System of accountability ordered for district judges

Bill Gang

Wednesday, Sept. 22, 1999 | 12:05 p.m.

In what Chief Justice Robert Rose called an "historic step," the Nevada Supreme Court has unanimously ordered that a strong chief judge system be installed at Clark County's District Court.

The system that places the chief judge as the supervisor above the other district judges "should promote more accountability in the operation of the District Court," Rose said.

Along with providing authority for the chief judge to assign and direct workloads of the other judges, the high court order that was filed Monday establishes a series of strict new rules over the trial judges.

The order requires judges to be in court or in their courthouse chambers most of the day and coordinate days off the bench with the chief judge.

Until now individual judges had controlled how long they spent at the job and how much time off they took. No records were kept of hours and absences.

The new rules, which go into effect immediately, also require judges who have no trials on a particular week to take so-called overflow trials from judges whose calendars are overcrowded.

Rose told the Nevada Legislature early this year that a couple of judges weren't pulling their weight and the legislators responded by passing a bill requiring a strong chief judge system.

The high court formalized the system after months of dealings with the District Court judges -- many of whom bitterly opposed any rules over their conduct.

Under the new rules, the chief judge has wide-ranging authority to assign cases and also supervises and directs court staff not directly assigned to individual district judges.

But the authority isn't absolute. The chief judge, who is elected for two years and may be retained for two more, can be removed from the post by a two-thirds vote of the other judges.

Likewise, a decision or edict by the chief judge can be overturned by a two-thirds vote of the other judges.

The strong chief judge rules that were adopted Monday were based on recommendations from the judges in Clark County's Eighth Judicial District Court. But the vote in favor of the rules -- at a meeting Aug. 11 that was closed to the public -- was a thin 8 to 7.

It was a rocky road toward accountability before then.

The first version of the rules recommended to the high court by a majority of district judges provided for little oversight and few requirements for accountability. Judges didn't have to be in the courthouse so long as they could be reached by telephone and could take as much vacation time as they chose whenever they wanted. There was no expectation for judges who weren't busy to take overflow trials from judges who were.

The state Supreme Court early this summer rejected that proposal and chastised the judges who tried to sidestep oversight by offering it. In that decision, the seven Supreme Court justices specified the eventual rules must require that district judges be available at the courthouse during workdays, coordinate vacations and help each other by accepting overflow trials.

While the 8-7 majority vote last month accepted the high court direction, it came only after some judges tried again to water down the rules and weaken the strong chief judge system.

District Judge Jeff Sobel complained last month about the strict rules. "No other jurisdiction has ever adopted one wrinkle of what we are being asked to do -- what we do with the majority of our time and where we spend our time.

"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 the strong chief judge system was formalized, district judges were considered to be independently elected officials who were able to handle their caseloads any way they saw fit. They decided for themselves whether they would be at the courthouse on a given day and how much vacation they would take.