Thu, Jan 8, 2009 (2:05 a.m.)

The Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission has been criticized for taking too long to rule on complaints against judges and for doing too much of its work in secret. Those concerns and others prompted the Nevada Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the disciplinary process by creating a blue-ribbon panel known as the Article 6 Commission, named after the section of the Nevada Constitution that addresses the judiciary.

On Monday, a subcommittee of the panel released a 155-page draft report containing a series of recommendations that will be considered by the Article 6 Commission at a public hearing in Las Vegas next Wednesday. We believe many of the recommendations are worthy of adoption. Some of the changes would have to be approved by the Nevada Legislature, and others that are administrative in nature would require adoption by the high court or the discipline commission.

One good suggestion would require the discipline commission to resolve all cases within 18 months, with a streamlined set of deadlines within that process for filing formal charges against judges, accepting responses from judges, conducting hearings and reaching decisions.

Another key recommendation would allow individuals who file complaints against judges to be able to discuss those matters publicly. As of now a person who files a complaint and then goes public can be cited for contempt.

Other recommendations would require the commission to: prepare annual reports detailing the disposition of cases; inform those who file complaints on how their cases are resolved; and conduct a public hearing before a judge can be suspended. Public admonitions and public reprimands would also be added to the list of possible disciplinary actions. While complainants would receive protection from retaliation from judges, the recommendations are structured so that judges would still be treated fairly.

“This is an important step to help ensure that there is public trust and confidence in Nevada’s courts,” said William Dressel, president of the National Judicial College in Reno and co-chairman of the Article 6 Commission.

Indeed the public would be better served by a judicial disciplinary process that is conducted more in the sunshine.