Carson City man files complaint over judges’ pay

Saturday, Nov. 29, 1997 | 3:47 a.m.

Jack Johnson, who often attends legislative and court hearings, filed the complaint with the Judicial Discipline Commission that charges Shearing illegally sought to give herself and nine other judges $22,000 salary increases.

By law, complaints to the commission are not to be made public until after commissioners meet and find the complaint has enough merit to begin a full-fledged hearing.

Two men who have made their complaints public in recent years have appealed the law to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision is expected within a few months.

Shearing was accused by some legislators last May of hiding $479,000 in a proposed court budget account to give secret pay raises to judges.

The increases were contained in a Supreme Court request for money to study the Family Court system. In the wake of a public outcry, the request was withdrawn.

In November 1994, state voters overwhelmingly rejected a plan to give pay increases to Family Court judges and some Supreme Court judges.

Under the state constitution, judges can receive pay increases granted by the Legislature only after they have been re-elected.

Because they serve six-year staggered terms, 10 judges, including Shearing, have to wait until after next year's election to receive increases already given their colleagues.

Legislators in 1995 raised the pay of Supreme Court justices to $107,000, up from $85,000, and of Family Court judges to $100,000, up from $79,000. Justices Bob Rose and Charles Springer also receive the lower pay, as well as seven Family Court judges.

At the time the hidden pay issue came up during the legislative session, Shearing said she was hiding nothing, adding she discussed the matter prior to hearings with about 20 legislators.

"There was no attempt to hide the increases," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno. "It was clear to me."

But Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, R-Las Vegas, was offended by the tactic.

"This was an attempt to circumvent the will of the voters," Von Tobel said.

Rose contended that the increases were permitted because the study entailed additional work for judges outside their traditional duties.

Shearing maintained she was innocent of any deception.