MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Sixty-seventh Session
March 4, 1993
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, March 4, 1993, in Room 223 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Diana M. Glomb
Senator William R. O'Donnell
Senator Matthew Q. Callister
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Daniel G. Miles, Fiscal Analyst
Robert Guernsey, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst
Judy Jacobs, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Michael K. Wall, Supervising Staff Attorney, Supreme Court Staff Attorneys, Supreme Court
Janette Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court
Donald J. Mello, Court Administrator, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court
David H. T. Wayment, Deputy District Attorney, Appellate Division, Washoe County
Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration
Senior Judge Llewellyn A. Young, Retired, District Courts
Susan Southwick, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library
Frances R. White, Justice of the Peace, Smith Valley Township, Municipal Judge, Yerington
Senator Raggio extended a welcome to present and former members of the Nevada judiciary. Among those present were Chief Justice Robert E. Rose, Associate Justice Miriam Shearing, Associate Justice Cliff Young and Senior Judge Llewellyn Young.
Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice, Supreme Court, introduced members of the judicial branch to the committee. He quipped the Supreme Court budget may be one of the easier budgets in a difficult legislative session due to the fact the Supreme Court is not scheduled for any reorganization.
Justice Rose expressed gratitude to the legislature for funding the new Supreme Court building. He invited members of the committee to tour the building. Senator Raggio accepted the invitation on behalf of those members of the committee who had not had the opportunity to visit the building since its completion and occupancy.
Justice Rose commended the legislature for being responsive to needs of the court in the past. He acknowledged the court now has the ability to dispose of 1,000 cases per year, but he identified that number as about the maximum that a five-justice court can handle.
Justice Rose compared the judicial system in Utah with that in Nevada. He noted the American Bar Association (ABA) recommends that a five-judge appellate court handle no more than 500 cases per year, 100 cases per judge per year. He reiterated the Nevada Supreme Court handles more than double the ABA recommendation already.
Senator Raggio inquired if the ABA figure includes all cases that arise, or only those cases that require a written decision. Justice Rose replied the 100 cases per year includes an ordinary mixture of those requiring written decisions, pro per petitions, simple appeals and difficult appeals, not just written opinions.
Senator Raggio asked if Justice Rose felt a written decision is necessary for every criminal appeal that goes to the court, especially since many cases appear to be time-consuming, expensive, and of no precedent-setting value. Justice Rose responded it is not necessary to write an opinion for every case, and there is an alternative. He indicated the court often disposes of less than 200 cases by formal, written opinion. The other 800 or 900 cases are generally disposed of by court orders which are unpublished and are rendered only to the parties involved. He acknowledged the vast majority of criminal cases are disposed of by order.
Senator Raggio concurred many criminal appeals do not carry any precedent value and would not require a written opinion unless there were some overriding requirement for a written opinion. Justice Rose speculated about 50 to 60 dispositions of criminal cases are done through written opinions, while the remainder of written opinions apply to civil dispositions. He acknowledged there are occasions when it is believed a more serious case may go to a federal court in which the court issues a written opinion. He said, "We like to state...everything that we have done...so we don't face the exhaustion of remedies problem when the federal judge...sees the case and sends it back to us and says, `You didn't exhaust this.'"
Senator Raggio asked how Nevada ranks with other states regarding the proportionate number of unpublished opinions. Justice Rose answered that Nevada ranks very high, possibly the highest on a percentage basis. He stated many Nevada lawyers complain the Supreme Court does not issue enough written opinions.
Justice Rose stated Utah, with a five-member court, writes opinions in most cases but prioritizes them, including major civil cases, death penalty cases, and important public interest cases. He reported the caseload backed up from 3 to 5 years when the Utah court continued "business as usual" with identified priorities. He said judges, attorneys and the citizenry descended on the legislature in Utah, which subsequently created an intermediate appellate court by statute, without a constitutional amendment. The Utah appellate court consists of seven people.
Justice Rose pointed out Nevada has attempted to create an intermediate appellate court through a vote of the people,
but the measure has been defeated twice. He noted the legislature has provided extra staff members to assist processing of cases, but the underlying problem still returns to the five justices who must sign off on every case. He claimed, "Therein lies the bottleneck...the juggernaut where more cannot be done." He stated he was not making a request for more staff attorneys.
Justice Rose said the Supreme Court has resorted to Order Dismissing Appeal (ODA) and to an increase in the central staff to speed up the process. He acknowledged the Nevada Supreme Court has one of the largest central staffs in the United States.
Senator Glomb asked the justice to expand on his comments regarding the staff. Justice Rose responded many cases are processed through attorneys attached to the Supreme Court, who analyze and process the cases before they go to the two law clerks and the justices of the court.
Justice Rose said, "I was talking to the Chief Justice [of Utah] about 6 months ago and telling him about our caseload, and they have about the same caseload, but they have seven more appellate judges. He...said...that's just flat crazy." Justice Rose added the chief justice from Montana complained Montana is inundated with cases, yet Montana, with five justices, heard just 200 cases. When Justice Rose informed the chief justice of Montana that the Nevada Supreme Court, with five justices, was hearing approximately 1,200 cases a year, the Montana judge protested it would be impossible.
Justice Rose regretted the public had not been informed more effectively of the critical need for an intermediate appellate court. He felt the public might have approved the measure if they had been made aware of the need. Senator Raggio agreed the denial by the public was disappointing to those such as he who share the view an appellate court is desperately needed.
Justice Rose commented eight new district court judges have been appointed, which means more cases will be processed and there will be more appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court. He said projections of 1,300 cases by the year 2,000 are probably underestimated because in 1992 there were 1,025 cases projected while the court actually reviewed about 1,125. He warned the number of cases will continue to climb.
Justice Rose committed to more use of senior judges in settlement conferences, which he hoped may help reduce the caseload. However, he acknowledged, there will be many more cases coming to the court in the next decade, which will lead to a larger backlog. The backlog will lead to longer times before disposition is reached, stretching from a present time-frame of between 1 and 2 years to more than 2 years. He charged there was no way to help the problem.
Senator Raggio inquired what the normal time lag was between a final submission of an appeal to the hearing and then to the final opinion. Justice Rose stated after a case is submitted it goes to his central staff. He turned to his staff attorney to explain the next steps.
Michael K. Wall, Supervising Staff Attorney, Supreme Court Staff Attorneys, Supreme Court, responded the staff attorneys attempt to have the screening process completed within a 2-week period. He stated, "By the time it actually goes to a justice and gets submitted to the clerk's office we are...turning those cases over in a 1-month period."
