Judge dismisses civil suit to remove Loux

Published Wed, Sep 17, 2008 (10:24 a.m.)

Updated Wed, Sep 17, 2008 (3:25 p.m.)

Sun archives

Sept. 15 -- Judge sets hearing in Loux case
Sept. 14 -- Raises could fell tenacious foe
Sept. 11 -- Loux not going to resign right away

Sun coverage

Yucca Mountain

CARSON CITY – A district judge today dismissed a civil suit that sought to remove Robert Loux from his post as head of the state’s nuclear waste office because he had raised his own salary for several years.

District Judge Bill Maddox ruled that the law to remove public officials applies only to local government officers and not to state officials.

Judy Sheldrew, the attorney for Loux, said called the suit brought by conservative spokesman Chuck Muth “frivolous.” Sheldrew said she would now turn her attention to a complaint filed with the state Ethics Commission by Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert, R-Reno.

Sheldrew said she would seek attorney fees to be paid by Muth.

The hearing lasted less than 30 minutes in Carson City District Court and Muth later said he would not appeal the decision. But Muth said he would “put pressure” on the attorney general’s office to investigate whether a crime had been committed.

The attorney general’s office has declined to represent Loux in his legal fight to retain his job.

Gov. Jim Gibbons called for the resignation of Loux who has served as the first and only director since the office was created. Loux said he would listen to the will of the commission. He has been the director leading the fight against Yucca Mountain under both Democrat and Republican governors.

The Commission on Nuclear Projects, to whom Loux reports, meets Sept. 23 to discuss the case. Chairman Richard Bryan, a former governor and U.S. Senator, said he did not think Loux should resign.

Maddox, in dismissing the suit, said Loux could be removed only by impeachment by the Legislature. The Assembly would have to file and approve articles of impeachment. And the Senate would have to concur. It would take a two-thirds vote in each house, Maddox said.

Several hours after the Maddox decision, the Legislative Commission approved starting audits on 31 state agencies and programs including the Agency for Nuclear Projects.

Legislative Auditor Paul Townsend said this is a routine audit and was not scheduled because of the recent controversy involving Loux. The last legislative audit of the nuclear projects was in 2000.

Townsend told the commission these agencies are chosen for audits based on the amount of money handled and past problems.

Before the ruling by Maddox, Sheldrew said she intended to file a motion to dismiss. She cited the same prior cases as referred to the judge in ruling he did not have authority to hear the case.

Loux gave no comments to several questions.

Muth’s lawyer Les Bradshaw did not make any argument opposing the dismissal by the judge.

Research by the governor’s office shows Loux will earn $151,542 this fiscal year, or 32 percent above the authorized $114,088. It showed he has been giving himself and his staff extra raises for at least the past four years.

Loux admitted to the Legislative Interim Finance Committee that he made an error in giving pay raises above those authorized in the law. He said however that one of his employees left and the staff had to pick up extra work. So he divided her salary among himself and the other employees.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

By Future2012

9/17/08 at 3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Day 7 and lobbyist Bob Loux is still an employee of the State of Nevada.

Lobbyist Bob Loux has a job for life. Never can be fired. My kind of Job.

Maddox, in dismissing the suit, said Loux could only be removed by impeachment by the Legislature. The Assembly would have to file and approve articles of impeachment. And the Senate would have to concur. It would take a two-thirds vote in each house, Maddox said.
By jfnance32

9/17/08 at 7:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is proof that the state of Nevada has tons of extra cash.

If a worker can get a 32% raise and another 52% raise then there are plenty of cash to go around.

Obviously, these jobs are patronage do-nothing jobs that have produced very little over the years.
By MichaelGreen

9/17/08 at 7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

I am not defending Loux. But this was a civil lawsuit. Are you suggesting the judge is in bed with Loux? If Loux did what he is accused of doing, he will get what he deserves.

And if he doesn't, you might stop to consider that in a usually right-wing state such as Nevada, it apparently is perfectly all right to follow the national right-wing ethos: rules apply to everybody else.
By Ardent

9/18/08 at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelGreen:

With all due respect, it does sound a bit like you're defending Loux.

There is no "if Loux did" in this case. Loux DID give himself and his staffers unauthorized pay raises, dating back four years. The agency's budget and the statues that dictate pay scales prove it beyond doubt.

Moreover, Loux has apologized to the legislature ("mea culpa": translation, "I am guilty"), and has offered a frankly lame explanation for the raises, claiming that the retirement of one staffer increased the office's workload so they split the retired staffer's salary amongst themselves.

To my knowledge, he has yet to offer even a lame explanation for why he gave himself and his staff unauthorized pay raises during the three years prior.

So there is no "rush to judgement" here, and nor is this a matter of "innocent until proven guilty," a phrase I've heard many Loux-supporters use in recent days.

Now hear this, everyone: Bob Loux is GUILTY as charged. The disposition of his case with respect to criminal law may remain a pending matter, as yet undecided, but in the context of his government position, he has clearly and of his own admission violated the rules.

In the world I live in, and given the nature of the violation, what Loux did is clear grounds for termination, no matter how "effective" he has been (in the opinion of the State).

And yet, as Future2012 points out, Loux remains employed. He has not even been placed under suspension or put on administrative leave.

Finally, if you're going to suggest that Loux should be spared just because other people (e.g., right-wingers) break the rules, where does that leave us? Should we stop respecting (and enforcing) the rules altogether just because certain people break them in the belief that they are "above the law"?

I appreciate the point that Loux provides one example against hundreds of others that could be cited -- people who broke the rules and got away with it. But presumably those of us who respect the rules don't make exceptions in any case, and are doubly angry when people manage to escape the consequences or bend the rules to their purposes without repercussion.