County clerk’s duties may shift

Tony Cook and Matt Pordum

Wednesday, April 26, 2006 | 7:19 a.m.

Clark County's elected clerk could have the majority of her powers stripped away by local judges who want control of the clerk's court responsibilities - a move that some county officials view as a power grab.

In a change that Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle and others argue will streamline court operations, Clark County Clerk Shirley Parraguirre would be removed as clerk of the court and those responsibilities would be placed under the jurisdiction of the judges instead.

While that would leave the elected county clerk with far fewer duties - and less power - the change would help the court system operate more smoothly, Hardcastle and others said.

But a fuming Parraguirre disputes any effort to characterize the change as for the better.

"I believe it's being driven by something else and not for the best interests of the courts at all," she said. "I absolutely do not think this move is necessary because I don't believe the clerk's office has ever been run as efficiently as it's run today."

Hardcastle, who said she has few criticisms of Parraguirre, offered her the new job of court clerk that Hardcastle plans to create. Parraguirre, however, turned it down.

"Even though it was more money, I said no because there is no way I would ever work under the court," Parraguirre said.

Despite her reluctance to criticize Parraguirre, Hardcastle admitted: "There are certain things we can't agree upon."

The chief judge said the disagreement stems from the fact that the county clerk's office, as it is now structured, is part of the executive branch and has needs that compete with those of the court.

An example, Hardcastle said, is how District Court clerks also are used in the marriage-licensing bureau. Because of a staff shortage, clerks work mandatory overtime each week, which the judge said causes their court duties to suffer.

Hardcastle said she has received support for the plan from 30 of the 33 District Court judges and is waiting to hear from the others.

Parraguirre took issue with that claim.

"I've talked to five or six judges who told me they knew nothing about this plan at all," Parraguirre said.

The dispute between the two elected officials is causing stress at the clerk's office, according to Parraguirre.

Her staff is "very stressed out because they have no idea what the future will hold for them if this goes through," she said.

"I've asked the chief judge for the details of the plan, but she hasn't offered any specifics for me to share with my 270-member staff," she said.

Hardcastle did brief some county commissioners and staff Monday, some of whom questioned the timing of the proposal and expressed fear that the change might be costly for a county whose resources already are stretched by a criminal justice system trying to keep pace with the valley's population boom.

"Just off the top of my head, creating two clerks - two high-salary positions - is a concern, and then you lose some economies of scale," Clark County Manager Thom Reilly said.

"We would like more time to look at what the impacts will be, particularly the fiscal impact."

Assistant County Manager Elizabeth Quillin, who oversees the needs of the justice community, said it is too soon to know how much the transition would cost. It would take more than a year to phase in, she said.

Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates questioned not only the plan's impact on taxpayers, but also the motive behind it.

"It's a power grab," she said, accusing the judges of ignoring the financial implications. Her husband, District Judge Lee Gates, is among the judges Hardcastle said supports the plan.

"They are so power hungry over there," Atkinson Gates said. If the court wants to control the county clerk's staff, then the state, which pays judges, also should pay for those staffers, not the county, she said.

County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury - along with Commission Chairman Rory Reid and Quillin - met with Hardcastle Monday. The chief judge essentially told commissioners they did not have a say in the matter, according to Woodbury.

Woodbury questioned why Hardcastle is pushing the issue now, only a week before the candidate filing period opens. Parraguirre is up for re-election in November.

State lawmakers should consider the broader policy question of whether the clerk should be elected or appointed, he added.

"If this goes through as it sounds like it will, the clerk will be stripped of 90 percent of her powers," he said. "Why then should it be an elected position?"

Some in the court system, however, say Hardcastle's idea has merit.

"I think it's in the best interest of District Court and the public," said Presiding Civil Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez. Having the courts handle case documents directly will "provide swift justice and an ease of access to the community," she said.

Clark County Public Defender Phil Kohn agreed.

"It's a pretty good idea because of the problems right now with judges supervising in one sense, and Shirley supervising in another sense," he said.

Hardcastle said she wanted to make the announcement of the planned change this week so that those running for county clerk would have a full understanding of the job.

The judge hopes to have a committee in place by January to search for prospective candidates to become the court clerk. That timetable likely would be expedited if Parraguirre is not re-elected, Hardcastle said.

Hardcastle's plan is possible thanks to a 2001 Nevada Supreme Court decision out of Washoe County.

The Washoe District Court in 1974 did what Hardcastle wants to do in Clark County now. The split occurred after a judge wanted a trial to run through the lunch hour, a request blocked by then-Washoe County Clerk HK Brown, who did not want one of his staffers to miss lunch.

"There was a fight about who that clerk worked for," current Washoe County Clerk Amy Harvey said. "That's how this started. The judges had this strong-headed clerk they couldn't deal with."

After Harvey was elected in 1999, she argued before the Nevada Supreme Court that the elected county clerk is the sole person designated by the state constitution to act as District Court clerk.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2001, however, that the "office of the clerk of the District Court is not a constitutional office." It is, the high court wrote, "a ministerial office inherent to the judicial branch" with the sole purpose of performing "clerical and record-keeping functions necessary to the District Court's operation."

That decision, Harvey argues, disregards the clerk's check-and-balance role in maintaining the integrity of public documents.

"The public has a right to know their records are not being manipulated by county commissioners," she said. "That same logic holds true for the court. There's too much likelihood that if they wanted to manipulate them, they could because they are in charge of them."