Shearing, Mello differ over details of budget controversy

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

Don Mello, former director of the administrative office of the court which prepared the budget, said Shearing attended meetings on the plan to seek for $170,000 for "digital equipment" - in reality, money for $22,000-a-year salary increases.

"I sat right next to Miriam Shearing when we went through the budget request," Mello said. "She participated. She voted 'yes."'

Shearing on Thursday rejected Mello's version, saying, "His recollections are different from everybody else's at the (court) meetings."

She added the Supreme Court wants the pay equalization for justices who get less than their counterparts and also for lower court judges in the same fix, and that could be accomplished by a controversial plan to pay them for work on a family court study panel.

"My view is that it's valid for us to get additional pay for additional work, above and beyond what our regular duties are," she said. "And that's not contradicted by what the voters said. There is a basic unfairness that should be remedied."

"I really resent the statements that we were trying to hide this," she added. "We were straight about this."

Shearing told an Assembly-Senate budget subcommittee Tuesday that she never knew the money was hidden in the budget. But some panel members complained that the court was lying to legislators.

Sen. Bill O'Donnell and Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, both R-Las Vegas, said they didn't know until the Tuesday hearing that the study would mean pay boosts for seven judges and three Supreme Court justices.

Von Tobel also noted voters in 1994 overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure to allow judges to get pay increases while in office.

But Shearing said the proposal had been discussed with about 20 lawmakers prior to the hearing, including Von Tobel. "But politicians have been known to posture," she added.

The Nevada Constitution prohibits pay raises in midterm. As a result, Shearing, on the court for four years, earns $85,000 while the newest member of the court, Bill Maupin, has a base pay of $107,000. She'll get the higher pay if she wins re-election.

Mello said Justice Bob Rose and Shearing "wanted a salary increase." The money had to be included in the budget some way so it was put under computer purchases, which was a "plausible concept," he added.

Shearing wasn't chief justice at the time, but Mello said she attended all three budget meetings and never objected to concealing the money. Then-Chief Justice Tom Steffen was present and joined in the discussion but didn't vote since he was leaving office in January, Mello said.

Steffen, reached in Ogden, Utah, said, "I didn't have anything to do with this."

Hiding the money under equipment purchases, Steffen added, "is flat deceit." He added there's no way the judges' pay can be raised midterm without changing the Nevada Constitution.

The plan, according to Mello, was for Shearing, once the budget had been presented to the Legislature, to withdraw the request, leaving $170,000 free. Then the court would ask that the money be used for pay raises.

Four days after the Legislature convened in January, the Supreme Court submitted a request to withdraw the funding for digital equipment. It also submitted budget adjustments calling for money to equalize the pay of the justices on the Supreme Court and Family Court judges.

Shearing said Maupin and Rose talked to lawmakers, some of whom suggested including the money for pay raises in a study of the Family Court system. The study proposal was drafted so the 10 justices and judges who aren't getting the higher pay would serve on the study committee.

Clark County Family Court Judge Terrance Marren, one of seven district judges who would get a $21,000-a-year raise if the study is approved, said the salary issue was outlined to lawmakers weeks ago.

"Letters to many key legislators were sent by several judges three or four weeks back," he said. "The letters specifically noted that the study was a way to address the pay inequity and accomplish a worthy purpose."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said he got an April 18 letter from Family Court Judge Robert Gaston of Las Vegas supporting the study and mentioning the pay inequity.

Raggio said he also discussed the proposal with Justice Rose, who submitted a memorandum April 21 defending the study proposal.