesus Jara - who is, of course, the superintendent of schools at CCSD.

We talk about Jara a lot. I have written about Jara. Jara was the guy who tried to put through a bill during the special summer session that would take away carryover funds from individual schools and put them in a central budget. And then when the bill received backlash, he tried to pull it, and tried to say it was the governor’s idea. Or… no… the STATE superintendent’s idea.

Two days later, the GOVERNOR OF OUR STATE, along with the superintendent, wrote letters all but using the word “lie.”

Sisolak: “Being superintendent of one of the largest school districts in the nation requires leadership — especially in the midst of a crisis,” Sisolak said. “And leadership requires honesty. Unfortunately, that is not what we get from Superintendent Jara. Clark County students, staff and families deserve better.”

Ebert: “Once it became clear the proposal did not have support, Superintendent Jara disrespected our elected officials and the entire CCSD community by misrepresenting his intentions,” Ebert said. “As a leader in education, he has a responsibility to set an example for our children. Blatantly altering the truth is not only a bad example, but it’s a disservice to the educators, students and families he represents.” 

This was after Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson ended discussion of the bill with this:

"I want to... make it abundantly clear that AB2 was  exclusively the request of CCSD  to be placed on the agenda, and that request was withdrawn two hours before the actual proclamation was issued, which was too late. And so...You don’t get to light a firecracker and run just before it goes off. 

I should also note that at the same time this was happening, CCSD Trustee Linda Cavazos was discovering that the hybrid school plan that Jara told them over multiple meetings was mandated by the State Board of Ed - was not actually required at all by the State Board of Ed.

That’s the backstory. He survived being fired just narrowly, and survived being censured by a parliamentary maneuver that shut the special meeting down.

But Erica Green knew none of this. She was a reporter trying to get a story on mental health and the pandemic. And instead of calling one of our guests today - who is on the front lines of mental health in CCSD - she called the guy with the big title.

And the guy with the big title - as he has been doing for months now - said, “At-home school is leading our kids to kill themselves.”

Which is a dubious assertion at best.

The next Nevada legislative session starts Feb. 1, 2021, and education issues will be front and center.

Not only has the pandemic decimated education funding sources - which are heavily reliant on tourism - but a new funding formula was put in place during the 2019 session, and a funding commission has been looking at how to implement it.

I sat down with the two heads of the Senate Education Committee - chair Mo Denis and vice-chair Marilyn Dondero-Loop - to talk about what might be happening in their hearings over the winter and spring.

Some highlighted issues:

Carryover Funds: These are funds that individual schools, working with their School Organizational Teams, try to save over the school year. Some schools have a long-term goal, and have saved significant amounts of money. These funds stay only with the school, and are not controlled by the district. In the special sessions this summer, Supt. Jesus Jara attempted to change the law to allow the district to take carryover funds. Senator Dondero-Loop says she is up for a compromise, but she understands both sides. Senator Denis agrees, saying he wants to "find ways to reward and not punish" principals who have managed their money well. 

"When it comes to the reorg, for some schools it's been a great thing, for others it has not been as good," said Denis. "It depends on the leadership."

This conversation can be heard around the 19-minute mark.

Appointed School Boards: This has been an issue for a  number of years, but this year the official position of the Clark County School District is not to oppose it. Dondero-Loop said she believes there will be "some bills" coming forward to appoint school boards all over the state. She pointed out that the State Board of Education is partially appointed and partially elected, and it works well. 

"When you have a small group of seven people, it would be beneficial if we had somebody appointed who had some specific training in specific categories," said Dondero-Loop.

Denis isn't sure about appointing board members. He points out that the County Commission, which is elected, has a bigger staff and committees full of experts to look at specific things, like planning.

"With school boards I think we and do similar things," said Denis, so the board could have a subcommittee on finance that wouldn't be employees of the school district. He adds, "We need to have school trustees that represent the community."

Both Dondero-Loop and Denis agree that school trustees should be paid a living wage. Denis points out that being a trustee is a full-time job, and they only get paid about $9,000 a year.

Legislators, too, only get about $9,000 every two years for their full-time service. 

This conversation starts at the 23 minute mark.