Mr. Wall explained the screening process, in which it is determined whether oral arguments will be allowed. He said, if there is to be oral argument, the case is submitted to the clerk's office, where it is scheduled for hearing. He continued to say:
Following the submission of the final brief there will be a period of a month to 6 weeks before submission to the
clerk, and then there has to be notice to the attorneys so there is usually a period of approximately 3 months before it's actually scheduled for argument. If the case is not scheduled for argument, then the case will be submitted on the approximate date that would have been argued had it been scheduled, so that the cases get the same priority through the system.
Senator Raggio asked the length of time until the decision is usually rendered and filed after the hearing. Mr. Wall was unsure of the time and deferred to the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Janette Bloom, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court, testified she did not have exact statistics, but estimated the average case was decided within 2 to 4 months after oral arguments, while more difficult cases may take up to 2 years to decide. Justice Rose interjected only about a fourth of the cases go to oral argument, so the bulk of cases are submitted without oral argument.
Justice Rose complained as volume increases and time is occupied with processing average cases, there is a tendency to delay the more difficult cases. He contended it was not due to lack of good intentions, it was due to a desire to process many more simple cases quickly rather than slow down for a difficult case which has greater impact on the law and is thus more important to the state.
Senator Callister asked for clarification on the steps taken by Utah to create an appellate court without a constitutional enabling act. He acknowledged that the Nevada Constitution is narrow regarding the judicial system. He expressed concern that, due to the shortfall in revenue, the court has quit traveling to the southern part of the state.
Senator Callister complained that the southern Nevada bar has found that as costs have risen for appeals there has also been a psychological reluctance to appeal because an appeal will require travel to the north for hearing. He said, "All of those factors really result in the old saying `Justice delayed is justice denied.'" He suggested the option of appeal is simply rejected by southern Nevada attorneys in many matters, especially civil disputes, even when an appeal seems warranted.
Senator Callister asked what plans were being made to address his complaint, and he asked if the language of the proposed constitutional amendment should be reconsidered. He suggested using the Utah approach and simply authorizing the creation of an appellate court or expansion of the existing court system through more general language. He opined the public might be more tolerant of such an approach.
Justice Rose expressed his dismay when one trip to Las Vegas by the court had to be omitted due to budget cuts in order to save close to $10,000. He stated that seemed to be a better choice than deleting staff positions, difficult as it was to do so. He concurred the court should sit in Las Vegas more often, maybe four or five times a year, since the majority of the cases originate in southern Nevada.
Justice Rose said staff had been debating having one justice and two senior judges travel to Las Vegas to handle some of the lessor cases and then refer the findings back to the entire Supreme Court. He emphasized he was not sure such a procedure would be technically constitutional if hearings were held before just one justice. He said, "It says they are entitled to a hearing, does that mean a hearing before one justice or the whole court?"
Justice Rose added there have been discussions over whether to make the settlement conference program mandatory, more effective, and held earlier, before an appeal is filed. He suggested the caseload may grow to a point where it will be desirable to establish a three-judge appellate court in Las Vegas by statute, even though it may be marginally constitutional.
Supreme Court - Page 75
Justice Rose qualified his earlier remark about the simplicity of his budget. He observed there has been a clear and dramatic downward turn in collection of administrative assessment fees. He said through January of this fiscal year there has been a shortfall in collections of $178,000 in administrative assessment (AA) fees that have been imposed, and the trend is continuing. He said, "The total impact on all the Supreme Court budgets for administrative assessment fees...through January is $300,000." He explained the vast majority of assessments are made for traffic violations and misdemeanors. He said, "Few are being given, but the ones being given are larger. I don't know if that reflects a general law-enforcement trend."
Justice Rose noted there is a general downward trend of fees imposed between Thanksgiving and the New Year. He suggested judges may feel more lenient during that period, or they may defer judgements until January.
Donald J. Mello, Court Administrator, Office of Court Administrator, Supreme Court, (AOC) provided the senators with a written forecast of changes in assessments (Exhibit C) which depicts the projected shortfall in assessment collections. He called attention to the column showing the net change, a loss of $178,000, after the forecast was revised on March 1, 1993. Using the result of the revision, Mr. Mello noted the projections for future years through fiscal year (FY) 1995 for the Supreme Court budget and other departments under the Supreme Court.
Mr. Mello distributed a document depicting a series of graphs (Exhibit D). Referring to the first page, he said:
If you take this year's revenue and divide it by 12 you come up with the average line. It shows that the revenues per month are below the average.... At some point in time it's going to have to cross the average line. We're 6 months into the year below the average line. That will generally indicate the last 6 months of the year we're going to have to be above the average line. I think that's going to be not achievable.
Senator Raggio asked what reductions were made by the court at the request of the Governor. Justice Rose confirmed $141,406 was reverted from the 1991-92 budget of over $3 million. He indicated nearly $100,000 of the reverted funds came from personnel, while the other reverted funds came from budgets for operating, travel, equipment, and judicial commissions.
Justice Rose declared a good-faith effort had been made to make cuts, but in some areas there was no way to cut expenses. He cited district court salaries and benefits as expenses fixed by statute which could not be cut. He explained one method of saving came about by leaving vacancies unfilled for a few months, although that caused delays in procedures.
Mr. Mello commented the savings actually added up to more than $141,406. He said AA revenues were $11,772 short, and a $20,000 cut was made in salaries. He stated the actual savings achieved by the Supreme Court was $173,000 although not all of the savings resulted in a reversion.
Justice Rose averred the court has tried to limit requests to the bare essentials for the coming biennium. He acknowledged a request for a raise in the law clerks' salaries from $34,300 to $36,000 per year. He said, "Normally the $34,300 is...competitive, although a little bit lower than the state district courts and much lower than the federal court system." He explained several of the judges would like to have law clerks commit to a 2-year term, in which case the $34,300 salary is not as enticing for more permanent employment. He admitted many clerks take the bar examination and leave about the time they are well-trained, "get up to speed and are very valuable." He hoped the $36,000 would make a 2-year commitment more attractive to secure competent help for a longer period of time.
Justice Rose noted there is also a request to increase the pay for six staff attorneys from $45,500 to $49,000 and for two staff attorneys up to $53,500. He attributed the necessity to request the raise to the adverse impact of trying to obtain parity with attorneys in the attorney general's office in the 1991 budget. He said:
It was out of frustration of having attorneys...in here saying...so and so gets this, I would like to get that.... At that time the attorney general was presenting her budget...and we asked for a rough parity with the deputy attorneys general. When the final bill came out on the last day...it was the last day of the budget.... What happened was that several of our attorneys who were on the 1989 schedule...got thousands of dollars less than they would have if we had just followed that normal progression, and a couple of our attorneys had to take actual reductions in pay for the next 2 years of $1,000.
