Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to bar withholding step increases during administrative investigations sparks split testimony
Summary
SB298 would define the denial of a step increase or seniority as a punitive action under the Peace Officers Bill of Rights. Supporters said it protects due process; law-enforcement leadership and some public commenters said it would undermine accountability and collective bargaining.
Senate Bill 298, heard May 9 by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, would amend Nevada’s peace-officers’ protections to treat denial of a step-increase or seniority increase as a punitive action subject to due-process protections.
Harrison Porter, vice chairman of the Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association, said the change is needed after recent instances in which supervisors had step increases withheld while under administrative investigation. "We believe this is wrong and excessive," Porter said, arguing the withholding can compound financial penalties when combined with suspensions or demotions.
Supporters framed the bill as a due-process protection for officers and supervisors whose negotiated step increases are not merit-based but time- or contract-based. John Abel of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association said some officers discover their step increases have been withheld only when payroll records show the change and urged the committee to back SB298.
Opponents included representatives of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and community accountability advocates. Chris Ries, representing LVMPD, told the committee the bill "stems from a single case" and said an arbitrator had upheld the department's demotion and withholding of pay in that instance. Ries said the bill would interfere with collective-bargaining processes and could require continued pay increases for officers who are later found culpable of serious misconduct.
Members of the committee pressed presenters on scope: the sponsors said SB298 would not shield officers under criminal investigation or remove the ability to discipline officers after a completed investigation. The bill’s sponsors and supporters said it would apply to administrative investigations and prevent indefinite withholding of contractually scheduled step increases without due process.
Neutral testimony from municipal representatives raised implementation questions tied to a recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling on who may investigate officers under NRS chapter 289. Warren Hardy, representing Boulder City, said the decision created complications for HR-style investigations because local governments historically used outside counsel for non-policing employment matters; he said cities sought clarifying language to avoid hampering HR investigations.
Public testimony included both support from law-enforcement unions and opposition from police-accountability advocates. Ann Marie Grant and other public commenters urged rejection, arguing that expanding protection under NRS chapter 289 would shield officers from accountability.
