Court hears 300 percent pension dispute

Thursday, Sept. 16, 1999 | 10:58 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Attorneys for two former state legislators asked the Nevada Supreme Court today to restore a 300 percent increase in pension benefits paid them under a law passed in 1989 then repealed five months later.

Some justices of the court appeared to side with former Assemblymen Robert Craddock, D-North Las Vegas and David Nicholas, R-Reno.

The Legislature in 1989 approved the pension increase for lawmakers. Gov. Bob Miller vetoed the bill but it was overridden. After the session, controversy erupted and lawmakers asked for a special session where they repealed the 300 percent increase.

During that five-month interim, Craddock, who had 16 years in the Assembly, and Nicholas, who had nine years, applied for retirement and received the 300 percent higher benefits. When the law was repealed, their checks were reduced.

Both Nicholas and Craddock said after the hearing that a favorable ruling will mean an estimated extra $1,000 a month. Their attorneys, Dan Markoff of Las Vegas and Debbie Robinson of Reno, argued those pensions were vested after the two Assemblymen started drawing them.

Markoff said both the federal and state constitutions prevent a pension from being taken away. The two lawmakers qualified in all respects for the higher amount of money and were entitled to keep it once the law was passed, they argued.

Deputy Attorney General Robert Auer, representing the state, said the two had "limited vested rights." He said they paid in contributions that entitled them to a certain amount when they retired. He said they were never entitled a 300 percent increase.

But Chief Justice Bob Rose and Justices Nancy Becker and Bill Maupin said they didn't agree with Auer's argument.

Becker said this case was bigger than just the two lawmakers. She said it could affect all state workers. If the worker retired, the Legislature might be able to reduce the pensions. She said once the contract becomes final, it can't be changed.

Auer argued that lawmakers have given cost of living increases to those on state retirement and that extra money does not mean a guaranteed right forever.