Justice Rose asserted the differences were "terribly inequitable" and said the attorneys in the Supreme Court are paid at least $4,000 to $5,000 below the same level of attorneys in the attorney general's office.
Mr. Wall elaborated on the remarks made by Justice Rose concerning the impact of the unclassified pay bill passed at the last session of the legislature. He confirmed half the staff attorneys at the Supreme Court took a decrease in salary over what they would have been paid had the legislature not passed the 1991 pay bill. At the time the legislature undertook to set all salaries for all state attorneys on a schedule of parity, he explained, there was a recommendation that senior staff attorneys with 4 years of experience should be paid $45,500.
Mr. Wall continued:
We did not at that time have all senior staff attorneys, but the unclassified bill, when it came out...said Staff Attorney IV, $45,500, and after it said "each," which authorized us to pay all of our attorneys who reached that level that amount of money. And so each staff attorney that we had, most of whom were at the second level at that point, and moved to the third level, they were told that in the next biennium they would move to that fourth level. Unfortunately what happened ... when the pay bill came out in 1991 it said Staff Attorney IV, and it set a salary, and it said "one only." Then it said Staff Attorney III, and it lumped the rest of them into that category.
Mr. Wall protested some of his staff attorneys with the equal amounts of experience are now being paid at three different levels. He said the salary for a level III is $44,500, which is $1,000 less than what had been authorized in 1989. At the time he had one Staff Attorney IV being paid $47,000, he said, and another Staff Attorney IV who was being paid $45,500 had to be lowered to Staff Attorney III with a $1,000 pay cut.
Mr. Wall stated 2 months after the legislature lowered the pay scale three more attorneys reached a level in which they should have achieved Staff Attorney IV, yet their pay was set at $44,500.
Senator Raggio asked what rule of thumb Mr. Wall used when he hired someone with no experience or what amount of experience was necessary to employ someone at a higher level. Mr. Wall replied prior to 1989 people moved up erratically, so after the passage of the 1989 pay bill the court adopted a policy which started with the top amount and discounted down through levels III, II and I. He stated a Staff Attorney I is viewed as an entry level position with the lowest pay and then moves up one level with each year of experience at the court. Thus, he said, after 4 years a staff attorney should reach the highest, Staff Attorney IV, level.
Mr. Wall indicated anyone joining the staff with significant outside experience could be given credit, but so far none with prior experience have been hired. He added there are two staff attorneys working for the Clerk of the Court who have reached the point where they should be paid at level IV.
David H. T. Wayment, Deputy District Attorney, Appellate Division, Washoe County, told the committee he had been a staff attorney with the Supreme Court for 3 years. He declared he had made an intensive effort to find a job elsewhere as a direct result of the lower pay scale mandated by the last legislative session and he was able to move into the Office of the District Attorney in Washoe County at a salary approximately $2,000 higher than he received at the Supreme Court. He asserted he received a further benefit because his Washoe County salary was near the bottom of the pay scale with room to move up.
Mr. Wayment said he left the Supreme Court at a point where he had reached "the end of the learning curve" and he was at maximum productivity. He estimated he handled about 200 cases during his last year at the Supreme Court, which he described as a high productivity level. He agreed the salary reduction and freeze had a negative impact on the court, and he revealed there are staff attorneys at the court looking for other employment. He advised the legislature to attempt to retain experienced staff permanently to avoid the backlog being created by the growing caseload. He suggested experienced staff members are able to handle 200 to 300 cases a year, while inexperienced people may only be able to handle 50 cases.
Senator Raggio asked what higher positions are available at the court for attorneys other than Staff Attorney IV. Mr. Wall responded he is the only Supervising Staff Attorney and there is one Deputy Supervising Staff Attorney in addition to the Clerk of the Court.
Senator Raggio inquired how many positions are included in the request for increased personnel funding. Mr. Wall said there are eight attorneys who would be potentially affected. Justice Rose interjected there is also a request for an increase for one position in the Administrative Office of the Courts to elevate the pay of the deputy director above that of the financial analyst, which is a subordinate position.
Senator Raggio concurred the requests are "troublesome" since the Executive Budget does not include any salary increases. He admitted the legislature thought the problem of discrepancies in the salaries of attorneys' positions throughout state government had been resolved and he agreed the committee should take a look at omissions. He conceded there had been adjustments because several agencies had not accepted the legislature's intentions. He said, "We were constantly being whipsawed, not only in state government, but also by...references to other public sector positions.... That's just not the right way to set salaries."
Senator Raggio acknowledged he and others on the committee are mindful of salaries being paid to attorneys in the private sector. He recognized the job market is not particularly enticing in the private sector today. He offered assurances he was not denying the request for additional funds but admonished a careful analysis must be done.
Justice Rose proposed that a study of the court system be made. He averred the last comprehensive study of the needs of the court had been done in the 1970s. He asserted recent additions to the judicial system had not come about due to any prearranged plan. He stated it would be very helpful to have a plan for the entire state.
Justice Rose said it had been estimated a comprehensive study of the judicial system would cost approximately $240,000, but due to the shortfall and budget restraints he proposed $120,000 be used for a needs assessment for courts in urban Nevada areas. He included Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Reno and Sparks as those areas which should be considered under a study of municipal, justice and district court needs. He said those are the areas in which the bulk of the population and judges will face future expansion.
Justice Rose said a needs-assessment study should indicate whether the needs of the people are already being met and what short-term demands will be. He suggested the structure of the court system should be gauged and whether any new methods or procedures would improve the system. He envisioned using a committee comprised of ten people, most of whom would not be attorneys. Many of the members would come from business and labor, but there will be some judges and attorneys. The committee will be asked to take a fresh and candid view of the needs and economy of the court system.
Justice Rose said he had received an estimate of $40,000 to $60,000 for a needs-assessment only from the National Center of State Courts. He stated the center, with many resources and talented people, has done many similar studies in most of the other states.
Senator Raggio asked when the last such study was made. Mr. Wall answered a study for an appellate court had been completed for the 1991 legislative session. According to Justice Rose the last previous study had been made in the early 1970s when the state was considering the "Missouri Plan" and the expansion of the system.
