Waste Not wrote on November 10, 2007 12:36 PM: All state agencies were given a certain amount of money in order to accomplish a mission. Being able to easily give back any portion of that money means that it was requested under false pretenses. The mission of state government should be considered as important.

All agencies of state government, including the legislature, need to get more serious about their missions. They need to ask for what is necessary to do the mission, nothing more, nothing less. Then do their jobs.

If the Review Journal thinks the actions of the supreme court are so wonderful, then may I suggest that they try the same and pretend that they can immediately do with 5 percent less. The shareholders will either benefit-- to which RJ management will have proven to have misrepresented the company's needs when setting the budget. Or, the RJ will falter and/or fail in its mission for the year, thereby screwing its customers and its shareholders.

nehemiah wrote on November 09, 2007 01:02 PM: The $2.5 million could have gone for an independent study and effective solutions for Cherry's ineffective 'Nevada Supreme Court Indigent Commission'. The Public Defender problem is going to cost much more than $2.5 million in the long run; heads will roll and careers ended as individual officials become personally accountable for the never ending problems that exist. A smoke screen isn't going to cut it anymore very savvy groups and agencies are watching closely.

endrun wrote on November 09, 2007 12:47 PM: BudgetGuru has a point. Something's up, and it's not with the citizens and voters of Nevada's best interests.

John wrote on November 09, 2007 11:03 AM: Congrats on the supreme court not following the path of the bureaucrats of wasting every penny and begging for more the next year. We need to tie administrators and employees pay to the performance of their department instead of guaranteeing a salary. Maybe a commission for each person served or a "per issue" payment for each problem the employee solves. For the university, they can get paid based on enrollment numbers and graduation numbers. I'm tired of guaranteeing jobs for bureaucrats that do NOTHING.

TimeRanger wrote on November 09, 2007 10:15 AM: A hearty Congrats and a huge Thank You to the Supremes! Now if only somebody could convice Chancellor Rogers to "do the right thing".....

Steve wrote on November 09, 2007 10:07 AM: Rogers isn't "staying the course" other than the course of waist and abuse.

Bobby V. Lucker wrote on November 09, 2007 09:14 AM: These other posts do make sense. I hereby retract mine and congratulate Roger's for staying the course.

BudgetGuru wrote on November 09, 2007 08:54 AM: What Chief Justice Maupin did in his infinite wisdom is to put the judiciary 11 percent behind the eight ball when they go to the next legislature with their new budgets. Since expenditures from this budget year become the base year for the next biennial budget cycle, Maupin's successor will have to re justify recouping that 11 percent before he or she can even begin to justify any other budgetary increased needs. AND have to explain why it asked for 11 percent too much in 2007. AND have to convince the legislature that it is telling the truth. Here is what we'll hear in 2009: "Were not lying THIS TIME. THIS TIME we're telling the truth. Honest."

Well, at least the self-absorbed and conceited Maupin and his college buddy hack-turned-state-paid Maupin cheerleader, Bill Gang, squeezed out 15 seconds of fame and pulled the wool over Ed Vogel's eyes. Besides, Maupin won't be in front of the legislature next time. Someone else will be. So it doesn't matter to him.

Good ol' boys. They'll get each other and their colleagues into trouble every time.

Maynard wrote on November 09, 2007 08:30 AM: So, the court can spare 11 percent of this year's budget? Obviously, that was money they didn't need in the first place and mislead the legislature into giving it to them. Shame on you.

At least while others are arguing that the money they received is desperately needed to fund their public services, the supreme court admits that it hoodwinked the legislature into giving it too much money.

Skeptical Mike wrote on November 09, 2007 08:25 AM: Just how much of that money was LAST YEAR's surplus reversion and how much of it is coming from THIS YEAR's allocation? Money being returned in September and BEFORE the governor even announced there was a problem sounds like a reversion of last year's surplus. That money cannot be counted as a reduction to this year's allocation.

Read All Comments