Editorial: Legislature should probe Family Court

Thursday, May 8, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

THE Nevada Supreme Court this week wrecked its credibility in an upcoming Family Court investigation by attempting to hoodwink the Legislature.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Miriam Shearing tried to hide $479,000 in the court's budget to equalize pay among judges in the state, in violation of the state constitution and the will of the voters. In 1994, Nevadans, by a nearly 6-to-1 margin, rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to permit midterm judicial pay raises.

The revelation came during the Senate-Assembly budget subcommittee hearing on a proposed 40 percent hike in the court's budget. Most of the $479,000 was to study the much-criticized Family Court system in Nevada. Ten justices and judges conducting the probe would receive $47,000 each in addition to their regular salaries.

Shearing told the lawmakers that other legislators recommended she submit the budget to equalize judicial salaries and investigate the Family Court at the same time. But she couldn't remember who the lawmakers were. Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, R-Las Vegas, noted the 10 judges earmarked for the panel all were in lower pay categories -- meaning they may have not been selected on their ability alone.

It was the second such attempt to deceive the Legislature. An earlier budget concealed $170,000 to equalize salaries in an item supposedly to purchase new equipment. Shearing blamed that proposal on her predecessor and insisted she did not approve it.

There are glaring disparities in pay among the judges. But that problem can be traced to increasing judicial terms to six years -- which the voters endorsed nearly 30 years ago at the insistence of the judges. Judges today know what the pay is when they run for office. If, once they're elected, they believe the pay should be equalized, there's only one constitutional forum for that -- the ballot box.

Hiding the money in the Supreme Court budget and adjusting judges' salaries on the ruse of an investigation is pure subterfuge -- particularly involving the politically explosive Family Court issue.

Nevadans are demanding reform of the Family Court in the wake of horror stories about children being placed in less than caring environments and inexplicable custodial decisions. The most explosive case, as reported in a recent SUN series of articles, involved awarding guardianship of a teenager to an unrelated couple without the knowledge of the natural parents -- on the basis of unsubstantiated abuse charges that were not even investigated.

And why would any true investigation of Family Court involve 10 judges? Some of the judges could be part of the problem and should not be party to any investigation. How can true reform occur if the foxes are put in charge of the hen house?

The budget ploy smacks of cronyism and deception. If Nevadans can't trust their judges to be open on finances, how can they trust them to fairly investigate the Family Court?

We hope the outraged legislators will opt for their own, much cheaper -- perhaps only $10,000 -- and more effective investigation. Only an impartial panel can ferret out the problems in the court and recommend reforms.

Nevadans do not want a secret subsidy to soothe hurt feelings about judicial pay which then may whitewash problems in the Family Court.