State lawmakers decry hidden judicial salary increase

      CARSON CITY -- Lawmakers expressed outrage and disappointment Tuesday over what they characterized as misleading and deceitful efforts by the Supreme Court to increase judicial salaries.
      Members of a joint budget subcommittee reacted to a new Supreme Court priority to spend almost half a million dollars on a study of the often-criticized family court system.
      Under questioning by Assemblywoman Kathy Von Tobel, R-Las Vegas, and others, Chief Justice Miriam Shearing acknowledged that the $479,942 for the study would be used to raise the pay of three justices and seven district judges who now earn less than their counterparts. Their salaries would be increased for serving on the study panel.
      "I'm extremely offended they put this in," Von Tobel said. "As money committee members, we have to believe that the budgets that come to us are honest.
      "They lied to us," she said.
      Shearing said there was no intent to mask the pay increases in the study and that any such belief by lawmakers is a misunderstanding.
      She said the idea of using the study to equalize the pay came from the Legislature, but she could not say which lawmakers suggested the idea.
      "We spelled it straight out in the budget," Shearing said. "At the suggestion of some legislators, we established a committee to accomplish two desirable objects, the family court study and the pay inequity issue."
      Budget Director Perry Comeaux said he knew nothing of the proposal. The administration does not review the Supreme Court budget in any detail, only looking for math errors or obvious mistakes before forwarding the information to the Legislature, he said.
      Judicial salaries are always unequal because pay increases don't take effect until justices and judges win election. Shearing, for example, earns $85,000 a year after being elected to a six-year term in 1992, while Justice Bill Maupin, elected in November, earns $107,000.
      The equity issue has been corrected in past sessions by paying justices and judges to serve on various committees. In 1994, however, voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to allow the judiciary to collect salary increases in midterm. As a result, the lower salaries were not increased by the 1995 Legislature.
      Lawmakers denied any suggestion they had told the Supreme Court to raise judicial pay by using the study.
      A memo to Senate Finance Chairman Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Assembly Ways and Means Chairman Morse Arberry, D-North Las Vegas, from the court dated May 5 indicates the study is a top priority "to address the mushrooming caseload it now faces and will continue to face in the future."
      The memo makes no mention of the salary adjustments in the study budget.
      "If they hid the pay raises, they did it on their own," said Arberry, who does not serve on the subcommittee that reviewed the Supreme Court budget. "That's ugly."
      Assemblywoman Sandi Krenzer, D-Las Vegas, who is a member of the subcommittee, said she was surprised when Shearing volunteered the information that the study was intended to equalize salaries.
      "It was shocking and disappointing to see the Supreme Court of Nevada even attempt something like this," she said. "But I do credit Miriam Shearing for stepping forward on a very embarrassing issue."
      Sen. Bill O'Donnell, R-Las Vegas, a subcommittee member, also expressed surprise that the court would hide the salary money.
      "We've funded this disparity in the past," he said. "But I was surprised to see that the Supreme Court would come in with a budget that has hidden salaries."
      Von Tobel said an earlier effort by the court to raise the pay for the three Supreme Court justices was even more flagrant.
      In Gov. Bob Miller's budget delivered to lawmakers in January, the court included a request for $170,000 for equipment to provide "digital technical enhancements."
      Shearing admitted in the Tuesday hearing that the budget item was actually intended to raise Supreme Court salaries and was completely unrelated to any equipment purchases.
      She said the item was included in the court budget prior to her assuming the position of chief justice in January. After being advised of the real intent of the budget item, Shearing said she had it withdrawn.
      A memo withdrawing the request for the funding was received by legislative staff on Jan. 24.
      Von Tobel said the Supreme Court budget will be reviewed in minute detail as a result of the information provided by Shearing.
      She also expressed doubt the family court study will be approved. The Legislature could conduct a study of the family court system for about $8,000, Von Tobel said.