The Clark County School Board voted 5-2 Thursday against pursuing an appeal on a May 29 court ruling that overturned a district policy limiting nonvoting trustees’ rights to make motions and ask for a previous decision to be reconsidered. 

In 2023, state lawmakers passed a law which created four nonvoting positions on the board to be filled by appointments from Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and Henderson. The law, AB175, states that these trustees would have the same rights and responsibilities as the seven elected members, but won’t be able to vote in the election of new board officers or serve as a board officer such as president. It was opposed by all Nevada school boards and districts but passed out of the Legislature with bipartisan support in both chambers. 

Shortly after the new trustees were sworn in in January, the board passed a policy limiting their powers — prompting a lawsuit from the cities of Henderson and North Las Vegas. 

In her May 29 ruling, Clark County District Court Judge Nadia Krall ruled in favor of the municipalities and said the policy violated the law.

The motion to reject an appeal was supported by Trustees Lola Brooks, Linda Cavazos, Lisa Guzman, Brenda Zamora and Irene Bustamante Adams. 

Cavazos, who made the motion, said the board’s priority is its ongoing superintendent search. Nonvoting Trustees Ramona Esparza-Stoffregan, appointed by the City of Henderson, and Dane Watson, who was appointed by the City of North Las Vegas, said an appeal would be a waste of time and resources. 

Board President Evelyn Garcia Morales and Trustee Katie Williams voted against the motion.

Garcia Morales said she was concerned the ruling would empower municipalities to extend authority over an otherwise independent school district and its policies. 

Guzman added under Robert’s Rules of Order, a standard set of rules to run orderly meetings, individuals appointed to a board don’t usually get to make motions or second them. 

Brooks said she disagreed with the “bad legal ruling” but voted in favor of the motion because she thought it would pass anyways. 

In a Monday interview, she said was also concerned about possible future friction that could be created between elected trustees, who have the power to vote, and trustees who don't, especially if they get frustrated if voting trustees don’t go along with their motions. 

“If this board descends into chaos, I think it's going to prove the point that voting members are trying to explain now,” Brooks said. 

Cavazos called allegations of possible chaos on the board as “ludicrous,” and defended the four nonvoting trustees, who she said all have amazing track records of involvement with the board. 

She clarified on social media a week after the meeting that her comments, which came immediately after a statement by Brooks, were referring to Williams, who Cavazos criticized for her past history of missing meetings or attending them remotely. Williams was physically present at the July 11 meeting. 

This story was updated on July 18, 2024 at 11:12 a.m. to add new information from a social media post by Clark County School Board Trustee Linda Cavazos.