Senator Raggio asked, if Justice Rose was proposing two studies, one by the National Center of State Courts at a cost of $40,000 to $60,000, and another by a local committee, where the other funds would be needed. For a more comprehensive study by the center, Justice Rose requested:
A needs-assessment only, that just means running the numbers, just a very general review of the court system and comparing the three court systems in each locale, and comparing it to comparable courts in other places, that's the needs-assessment, I said, but if we wanted you to go further...to do a general review of that court system, to see...in modern court jurisprudence, is it functioning effectively, are there...any methods or procedures that you would recommend....
Justice Rose said he was informed by the center an additional analysis which would include a study of chronic problems between the Las Vegas clerk's office, the district attorneys' offices and the district court judges would bring the cost to about $100,000. He speculated travel and meetings for a committee of ten people would probably cost another $10,000, and he added another $10,000 as a cushion.
Senator Raggio asked if, "in this time of austerity," the type of study Justice Rose was proposing could be deferred until the next biennium. Given a choice of funding the study or increased pay for his staff attorneys, Justice Rose said the staff attorneys would have priority.
Senator Raggio assured Justice Rose the committee would attempt to find a way to compensate for lost assessment fees while cautioning him that some hard choices will have to be made.
Senator Coffin concurred there would be some real value in the study, especially one including people other than attorneys. He said an in-depth study done by the Las Vegas Review-Journal was based solely upon input from attorneys. He noted the cost of the study would be relatively inexpensive and would be a useful tool to explain to the electorate the actual work done by the courts.
Justice Rose revealed he had been told by the six new family court judges in January that they intended to come to the legislature to request two more family court judges because of the work load they knew they were facing. He suggested a benchmark study in which the legislature had confidence would be helpful for making a determination in response to such requests.
Justice Rose reminded the committee not only does a new judge cost the state around $100,000 but also each one costs the county about $200,000 or more for a courtroom and supporting personnel. He asserted that was another reason why a study would be valuable. He added one of the Clark County commissioners had endorsed the concept of a study and might recommend a county contribution to the costs. He warned the legislature in 2 years they will wish they had authorized the study if it has not been made.
Senator Raggio quipped no study had ever been made "the result of which suggested that we were going to save some money and not spend some more...."
Senator Callister asked if Justice Rose had considered "the alternative resolutions or solutions of the appellate court dead-lock?" Justice Rose admitted he had not for the same reason he had omitted the rural counties because of the additional expense. He stated, "In 1989 with Mike Wall...his committee went all through this, and there was a comprehensive study made on that. We consulted a number of experts, and they always came back to one thing: you need more appellate judges."
Senator Callister pointed out under the best circumstances the state was 7 years from being able to constitutionally address the issue of an appellate court. He commended Justice Rose for his cost-effective and creative potential interim solutions. He asked if the study would address similar interim measures that would alleviate some of the backlog before a constitutional change could be effected.
Justice Rose responded members of the Supreme Court intended to address interim measures themselves. If the study committee was formed, he said, he would not be reluctant to ask them for solutions. He stated he did not want to add more components to the study due to the additional expense. He stated he had tried to focus on areas where the most expansion will take place, which he deemed will be greatest in the Nevada Supreme Court.
Senator Raggio inquired what is provided by the National Center for State Courts to which dues in excess of $50,000 are paid annually.
Justice Rose responded the $50,000 would not include the specific and comprehensive study under consideration. He was told the dues provide for general studies and access to information the center puts out on a regular basis and for answers to relatively simple questions. Senator Raggio suggested the court may want to review the value of participating in the center at a cost of $100,000 per biennium.
Mr. Mello spoke out in favor of membership in the National Center for State Courts. He explained:
They're helpful, they're available to you, they answer questions...they'll call other states to conduct a survey for us, especially helpful to me with a small staff. I can use them as an extension of my staff to call those states. They're calling certainly on our nickel because we pay dues, but once they get the dues it's their nickel, they're incurring the long distance phone charge, not us.
Senator Raggio inquired if the information would be available if the state did not participate in the center. Mr. Mello opined a fee would be charged if the state was not a member. He said
Other states that pay higher fees than we do; they've made a concerted effort to contain their costs, revamp their fee structure. It used to be based similarly to the way the dues for the similar organization for the legislature and for the governors is based. They saw those fees skyrocketing so they reevaluated their fee structure, and those fees are no longer parallel to those other two organizations.
Senator Raggio called attention to the request for a $5,000 dedicated telephone line under Enhancement module 700 on page 77 of the Executive Budget and asked for an explanation. Mr. Mello responded there is a need for the two staff members in Las Vegas to do work that originates in the Carson City office.
Ms. Bloom explained the Las Vegas office is an extension of the Clerk of the Supreme Court's office. She said when the court is in session in Las Vegas, the two Las Vegas staff members, both deputy clerks, act as secretaries to the justices. They assist the clerk's office in handling bar admissions, and they work closely with the State Bar Association. She added they also proofread some of the published opinions of the court and assist in preparation with documents.
Senator Raggio asked why two dedicated lines are necessary. Mr. Mello replied the lines would contain costs because all calls between Carson City and Las Vegas are charged long distance rates. He said the $5,000 would be a one-time charge to install the lines, and although there would be monthly charges for the line, he estimated present toll charges would offset the monthly rate. He asserted the benefit would come in the future when there would be no necessity to request increases for telephone rates. He explained the dedicated lines would facilitate voice, computer and FAX [facsimile machine] communications and eliminate toll charges.
Senator Raggio inquired if any policies have been established by the court to control telephone charges. Justice Rose responded everyone from the Governor and Chief Justice to the lowliest clerk in state government is aware that public property should not be used for private purposes and there are statutes to that effect. He declared the Supreme Court has a policy that each person is on his honor to not use the telephone for private purposes and each justice approves or disapproves long distance charges every month. Those that are not approved are reimbursed by the justice to the state.
Senator Coffin agreed there should be some flexibility for each public official to determine whether a call was a private or public matter. Justice Rose recognized a rule of reasonableness should be used and that there are calls which are difficult to designate as either personal business or court business.
Senator Raggio requested particulars on the use of $244,924 appropriated at the last session for computer equipment and software. Ms. Bloom responded the Supreme Court does not have a computer system for court operations, although her office does use word processing. She said she has been striving to achieve a case-management software program to handle functions presently done manually by the clerk's office. As the caseload increases, she charged it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep accurate records for the court.
Ms. Bloom said:
One thing we would also like to do, once we get our case-management, which...I can describe in terms that non-lawyers can understand. We're trying to put on a computer a record of every document filed in a case.... This is very important to the litigants and the attorneys involved. They want to know what is going on.... As far as the court is concerned, it helps them manage their caseload. Each justice will be able to see which cases are assigned to that justice's chamber, where they are in the system and what remains for the justice or the staff to be done on the case.
