EDITORIAL: The school district police and the public interest

Whether a school police officer abused his position of public trust is an important course of inquiry. That Clark County School District officials prefer to shield the employee in question from scrutiny only highlights their disregard for the importance of accountability and oversight. Taxpayers deserve far better.

School police officer Daniel Ciarciaglini has been employed for 12 years. He has also been the subject of 16 investigations over his use of force, the Review-Journal’s Spencer Levering reported last month. The officer is the defendant in at least three lawsuits. Mr. Ciarciaglini deserves the presumption of innocence, of course, but the frequency of the complaints sets off alarm bells.

Yet the extent of these probes — and whether Mr. Ciarciaglini has been disciplined — is difficult to determine. District officials refuse to provide unredacted reports revealing details or outcomes of the investigations. They also refuse to release some bodycam footage.

Nevada’s public records law exists “to foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with prompt access to inspect, copy or receive a copy of public books and records to the extent permitted by law.” Further, its provisions “must be construed liberally to carry out this important purpose.”

Notably, police disciplinary records are not exempt from disclosure. In fact, the Nevada Supreme Court in August turned away an argument from the union representing Metropolitan Police Department officers that privacy rights override the right to know when it comes to certain information regarding disciplinary proceedings.

There’s excellent reason for rejecting that viewpoint. If secrecy prevails, how are members of the public to determine whether those they have entrusted to operate in the best interests of the community are held to the highest standards and face consequences if they stray?

Yet the school district, which has a history of stonewalling public records requests, now brazenly ignores the law while barely concealing its self-serving motives.

“Even if there is a public interest in disclosure … any public interest is outweighed by the officer’s significant, nontrivial privacy interests in avoiding embarrassment, harassment and stigma if disclosure occurs,” the district maintains. The school police also have “a significant interest in preventing disclosure, as it may impede investigations and negatively impact employee morale.”

What utter rot. Nowhere do statutes allow government bodies to keep records confidential in order to protect employees from “embarrassment” and “stigma” or to promote “morale.” If that were the case, reams of records could be withheld under the pretense that their contents might cause someone discomfort. Public employees guilty of malfeasance would no doubt rejoice.

District officials should release the documents with as few redactions as possible — and then seek more competent legal advice.