Judges pass stiff sentence on selves

Bill Gang

Tuesday, July 27, 1999 | 11:24 a.m.

Clark County's district judges agreed Monday by the slimmest 8-7 vote to accept strict rules of accountability and oversight.

But before they cast their yeas and nays on accountability rules, the judges first voted to kick the media and public out of the meeting, apparently violating a court rule on open meetings put into place two months earlier.

The proposed rules, which spell out the supervisory power of the newly strengthened chief judge's job, now go to the Nevada Supreme Court for final approval. The high court has authority over all courts in the state.

The majority vote came only after some district judges tried again to water down the rules.

Many of those rules were mandated by the state Supreme Court last month in an order that chastised judges who have tried to circumvent oversight. The seven justices specified that district judges generally be available at the courthouse during workdays, coordinate vacations and help each other by taking excess trials.

A committee of judges asked the full court to push for less restrictive rules, District Judge Jeff Sobel said.

"No other jurisdiction has ever adopted one wrinkle of what we are being asked to do," Sobel said.

"We're not hourly employees," said Sobel, who has made no secret of his habit of leaving the courthouse to work at home. "Being a judge is a full-time job, but when and where we do it is our business."

Until now district judges were considered accountable only to the voters who elected them and were allowed to handle their caseloads any way they saw fit and decide for themselves whether they would be at the courthouse on a given day and how much vacation they would take.

But Chief Justice Robert Rose told the Nevada Legislature early this year that some judges weren't carrying their weight.

The Legislature passed a law authorizing a strong chief judge system to provide controls in Clark and Washoe counties and the Supreme Court formalized the system in its June 11 order.

"The good news is we adopted the reforms," District Judge Gene Porter said.

District Judge Michael Cherry, however, said he is "unhappy" with the outcome and fumed that the chief judge position could be abused under the recommended rules.

He said a version by Chief Judge Lee Gates that was passed was "dropped on us" shortly before the meeting and rushed to approval.

But Gates said his version was almost identical to that from a committee of judges except that it incorporated the mandated language from the Supreme Court.

Although Cherry had voted to close Monday's meeting, he conceded that with the minimal controversy and debate that ensued behind closed doors, the public and the media actually could have been present.

But the judges voted 8-7 to close what had been announced as an open meeting.

In doing so, the judges apparently ignored a rule they passed in May that gives the chief judge sole authority to determine if the judges' administrative meetings are open to the public.

Sobel had argued that while the results of the meeting should be public, the presence of the media would adversely impact the ability of judges to candidly discuss the issues.

After the meeting, Sobel said that since the focus of debate dealt with "a potential conflict with a group of superior judges" there couldn't be complete honesty or discussion with the media present.

"I believe honest disagreements with the Nevada Supreme Court are possible but judges would be more honest in private than if they were being quoted."

Those who voted to close the meeting included Sobel, Hardcastle, Cherry and district judges Gary Redmon, Jack Lehman, Joseph Bonaventure, Donald Mosley and Robert Gaston.

Judges who voted to open the discussion to the public included Gates, Porter and district judges Mark Gibbons, Michael Douglas, James Mahan, Nancy Saitta, Stephen Huffaker and Gloria Sanchez.

Gates' vote, however, was not considered because as chief judge he is only allowed to vote to break a tie. District Judge Sally Loehrer abstained.

Judges, because they are a separate branch of government, are not legally bound by the open meeting law passed by the Legislature. Only the Supreme Court has authority to pass rules governing the operation of the court systems, under the Constitution.