Ms. Bloom stated she would like to accommodate Las Vegas by having the information available there over dedicated computer lines.
Ms. Bloom claimed she had spent the past 2 years studying what software programs are available for appellate courts commercially and in other states. She declared there are not many systems available commercially because there are not many appellate courts, whereas there are lots of programs available for municipal or traffic courts. She stated her study should be complete within the next 2 weeks at which time a decision will be made as to what software should be purchased.
Senator Raggio asked if the $244,000 had been expended yet. Ms. Bloom replied the entire appropriation had not yet been spent although a consulting firm had been hired to assist in the evaluation of software.
Senator Raggio asked if the appropriation from the last session had been intended to be used for the software study. Mr. Mello replied it had been deemed very necessary to make the study. He reported several firms had been considered, and fees ranged from $400,000 downward. He indicated the firm making the study was being paid $60,000. Senator Raggio asked Mr. Mello to provide a list of expenditures to date and proposals for the remainder of the appropriation.
Senator Jacobsen recalled he had chaired the subcommittee on the appropriation at the last session. He expressed disappointment there was no plan yet and that no more progress had been made in the past 2 years. He declared, "I'm not too interested in any more studies, I want to see a plan, and you indicated when you moved to the new building that would consummate...a new plan."
Ms. Bloom responded:
Perhaps a study is not the correct term. If you recall when we came to you last time, the National Center for State Courts had come in and done a study for the court free of charge of our needs. From there we hired IBM and we came up with affordable needs-assessment for the court. At that point we started looking around for some assistance to help us recommend a software. When we came up against that $400,000 bid for this assistance, we spent much time taking other bids and looking at other companies to assist the court.
Ms. Bloom conjectured she would know by the end of the month which program to purchase. Senator Raggio stated the committee would like to see the recommendation before any purchase is made, especially if any changes in expenditures are proposed.
Mr. Mello reported the cost of the system has come down substantially since the $1 million estimate was made at the last session of the legislature.
Senator Jacobsen said, "The main concern...was...that you don't end up in the same trap that the administration did where the system was in, and they didn't like the system, and...the company said, `Well, you've tried it now, and whether you like it or not we want our money,' and it wasn't something that they could...use."
Justice Rose agreed that was exactly what the court was trying to avoid. He stated that was the reason the IBM needs-assessment was done first and then an advisor was employed. He added the delay was partly due to awaiting occupancy of the new building so the advisor could study the layout.
Senator Raggio asked Mr. Mello if the court questioned the assessment of $30,000 by the budget office for use of the State Library and Archives. Mr. Mello responded the court primarily uses the law library and thus considered the assessment for use of the State Library and Archives an unnecessary transferral of fees to an executive branch function. He admitted he did not know how much the law library relies upon the state library.
Senator Raggio wondered if the assessment was due to a specific formula. He invited comment from a member of the state budget office.
Don Hataway, Chief Assistant Budget Administrator, Budget Division, Department of Administration, responded there is a statewide cost-allocation plan based upon formulas that consider the amount of services provided by the central agencies. He said the amount of assessment to the Supreme Court is based upon not only services provided by the library to the court but also upon those provided by the controller's office and others. He offered to provide a breakdown of the charges. He explained the total charge of $30,000 is not solely for library usage.
Mr. Hataway interposed discussions had been held which would suggest the law library should be included as a central service function because it is generally funded by and provides considerable services to the Supreme Court. He declared future studies may indicate the Supreme Court owes more than is currently being charged.
Senator Raggio asked if current studies indicate there is no use of the state library by the Supreme Court. Mr. Mello was unable to give a positive response, but he asserted the AOC had only used the state library three times during the past 7 years. He opined staff reliance upon the state library is minimal.
Board of Pardons Commissioners - Page 81
Senator Raggio pointed out the Board of Pardons Commissioners budget is utilized to equalize salaries for justices. He inquired how many justices would be affected by the budget.
Mr. Mello answered there would be one justice accommodated by the budget in the forthcoming biennium. He said one portion of the budget would provide for longevity pay.
Senator Raggio asked if appropriate longevity pay was included in the previous budget for the Supreme Court. Mr. Mello affirmed his query.
Retired Justice Duty Fund - Page 83
Justice Rose outlined a request to spend $161,000 in 1994 and $170,000 in 1995. He voiced hope there would be sufficient funding available to pay for duties performed by retired judges. He declared their assistance is not only needed but also it is "the best bargain in the State of Nevada when you're talking about the judiciary."
Justice Rose explained the use of retired judges on a part-time basis who can go into areas for a day or a month, who are highly competent and who need no training. He added they perform services without supportive staff and without the necessity of paying for permanent courtrooms. In response to Senator Raggio's query, he said there are nine judges available for that service.
Justice Rose stated a desire to include more retired judges into the settlement conference process at the Supreme Court level as well as utilizing their services at the district court level. He suggested use of part-time retired judges would reduce the requests for additional permanent district court judges. He explained senior judges are paid on the same basis as sitting judges but are precluded from making more pay than their retirement pay. He summoned retired Judge Llewellyn Young to answer questions regarding the program.
Senior Judge Llewellyn A. Young, Retired, District Courts, called attention to a letter (Exhibit E) he had written to every member of the legislature in late December of 1992. He paraphrased the comments in the letter in which he described the criteria to be a senior judge and in which he compared the costs of a district court judge and courtroom to the costs of using senior judges.
Judge Young described a situation in White Pine County in which Judge Merlyn H. Hoyt broke a bone in his heel and will be unable to work for 2 or 3 months and Judge Dan Papez is barred from sitting for several cases because he was the district attorney at the time many of those incidents occurred. He averred that has left White Pine County in critical need of a judge. Although most district court judges are willing to help, he said, they may not be able to fulfill the need.
Judge Young estimated there may be about 1,000 days per year when state courtrooms are left empty, as set forth in his letter. He counseled it would make sense to take advantage of the courtroom facilities when they are empty for other reasons.
Judge Young remarked usage of senior judges would not only save money but also would speed up the judicial process, particularly in civil matters. Recapitulating the comments in his letter, he implied use of senior judges might even bring in a little revenue for the judicial system.
Judge Young alluded to the figures in the chart attached to his letter and urged the committee to consider the economies to be had by fully funding the senior judge program.
Judge Young expressed surprise at the number of cases each judge handles every year. He said there were 13,332 civil cases and 6,219 criminal cases filed in Las Vegas, not including domestic relations cases. He calculated those at 1,200 cases per judge in Las Vegas. He offered the opinion Las Vegas would make much use of the Retired Justice Duty Fund system if it were available.
