Vote on judges’ vacation rejected again

Bill Gang

Friday, March 26, 1999 | 10:33 a.m.

A move to reconsider an earlier vote by Clark County's district judges not to limit their vacation days was defeated for a second time Thursday, by more than two-to-one.

The district judges concluded the second day of their meeting Thursday by voting on the last of a series of recommendations to the Nevada Supreme Court that will form the basis for formal rules of accountability to be enforced by a "strong chief judge."

The high court and the Nevada Legislature have said that a series of rules governing the work of the district judges in Clark and Washoe counties will be implemented within the next few weeks.

Strong chief judges, with the strength to enforce the rules and govern the court systems, would be authorized. The current chief judges have administrative duties but little power.

Before implementing any rules, the Supreme Court asked for input from the district courts about standards of conduct that should be set.

Chief District Judge Lee Gates said a formal list of the judges' recommendations will be released today or Monday.

At the forefront of the Supreme Court's dictates are expected to be rules on attendance and vacation days and a requirement that judges with free time accept so-called "overflow" cases from judges with crowded calendars.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Rose has said that some judges aren't carrying their share of the workload and there have been complaints of judges leaving work early or taking excessive vacation.

A majority of judges on Wednesday voted to dilute a proposed rule that would have required them to spend at least five hours a day in the courthouse. Instead, the judges recommended that court hours be set at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and judges should be available during those hours - but not necessarily in the courthouse.

The judges had refused to recommend a rule that would have limited their vacations to 21 work days -- a full month each year. That is the number of days California judges are permitted.

The majority also diluted a proposed rule on overflow trials, shielding judges who hear only criminal cases from having to be assigned the more complicated and time-consuming civil cases.

Judges generally acknowledge that the case loads for judges who handle civil lawsuits are considerably heavier than the criminal case loads.

Thursday's meeting, like Wednesday's, was closed to the public although sources inside the meeting talked to the Sun about the events.

A motion by Family Court Judge Bob Gaston that the judges be prohibited from speaking of the controversial issues outside of the meeting room was soundly defeated by the other judges.

A major issue Thursday involved how a strong chief judge could be removed prematurely before the chief's term expired.

While some judges recommended that only a simple majority vote of judges should be required, the majority voted that a two-thirds vote of a quorum of judges should be mandatory, sources said.

Rose had suggested the two-thirds vote to permit the chief judge to make tough decisions without fear that the unpopularity of a decision would result in a forced removal from office.