Nevada Judiciary

Issue to Be Reviewed Quarterly

The Nevada Judiciary, which already has returned millions of dollars to help relieve the state’s financial crisis and cut its budget this year to provide even more savings, will not be furloughing any state court workers during the first quarter of the fiscal year, the Supreme Court decided in an order issued Thursday.

During the 2009 Legislative session, the Supreme Court reduced its budget by the 4.6 percent that the furloughs would save, specifically to avoid having to temporarily reduce staffing levels.  “We conclude that a furlough of court employees would result in a duplication of the reduction made to the court’s budget,” the order stated.

In the order, the Supreme Court noted that having a full compliment of staff is necessary to maintain the Court’s “core function” of deciding cases, and a wide variety of functions and duties – the most recent of which is the Legislative-mandated Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program.

“In essence, furloughing our staff would double the savings intended by the Legislature,” Chief Justice James W. Hardesty said.

Two state agencies made similar budget reductions to avoid staff furloughs, and they are exempt from SB 433 (Order.ADKT437.pdf).

The 26-page order, signed by all seven justices, emphasizes that the Judiciary is not seeking to circumvent the law.

“Throughout this economic downturn, the Judicial Branch has consistently worked in harmony with the Governor and the Legislature to address shortfalls in the state’s budget,” the order stated.

In fiscal year 2008, the Governor requested that all state government entities revert 4.5 percent of previously allocated funds.  The Supreme Court returned nearly $2 million, or 27 percent of its targeted General Fund appropriation.

In fiscal year 2009, the Governor sought the return of 7.9 percent.  The Supreme Court reverted more than $2.3 million, or almost 28 percent of the targeted appropriation.

“We believe that the Judiciary is a responsible government citizen and careful steward of the public’s funds,” Chief Justice Hardesty said.

In the order, the Supreme Court noted that the state General Fund pays for less than half of the Supreme Court’s total budget and only a fraction of the actual operating costs.  Most General Fund dollars go to pay the salaries of District Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices, which are set in statute by the Legislature and cannot be reduced under the Constitution.

Most court operating costs are funded from administrative assessments collected by the courts on misdemeanor and traffic convictions.  The state’s contribution to the Judicial Branch is less than 0.74 percent of the entire General Fund budget.

The order leaves open the possibility of furloughs should anticipated fees and assessments fall short, and cuts in court programs fail to reduce the Court’s budget sufficiently.

The order followed a Supreme Court public hearing on July 6.  The Court will conduct similar public hearings every quarter before deciding whether to continue forgoing furloughs for its staff.

The order cautioned that including the Court in the furlough process would be “disastrous” to the Court’s Constitutional responsibility to decide legal disputes appropriately and fairly, and in a timely fashion.

“The Supreme Court’s caseload is already one of the highest in the nation and the legal issues we have been asked to resolve have been growing more complex every year,” Chief Justice Hardesty said.

As a result, the gap between cases filed and dispositions has been widening and the time to disposition has been growing.

“Furloughs would hasten this trend and in a very short time this court could easily return to the situation prevalent in the 1990s, when cases remained on appeal for years before a decision could be rendered,” the order noted.

“This court’s decision making cannot be further delayed absent clear evidence that furloughs are necessary to avoid exceeding the appropriation to this court,” the order continued.

The order pointed out that of the 66 employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, 52 are funded by administrative assessments and another employee is grant funded.

“Furloughs of these positions would result in no savings to the state General Fund,” the order stated.

Because of the rapid time frame to implement the Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program passed late in the 2009 legislative session, about 15 AOC employees are spending time to get the new program up and running.

“Any lost work due to furloughs would cripple this program and its ability to provide timely mediation services to assist homeowners and lenders,” the order stated.

In deciding not to furlough staff for the first quarter of fiscal year 2010, the justices concluded, “Our good faith in helping to mitigate the effects of the economic downturn on Nevada’s budget cannot be questioned in light of our substantial reversions to the state General Fund in amounts far greater than were requested of the Judicial Branch.  Rather, we exercise our authority to direct how to spend the money that we have been appropriated, in the way that best accomplishes our constitutional functions.”