Senator Raggio asked if there would be adequate courtroom space if more senior judges were available. Judge Young replied there is existing space in some areas. He listed the commissioners' rooms, a church across the street from the courthouse and courtrooms temporarily not in use among the places where he has held court as a senior judge. He assured Senator Raggio there would be plenty of places in which arrangements could be made for use as courtrooms.
Senator Coffin concurred many courtrooms are underutilized and it would make good sense to use them as suggested by Judge Young. He opined usage of retired judges could be self-funding for many civil cases.
Senator Raggio suggested it would be well to review the proposal when requests come before the committee for additional judges. He agreed there could be better utilization of the senior judges.
Referring to the needs of White Pine County, Senator O'Donnell pointed out no travel expense is included in the Retired Justice Duty Fund. He asked how travel was provided for those going to an area such as White Pine County. Judge Young indicated he had never met any problems associated with travel expenses. Mr. Mello responded the travel expenses come through another budget funded by peremptory challenge fees. He said the retired Justice Duty Fund applies only to salaries and travel is funded under District Judges' Travel.
Senator O'Donnell suggested it would be more proper for the travel expenses to be included in this account so the expenses would show up where they were used. Mr. Mello responded at one time travel was funded under the account but in order to maximize the account for salaries, the expenses incurred for travel of retired judges were transferred to the District Judges' Travel account.
Judge Young observed some computers must have been funded by the state. He said he had noticed computers in the library in Lovelock and in the Gardnerville court.
In reference to assessment fees, Judge Young asked how many $25,000 fines had ever been collected. He explained once a judge imposes a fine it becomes the responsibility of the district attorneys to make the collections. He worried none of those fines are collected. He said some fines are as high as $500,000. Senator Raggio responded he had no idea how many fines were collected and added he did not believe people could be put into jail for failure to pay fines. Judge Young affirmed that people could not be jailed for failure to pay. He suggested there should be a review regarding imposition of fines and remedies when they are left unpaid.
Supreme Court Justices' and Widows' Pensions - Page 85
Mr. Mello said there are seven beneficiaries of the pension funds. At Senator Raggio's request, Mr. Mello agreed to provide detail on those funds to the staff.
Law Library - Page 87
Susan Southwick, Law Librarian, Supreme Court Law Library, declared the Supreme Court Law Library is the largest law library in the state with 85,700 volumes and another 14,000 volumes on microfiche. She said the law library serves as the primary legal research source for the Supreme Court as well as providing access for the attorney general and the legislature. The law library serves the private bar and is a resource for outlying counties that do not have good legal resources in-house.
Mrs. Southwick asserted the law library complements the collections of other libraries in the state, with very little duplication. She pointed out there is no duplication of material in the State Library and Archives so the law library frequently obtains non-legal information from the state library. She explained such information is not necessarily used for the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Southwick averred the law library has been a centralized agency for a long time as far as providing legal information. She
noted the law library serves all branches of government. She indicated she had made cuts during the past two years to meet the budget crisis, and that the law library had not expended its full appropriation last year nor did it expect to do so this year.
Mrs. Southwick declared the law library might become the "last halfway decent legal resource center" in the state because the Clark County law library, the Washoe County law library and the National Judicial College are all experiencing severe budget cuts.
Mrs. Southwick said the law library budget is primarily a maintenance budget. She acknowledged some portions may appear large, but she contended the cost of law books increases at a higher rate than the general consumer price index. She said she included a 9 percent increase for each year of the biennium simply to maintain the collection, not for growth.
Senator Raggio asked how Mrs. Southwick had complied with the request for budget reductions. She answered one new position which had been granted by the last legislature had been left open until June, which saved about $20,000 in salary expenses. She added, "Some of our salary savings were offset by the 4 percent mandated increase." She said part of the travel budget was reverted as was part of the equipment budget and she cut about $15,000 out of book appropriations. She explained there were other reversions related to the move to the new building because the move occurred so much later than originally had been anticipated. Thus certain expenditures were not incurred.
Senator Raggio asked if the law library was operating with the same number of positions. Mrs. Southwick said it was continuing to operate with five people which includes the person whose employment had been deferred until June.
Senator Raggio inquired why the Office of the Attorney General had entered into a separate contract with Westlaw. He asked if a single contract might be sufficient for both the Supreme Court and the attorney general's office.
Mrs. Southwick explained she has a contract with Westlaw which is divided into two categories, one for government and another for private attorneys at a higher rate. She stated the Office of the Attorney General had used the law library's Westlaw randomly, as needed, for which they were billed.
Mrs. Southwick commented, "They evidently felt that they needed to have a more convenient access, so they thought they'd like to try it out." She said Westlaw arranged for the Office of the Attorney General to use the service temporarily at a reduced rate through the law library account and provided the equipment at the reduced rate for multiple units. She explained Westlaw terminated the agreement giving the attorney general an in-house operation under the law library contract after about 18 months.
Senator Jacobsen asked for a comparison of the Nevada law library with law libraries in other jurisdictions. Mrs. Southwick responded she had no definite knowledge of a ranking but speculated it would be considered small to medium. She stated the most significant library in a state is often connected with a law school which may hold in excess of 1 million volumes. She conjectured most state supreme court libraries are traditionally small, as is the case in Nevada. She added the law library was not able to accommodate a large collection until the move into the new facility.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the law library was able to track usage. Mrs. Southwick told him statistics were not kept in the old building due to the layout of the facility, but she said in July she commenced keeping track of the numbers of people coming in and reference questions received by telephone. She said reference questions average 500 per month, reached 600 in February and they continue to rise. She indicated about 63 people use the library each day, most of whom do not check out the books but use them in the library.
Senator Raggio inquired what kinds of cooperative efforts the law library has with other law libraries. Mrs. Southwick replied each library keeps a certain core of material for the convenience of the users. However she said inter-library loans between Washoe County, the National Judicial College and the law library are frequently used to avoid duplication of treatises, law reviews and other texts; and the libraries confer with each other to determine which collections each will maintain. She asserted the other libraries are discontinuing some of their collections due to rising costs which has placed a burden on the law library to purchase some of the more expensive documents.
Senator Raggio inquired if much cooperation takes place with the law library at the National Judicial College. Mrs. Southwick replied, "Yes, we do a great deal.... Their collection is quite different from ours, so I think we probably borrow more from them than we do from Washoe County...."
