Judge rekindles feud with old rival

Monday, Jan. 3, 2000 | 11:31 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- An old feud on the Nevada Supreme Court has been rekindled with the filing of a lawsuit by former Chief Justice Charles Springer, claiming his pay was shortchanged in his last two years in office.

The suit, filed last week in the Supreme Court, complains that Springer was paid 20 percent less than his old rival, Justice Cliff Young, from 1997 to 1999, when he retired.

Springer, who lives in Reno, asks the court to "redress the injustice and unequal treatment" suffered by him by either giving him extra back pay or recovering the added amount paid Young.

Named as defendants are Young, state Controller Kathy Augustine and the state.

Asked to comment on the suit, Young said, "It doesn't sound like it was written by him (Springer). It has better composition than Charlie."

Young, who often tangled with Springer on the court, said he never paid any attention to the difference in pay, if there was one. During his last two years in office, Springer was paid $85,000 while Young received $107,600 during the same period.

For 130 years, Springer said, all the justices received equal pay. The Nevada Constitution prohibits raising the pay of justices while they are in office. The justices have staggered terms. So if the Legislature gave a pay raise to the court, the justices would not receive it until they ran for re-election.

To remedy this, the Legislature allowed justices who were earning less than the others to be paid for their service on the state Board of Pardons, thereby equalizing the pay.

A constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot in 1994 designed to end that gimmick. It would have allowed the salaries of judges to be raised during their term in office, leading to equal pay. But the voters defeated that 309,137 to 58,363.

Then the Legislature in 1995 abolished the added pay for work on the pardons board, Young said. The Legislature also authorized a pay raise for justices who were elected in 1996. Young won re-election in 1996 and started collecting higher pay in 1997.

Springer, who was the senior member of the court, did not qualify in 1997 for a raise because he had not run for a new term.

So in the final two years of his 18 years on the court, Springer did not get a pay raise. This "bizarre system," Springer said, resulted in some jurists making more than others for the same work. Some Supreme Court justices were making less than lower court judges, such as justices of the peace.

This opened the door, Springer said "to the potential of resentment among judicial colleagues."

The suit, Springer said, should also apply to other justices who were in the same situation.