Editorial: No need to court a benefactor

Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2000 | 9:50 a.m.

Unforeseen increases in construction costs have boosted the price tag for the proposed Clark County Regional Justice Center. But so far county government officials say they don't have the $4 million necessary to pay for an 18th floor that would permit room for inevitable growth. The center's supporters now are seeking donations from businesses and private foundations to fill the funding gap.

The Regional Justice Center is needed, but it's not right to tap the private sector to absorb the responsibility for the funding shortfall. Businesses shouldn't be solicited to help pay for the construction of a new government building -- especially a courthouse where it is crucial that everyone who appears before a judge should be on equal footing. Both Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy Becker and District Attorney Stewart Bell contend that those being asked for contributions are unlikely to appear in court, ruling out the potential for a conflict of interest. But in today's increasingly litigious society, it is hard to imagine a category of benefactors who could be ruled out from possibly ever appearing before a court.

For those judges who believe they couldn't remain impartial if a benefactor appeared before them, Becker said a jurist always could recuse himself. The appearance of a conflict of interest, though, can't be solved with recusals. The issue is much larger than that. If money is warranted for a public purpose, then all taxpayers should provide for it. Otherwise, this would be similar to asking businesses to pay a portion of judges' salaries because the government isn't willing to authorize more money. No one would seriously consider such a scheme for boosting salaries of public officials -- and building a government facility should be no different.

Still, those who would use the Regional Justice Center have been put in a difficult spot. If the extra space isn't built, then only part of the district attorney's office would move to the Regional Justice Center, while the rest of the office would remain at the Bridger Building. Even then, as the Sun's Kim Smith reported Monday, the new center is expected to be overcrowded once it's completed in 2002.

The whole purpose behind the facility was to efficiently bring together all of the different components of the justice system. What's the point of building a centralized facility if in fact its reason for existence isn't being met? The Clark County Commission should reconsider options to sufficiently pay for the construction of a truly regional justice center -- not just a partial one.