"I believe there will probably be some bills that are coming forward"

Back to School: The issue, as Dondero-Loop points out, is that kids don't get COVID, teachers do. (High school age kids are also at higher risk.)

"You have to have enough adults to cover kids," said Dondero-Loop, without putting the health of the adults at risk.

2020: Dondero-Loop has seen CCSD take advantage of this pandemic to start to rethink how they teach. "I think it's a really exciting time to reinvent some things - seat time, mental health," Dondero-Loop said. "I do think if you are an educator... you recognize that" things need to change.

"When we look back at 2020, we are going to see some amazing things that caused us to look at things differently," said Denis. He notes that the Nevada Supterintendent of schools has created a task force to look at competency-based education, which would blur the line a bit on specific grades. But the biggest issue is that parents who want their children to be valedictorian don't want the competition taken away.

The Clark County School District uploaded a new policy document just before Thanksgiving, but didn't tell anyone. The document limited the free speech of CCSD employees. A First Amendment Lawyer in Chicago happened to find it. He wrote a Twitter thread that shocked people involved with CCSD. On this episode of IMPACT, we talk with that attorney. We also talk with three other people involved with CCSD: education advocate and law professor Sylvia Lazos, Spring Valley Principal Tam Larnerd, and Lisa Guzman, who just won a seat on the CCSD board of trustees. Guzman also works for the Nevada State Education Association, which represents teachers and support staff. Before this new free speech policy, CCSD Supt. Jesus Jara announced layoffs of up to 1,500 support staff.

But first...

Carrie chats with Leisa Moseley about the likelihood that criminal justice reform will pass the legislative session, which starts Feb. 1.

-------------------------

Here is CCSD's free speech proposal in its entirety.

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGULATION

NEW R-4392

EMPLOYEE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The Clark County School District supports all employees’ right to freedom of speech but must balance the interests of an employee, as a private citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the District, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. The District is intent on providing a respectful learning and working environment. Therefore, the District must ensure that the exercise of free speech by employees does not interfere with the District’s educational mission and operation or the rights of others.

I. Freedom of speech refers to a person’s right to express ideas, regardless of the medium used. The term includes, but is not limited to, the spoken word, clothing, gestures, images and video, and posts to social media.

II. District employees are free to speak as private citizens regarding public concerns.

A. However, when employees engage in speech as District employees, they are not speaking as private citizens, and the speech is not protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

1. Any speech made during work, while performing work for the District, or while engaged in any work-related activity is not made as a private citizen.

2. If employees identify themselves as a District employee while engaging in the speech, the employees are not speaking as a private citizen.

3. Personal social network and social media accounts must be kept

separate from work-related accounts and identities to preserve the

status of a private citizen. This separation may be relevant in determining whether the employee is speaking as a private citizen.

B. Also, when District employees engage in speech that arises directly from their work, the speech is not protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

1. Speech is considered to arise from an employee’s work when the speech concerns a subject matter that primarily involves the employee’s job or duties.

R-4392 (page 2)

2. Therefore, although public education is a matter of public concern, specific issues, concerns, or grievances regarding a District employee’s work are not considered matters of public concern.

C. Finally, certain job positions are subject to other laws that restrict the employee’s speech rights. For example, Vegas PBS news and public affairs content producers are subject to a specific federal law that restricts their speech rights. Employees are therefore advised to consult with their supervisors to determine whether their particular job position is subject to any law that restricts their freedom of speech.

III. Freedom of speech may not be used to engage in harassment, sexual harassment, discrimination, bullying, cyber-bullying, or the intimidation of another person. These types of speech are not protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech and may subject the speaker to disciplinary action.

IV. Even of a District employee speaks as a private citizen regarding a public

concern, the District may limit or prohibit speech by an employee if the District can demonstrate that:

A. The speech materially and substantially interferes with school activities, the staff member’s ability to perform assigned duties, or the rights of other staff or students;

B. The speech does or is likely to create substantial interference to the educational mission and/or operation of the District; or

C. The speech violates a District policy or regulation or a state or federal law or regulation. This includes case law defining the categories of unprotected speech (i.e., speech that is vulgar, obscene, defamatory, a true threat, promotes illegal substances).

Legal Reference:

Review Responsibility: Human Resources Division

Adopted: