Ron Taylor may be a great teacher. He might even be a good union organizer, although he failed to oust the mostly feckless Clark County Education Association in favor of the Teamsters last year. But there’s one thing Ron Taylor cannot do: Be on the school board.
That is, he can’t serve on the Clark County School District Board of Trusteees, so long as he continues to be a teacher in the Clark County School District.
Why? It’s very simple, and it has very little to do with Taylor, and plenty to do with a constitutional principle several hundred years old, called the separation of powers. Simply put, a person in the state of Nevada cannot at the same time exercise the powers of the legislative branch of government (in this case, the policymaking, tax-spending school board) while at the same time exercising the functions of another branch (in this case, teaching in the district).
It’s unconstitutional. And since elected officials swear an oath to uphold the state constitution, Taylor would be in immediate and incurable violation of that oath, should he win election and be seated as a trustee.
He has every right to run for the office. But if elected, he must resign his government job (and all government jobs) if he’s to be a trustee, or to hold any elected office of trust or profit under the state of Nevada.
Taylor shows little evidence of being aware of the separation of powers doctrine, as this Las Vegas Sun story from Friday shows. It’s little wonder, since nobody quoted in the story — or commenting on it — seems to understand, either. Indeed, we at Various Things & Stuff once were in the dark about this very important provision, too. But we’ve since seen the light: Let’s see if we can do some education of our own, shall we?
First, Taylor clearly needs to go back and read the constitution. “The intent of the Nevada Constitution is not that I have to give up my livelihood in order to serve,” he told the Sun. In fact, the intent of the Nevada Constitution is precisely that, assuming the livelihood in question is government employment, and the office sought is in the legislative branch.
Second, Taylor is understandably confused by the example of Howard Rosenberg, a University of Nevada Reno professor who nonetheless sat on the board of regents of the university system for years. Unfortunately for Taylor, Rosenberg’s service — while beneficial to the system — was still an affront to the constitution. It was justified by incorrect interpretations of the document by the Legislature and the state Ethics Commission, interpretations that not only don’t comport with the plain language of Article 3, but with the early understanding of it as well. (Under one opinion, even a school janitor was ruled constitutionally ineligible to hold school board office!)
Clark County Deputy District Attorney Mary Anne Miller — who advises the school board — says Rosenberg’s situation is unique to the board of regents, and thus doesn’t apply. She’s wrong twice: Government employees — admittedly with other legal fig leaves justifying the practice — have served in the legislative branch in other instances. And what’s controlling here is not statute, but the constitution.
Other opinions arise to challenge Taylor. One has to do with conflicts of interest and the perception of impropriety. And surely, those are good arguments. You can’t be both a teacher and the guy who decides the conditions under which teachers work. You can’t be the guy who begs the board to approve certain items in a budget and the guy who ultimately approves the budget. It’s a direct, obvious conflict. But that’s not the reason Taylor can’t serve.
Another ruling, in Douglas County, gets closer to the point: “It would make you the boss of your boss. You can’t serve two masters,” Judge Michael Gibbons said in 2001. Indeed, you cannot. If Taylor were on the board, he could set policy that his boss would have to follow. Again, it’s a direct and obvious conflict. But that’s not the reason Taylor can’t serve.
He can’t serve because the separation of powers clause says he can’t. Oh, as a bonus side benefit, following the constitution in this case would eliminate all the conflicts contemplated above. But the real reason that little sentence was included in the constitution was this: To prevent a person or a class of people from subsuming unto themselves all the powers of government, and thus becoming some sort of “superboss.”
Taylor says he’ll argue all the way to the state Supreme Court, which fills us with both hope and dread. On the one hand, the court has been a little more sensible lately in its decisions, refraining from some of the excesses of its past. It might just decide to uphold the constitution! On the other hand, it might buy into the slow erosion of original understanding that’s infected so many attorney general, legislative counsel bureau, ethics commission and other opinions over time and relegate Article 3 to the dustbin of history. You never know.
There is a way for Taylor to clear the way for himself, and others, such as Rosenberg, to serve in public office. All he has to do is circulate a petition to amend the Nevada Constitution and eliminate Article 3. It’s not easy, but that’s what you have to do if you don’t like the way things are.
In the meantime, Taylor had better come up with some better arguments than this: “Teachers understand what’s going on in a classroom. Why wouldn’t you want that expertise?” he askes. Well, gee, other than the fact that it’s constitutionally forbidden, how about this: The Clark County School Board has existed for years without the surely indispensible experience of one Ron Taylor. We’re guessing the district will go along quite nicely without him.
UPDATE: Ron Taylor, perhaps bowing to the impeccable logic of our interpretation of the state constitution, has today pledged he will resign as a teacher in the Clark County School District if he is elected to the board of trustees. It’s an emminently ethical thing to do, and a sign of respect for the governing document of Nevada. Would that everybody in the state had the same respect.
Blogs
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. By publishing a comment here you agree to the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the Online staff.