By Ed Koch

Mon, Jul 26, 2004 (11:04 a.m.)

A plan by Clark County to give the state total control of District Court in exchange for the county taking on the full responsibility of funding the local child welfare system is being met with criticism from District Court administrators and judges.

"I'm hard-pressed to see how this will benefit the citizens of Clark County," Chief District Judge Cathy Hardcastle said today, noting the county did not discuss the proposed swap with judges or court administrators.

"We would have to go to Carson City for all of our funding, including our special needs."

Hardcastle said District Court locally deals with complex litigation such as construction defects and medical malpractice -- issues for which the County Commission has provided the judges with funding to address.

"The county is better able to address special needs of the county," Hardcastle said. "It seems we are being used as a pawn in this game" to fund the child welfare system.

The county plans to submit as early as this week a bill proposal to the Legislative Council Bureau to hand over to the state what currently is the county's responsibility to fund 90 percent-plus of the District Court system.

The county currently pays for court support staff, bailiffs, the courthouse and supplies, which total $1.37 million for each courtroom, while the state pays the judges' annual salaries of $130,000 apiece.

In exchange, the county, which is expected to complete by October what has been a two-year takeover of the child welfare system from the state, will use the money it saves funding District Court to self-fund the child welfare system.

Without the swap, the county will have to go to the state Legislature every two years for funding of the child welfare system, county officials say.

Dan Musgrove, chief lobbyist for Clark County, calls the deal "equitable" because it will cost the county $19.3 million to run the child welfare program in the coming year, while it currently costs the county and state a combined $20.5 million to operate District Court, he said.

"It makes more sense for a clean break through an equitable swap," Musgrove said today. "Currently, fewer than 20 states fund their district courts with local money. Just four of eleven Western states fund their district courts with local money."

District Court Administrator Chuck Short said regardless of what is going on in other states, each entity has to look at what is the best funding formula for its citizens to best deliver traditional services.

"One of the strengths of the 90 percent funding of the court by the county is that the county budgets on an annual basis and the state budgets on a biannual basis," Short said. "The state process (for funding) is more cumbersome and slower. We are a fast-growing community that needs to address changes quickly.

"The county cannot make these changes (court funding) without thinking about the potential problems it will create."

Musgrove said it only makes sense for the state to have total control of the court because the state already controls not only how much the judges are paid, but also how many judges the county can have.

Musgrove said Justice Court would remain under county control and that the union-represented District Court county employees would become union-represented state employees under the terms of the swap.