Senator Glomb noted there were no performance indicators in the Executive Budget for the law library. She asked if any had been developed. Mrs. Southwick replied no performance indicators had been required of the law library because it is not part of the executive branch. She reiterated she had not made an effort to keep statistics prior to the move due to the physical arrangement of the previous facility. She added she is reluctant to tie the budget to performance because, for example, the number of books checked out may not give an indication of the value of the books to the user. She offered to provide some figures to the committee which she indicated are incomplete.
Senator Glomb recalled there had been concerns expressed during the previous budget hearings about the ability of the law library to accommodate the number of requests received. She suggested the rising number of requests with the same staff level might provide a basis for indicators. Mrs. Southwick reminded Senator Glomb the fifth person on the staff was added after the move to the new building, which has helped meet increased demand.
Senator O'Donnell asked for clarification of the use of Westlaw by the attorney general's office. Mrs. Southwick voiced the assumption the Office of the Attorney General may have entered into a separate contract with Westlaw because members of the attorney general's office had not been using Westlaw at the law library.
Senator O'Donnell asked what Westlaw can provide to the attorney general's people that cannot be provided by the law library. Mrs. Southwick opined Westlaw provides them with convenience so that their attorneys would not have to go to the law library. She admitted, "There is some inconvenience when you want something right away to trek across the street, and their time is quite valuable."
Senator O'Donnell wanted to know if there was any capability of sharing Westlaw with the attorney general's office. Mrs. Southwick repeated that the license costs $100 per month, which means the attorney general's office would spend an extra $1,200 per year. She explained each agency, including the attorney general's office, is billed at the cost of $300 per hour for their usage of Westlaw at the law library. She pointed out there is a minimum charge for 3 hours per month.
Justice Rose requested the committee hear the Judicial Education budget next in order to accommodate Judge Frances White who had driven in from Smith Valley to testify.
Judicial Education - Page 104
Mr. Mello claimed there is a desperate need for an additional staff member for Judicial Education. He stated there is one staff member who receives some assistance from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) receptionist. He said, "The assistance is just not enough, other people need the receptionist. That person is just spread too thin. The growth in the judiciary in the past few years has just indicated a need for additional staff."
Mr. Mello stated ten new district court judges have been added to the judiciary since 1986. In fiscal year 1992, 18 new judges were added; and 15 new judges were added this year, all of who require schooling pursuant to the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He said seminars are required for all new judges and other seminars are offered for those interested in them.
Senator Raggio asked where the additional position appears in the budget. Mr. Mello pointed out the position requested appears on page 104 under Maintenance, module 200.
Jeanne L. Botts, Program Analyst, indicated the Budget Division included the amount of the salary for the new position in the Judicial Education budget even though the budget did not indicate that the new position was included there. She said, "My question is, since your other person who does judicial education is in the AOC budget, where do you want...." Mr. Mello interjected, "We need to fund this one from Judicial Education. The...NRS allocates the administrative assessment. The revenues are not available in the AOC budget, there are revenues that we deem to be available in Judicial Education."
In response to a query by Senator Raggio, Mr. Mello stated the funds are derived from administrative assessment funds. Senator Raggio asked, "Are we keeping within the 51 percent of assessments in your judicial budgets?" Mr. Mello confirmed that figure and added no change in the share received by Judicial Education was being proposed pursuant to NRS 176.059 under which Judicial Education receives 9 percent of the 51 percent. He proposed financing the additional position from those funds. He explained at one time there had been some problems in the budget office relating to personnel which resulted in the omission of the number of personnel appearing in the budget.
Senator Raggio asked for a description of the duties of the Judicial Education people and what qualifications were necessary. Mr. Mello replied they manage the education program, they evaluate requests from judges for attendance at programs and make determinations as to whether there is sufficient funding for attendance at educational programs, and they make the arrangements for such attendance. He said the present Special Education person, who has held the position for 4 1/2 years, previously worked for a university in a similar capacity. He said the position has grown from a strictly secretarial position to an administrative position to manage funds and judges' requests, and to formulating seminars and gathering materials for the seminars.
Senator Raggio inquired if the one person had been handling all those duties during the past biennium. Mr. Mello affirmed she had done so with the assistance of the receptionist, who occasionally must also travel to seminars for up to a week.
Frances R. White, Justice of the Peace, Smith Valley Township, Municipal Judge, Yerington, asserted the Judicial Education program is very important, especially for judges of smaller courts. She explained the program functions as a supplement to the National Judicial College and provides a forum for judges to learn from each other. She called it a "lifeline" to the educational system for municipal judges.
Mrs. White opined there would be a lot of places in the state that would not have judges available if all judges were required to have law degrees. She said, "Certainly I don't think there'd be very many even in Lyon County, if any." She called the availability of the Judicial Education program a great benefit.
Mrs. White made the observation Evelyn Lancaster, the person who administers Judicial Education, is overworked and the program is understaffed. Mrs. White said she often feels guilty about interrupting Ms. Lancaster.
Senator Jacobsen asked who Mrs. White calls when she has a question about the correct procedure in a case. Mrs. White replied it depends upon the level of the problem, and sometimes she will call a colleague or a district judge. Senator Jacobsen suggested those judges who have retired could be called upon for their expertise in times of need. Mrs. White said it has been suggested experienced judges could assist in the education of new judges.
Mr. Mello interjected there is an intention to expand the Judicial Education program. He said judges have requested manuals for court bailiffs and warrant officers, who have formed an association. He commented seminars are being videotaped and disseminated on subjects such as accounting procedures, education for which the statutes require new judges be given.
Administrative Office of the Courts - Page 90
Mr. Mello described the budget of the AOC as "a hold-the-line budget." He forecast additional expenses will be incurred due to the rising work load. He cited NRS 176.059 which funds the budget at 18 1/2 percent of the 51 percent given to the judicial department.
Senator Raggio asked if there is a contingency plan for the possibility the assessments do not meet projections. Mr. Mello replied he has put the court on notice that the budgets are falling short. He admitted one option may be to ask the legislature for additional funds. He predicted the AOC may be $54,000 short, so a contingency plan has been developed.
Mr. Mello said there has been one increase requested in the amount of $2,500 to be added to the deputy director's salary to make it equal to or slightly above that of the chief of financial management. He offered the opinion the chief of financial management should be subordinate to the deputy director, and thus should not receive a higher salary than the deputy director.
Senator Raggio asked if additional funding for the study discussed earlier was included in the AOC budget. Mr. Mello replied part of the funding for the study is included because the statutes dictate allocation of administrative assessment fees. He calculated there would be some money left over from anticipated expenses which he deemed should go to the study of the court system. He confirmed that is the figure $46,396 found under Enhancement on page 91.
