Judges keep veil of secrecy over meeting

Still smarting from criticism they received after closing an administrative meeting to the public last month, Clark County's district judges decided to address the issue of when such meetings should be opened or closed.

The issue, however, was brought up by District Judge Donald Mosley as an unannounced item on the traditionally closed personnel session at Wednesday's judges meeting after the media and members of the public were excused.

At the end of the closed-door session, the judges ensured even more secrecy by voting that they would make their final decision on the matter in private, according to sources inside the meeting.

That will prevent the identification of those judges who may vote to open the meetings and those who advocate closing them.

That vote will come on a series of recommendations to be made by a committee formed inside Wednesday's closed meeting to study open meetings vs. closed meetings. The committee is composed of Judges Valorie Vega, Mark Denton, Mosley, Jack Lehman, Arthur Ritchie and William Voy.

Although Chief District Judge Lee Gates argued that even raising the issue was improper Wednesday because it wasn't submitted for the agenda more than five days before a scheduled meeting -- as is the judges' policy -- he was overruled by a vote of the judges.

The source inside the meeting said the judges discussed whether it is appropriate in open meetings to confront a strong chief judge who may be perceived as acting heavy-handed or to criticize the actions of the Supreme Court.

Those issues have been brought to the forefront through reforms being instituted by the Nevada Supreme Court, including a so-called strong chief judge system that provides oversight of judges' actions for the first time.

The proposed rules supported by a slim majority of judges would require judges to spend their days at the courthouse, coordinate vacations and accept overflow trials from judges whose calendars are too crowded.

Under the current rule, the chief judge decides whether items are placed on the public agenda at judges meetings or decided in private. If judges desire, they can vote to open a meeting to the public that the chief judge declared to be closed.

The opposite, however, is not true although the rule was ignored last month when the judges voted to close their meeting while deciding on the recommendations for the strong chief judge.

A committee of judges had recommended ignoring dictates from the Supreme Court for strict rules and proposed watered-down versions. But the majority of judges voted to accept the strict rules.

The closing of that meeting drew stinging media reports and editorials, but didn't keep judges from going behind closed doors again Wednesday.

archive