CARSON CITY -- State Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose on Tuesday responded to criticisms raised about the judiciary in a series of newspaper articles, saying several changes are being implemented to address issues related to judicial performance and disclosure of conflicts.

Rose also discussed the responses he sought from three senior court judges who were mentioned in articles published by the Los Angeles Times.

Matters involving Judge Steven Huffaker occurred before he became a senior judge, and Rose said any complaint against a senior District Court judge based on facts that occurred while he or she was a sitting District Court judge is solely within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Discipline.

Huffaker served for nearly two years on the eminent domain case in which the Pappas family's property was seized to make way for the Fremont Street Experience parking garage.

Huffaker withdrew after disclosing he held stock in the Four Queens' parent company, which had an interest in downtown redevelopment and improved parking.

With regard to Senior Judge James Brennan and the allegations in the newspaper series about the Venetian case, Rose said there is incomplete information to respond. Neither the article nor his statement of events provide a complete record of all the facts, he said.

The case involved a breach-of-contract dispute between The Venetian and its builder, Lehrer McGovern Bovis Inc.

"And with the limited information before us, we could not find that any unethical or clearly improper conduct occurred, or that the conduct reached the level requiring court action," he said.

Rose said that after the time Judge Joseph Pavlikowski provided a response, he submitted his resignation from the Senior Judge Program, apparently to pursue other career endeavors.

"It is unnecessary to review the allegations against him that occurred when he was a senior judge because he is no longer a part of the Senior Judge Program," the chief justice said in his statement. "Judge Pavlikowski deserves recognition for his decades of service, during which he was a productive and valuable member of the judiciary, and never was the subject of any disciplinary action."

With regard to improving the court system, Rose said the court agrees with the suggestion that peremptory challenges of senior judges should be allowed when there is not an emergency or last-minute appointment.

"The reason we have not provided for peremptory challenges of senior judges was because they are often pressed into service at the last minute, when there is an illness or other emergency involving the assigned judge in a case," he said.

To accomplish this, any time a senior judge is appointed more than 14 days before a scheduled court date, peremptory challenges should be permitted, just as they are against any other District Court judge, he said.

The state Supreme Court will take the necessary steps to consider and implement this proposal, he said.

Rose said the court also agrees that a more comprehensive system of evaluating the performance of senior judges is needed.

The court has developed forms to elicit specific information from the District Courts that requested senior judge assistance, he said.

In addition, lawyers and parties in cases will be sent questionnaires on a random basis seeking information about the senior judges assigned to their cases.

The same type of random inquiries will be made to jurors in cases presided over by senior judges. Periodic inquiries will also be made to court personnel about the performances of senior judges.

These new monitoring procedures will be instituted in November, Rose said.

Rose and the court also encouraged "District Court judges and senior District Court judges to be scrupulous in considering what might be an interest that needs to be disclosed and to err on the side of disclosure."

The series of articles cited numerous instances where disclosure was lacking, although, "detailed facts were not provided to support many of the accusations," he said.

"But, suffice it to say, there were instances where the disclosure of an interest or facts that may bear upon the case should have been made by the judge," Rose said.

"We further remind all judges that they have a duty pursuant to the code to keep abreast of their financial and personal interests, and those of their household, and to report or declare them when required, he said.

Rose concluded by saying: "Our goal is to have each case processed in a fair and impartial manner and within a reasonable period of time. To the extent that the L.A. Times has helped us move toward achieving this goal, we thank it for its contribution and assistance."