Mr. Mello drew attention to Rate Adjustment for Fringe Benefits under Maintenance on page 100. He explained that module 400 should have been placed under the AOC budget rather than under District Judges Travel. Senator Raggio asked the staff to make a note of the changes and update the budget books.
Senator Raggio welcomed senior students from Reno High School, from which he had graduated, and introduced their government class teacher, Jack Neal. Senator Raggio recited the duties and responsibilities of the Senate Committee on Finance, especially those applying to the Supreme Court. He introduced Chief Justice Rose, Justice Young, Justice Shearing, Senior Judge Young and the staff of the court to the class.
Uniform System of Judicial Records - Page 94
Mr. Mello reported the budget account is used for purchases of computers in courts around the state. He declared the plan to computerize the courts, which he described as "very ambitious," was meeting with great success. He admitted there is much left to be done as the computerization process proceeds slowly but at a regular pace. He declared problems had arisen in the past when too many computer systems were installed simultaneously without support. He declared those resulted in operating failure.
Mr. Mello alleged limited funding has prevented computerization of all courts. During the present fiscal year, he said, Storey, Mineral, Humboldt, Lander and Pershing Counties will have computer systems installed in their district courts, which will leave only a few small counties without computerization.
Senator Raggio inquired if all the district courts would receive computer equipment. Mr. Mello replied:
They are all receiving assistance of this nature. Right now we are taking a baseline approach to install a minimal level of automation to those courts. Once all courts are on equal footing, we will then return to enhance the systems, to connect the systems, to then start collecting data and transmitting data to the AOC. We're not at that stage yet.
Senator Glomb queried, "I'm curious about...the study and the data, equipment that you are interested in purchasing, why that's not included in here." Mr. Mello responded sufficient funds in the judicial records budget had not been projected to fund the project. He noted the cost of the study had been projected in excess of $1 million, which would not be possible under the judicial records budget. He stated it would have meant abandoning the computerization of many district courts. He declared the scenario is now different, and he anticipates being able to fund much of the Supreme Court computerization from the judicial records budget account.
Mr. Mello admitted some requests from lower district courts will be left unmet. He stated there are demands for money this fiscal year that are $41,000 in excess of the cash available.
Senator Raggio asked if Mr. Mello anticipated making grants of approximately $368,000 and $391,000. Mr. Mello replied requests for the forthcoming biennium are $500,000 and $430,000. Senator Raggio asked, "This is within...the anticipated assessment fees that you will receive?" Mr. Mello responded that was correct.
Senator Raggio prompted Mr. Mello to furnish the committee with a compilation of the records program and what equipment has been furnished to the various courts.
District Judges' Salary - Page 96
Justice Rose reported he had no comments on the budget. He explained all the payments are mandated by statutes.
Senator Raggio asked if the account, an authorization for $4.5 million in each year of the biennium, was computed to accommodate existing judges' salaries and longevity pay. Mr. Mello affirmed Senator Raggio's understanding of the budget.
Senator Raggio asked how much the base salary of a district judge
is. Mr. Mello replied the base salary is $79,000 per year plus longevity. He indicated the budget will pay for the new district judges in White Pine County and Clark County.
Senator Coffin asked if there were any surpluses in the District Judges' Salary budget that could be utilized in other judicial accounts, such as the Retired Justice Duty Fund. Mr. Mello told him there is no surplus, and even if there were it could not be used for any other purposes except for the pension accounts.
Mr. Mello stated there is legislation pending for supplemental funding in fiscal year 1992-93 because there are insufficient funds. He feared the District Judges' Salary budget will be $67,838 short in the current year.
Senator Raggio inquired as to the number of district court judges in the state. Mr. Mello affirmed there are 46 including the family court judges.
Board of Law Library Trustees - Page 99
Senator Raggio announced no funds were requested for the budget. He surmised there is no need for equalization of that budget at this time. Mr. Mello confirmed his statement.
District Judges' Travel - Page 100
Senator Raggio reminded the committee that module 400 should be removed from the travel budget and be included in the AOC budget.
Mr. Mello pointed out the need for a General Fund appropriation had been eliminated through an increase in peremptory challenge fees. He explained the budget has been funded from two sources, those being peremptory challenge fees and General Fund appropriations. He said the peremptory challenge fee had been increased within the past year from $100 to $200. The $69,000 and $72,000 revenue indicated
in the budget are estimates of the fees to be generated through peremptory challenge fees.
Senator Raggio asked the date when the peremptory fee went into effect and what it has produced. Mr. Mello replied the rule was adopted in June of 1991 and it produced $55,000 in the 1992 calendar year. He stated his belief the fee will be more than adequate to fund the travel budget.
District Judges' and Widows' Pension - Page 102
Mr. Mello declared the pension budget provides benefits for retired district judges and to their widows or children. He said there are presently 17 beneficiaries of the fund. He stated a retired judge's pension was based on from 25 percent to a maximum of 75 percent of his last year's salary. A widow receives a fixed amount of $24,000 per year.
Judicial Selection - Page 107
Mr. Mello informed the committee he is secretary to the Commission on Judicial Selection as part of his capacity as Court Administrator. He said there have been three judicial selections since July of 1991 and one workshop for commission members. He reported the commission does not feel the $5,500 appropriated for the current year will be sufficient, partly because there are $700 in claims outstanding from the last selection. He explained there is a bill pending requesting a supplemental appropriation of $7,000 in anticipation of two more selections this year.
Mr. Mello said there is no way to be certain when a selection will occur. He encouraged the legislature to grant the requests in the event those selections do occur. He declared the funds would be reverted if they are not used.
Senator Raggio invited comment on any of the budgets. Justice Rose announced he would provide all information requested by the committee.
Senator Jacobsen stated he had been waiting for years to ask a general question. He declared:
I really get uptight about some of these cases that are coming out of the prison system by prisoners.... I contacted our legal counsel prior to session to see if there was something that we could do about it. He indicated no, it was up to the court system.... I guess I've been talking about the peanut butter and the non-smoking, those kind of things that...are wasting the taxpayers' dollars. I don't know how we tune into that.
Justice Rose agreed. He said he has one person whose staff assignment is to handle those pro per petitions from the prison. Occasionally, he said, if a case is successful there may be a burst of petitions. He added the attorney general has four or five people handle those cases that are filed in the federal system. He noted the prisoners have more success filing under the federal system, which he opined is an indication Nevada takes a hard view on those types of situations. He declared the Nevada courts do not waste much taxpayer money on them unless there is something of merit to be considered in the cases.
There being no further business before the committee, Senator Raggio adjourned the meeting at 10:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Judy Jacobs,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Finance
March 4, 1993
Page 1