Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

sponsored by
News


Employees of high court won't be forced to take furlough days

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court's 160 employees will not be required to take unpaid furlough days, at least for now.

In making the announcement last week, the court cited program savings, saying it has returned more money to the state general fund than would have occurred with furloughs.


Most Popular Stories
  • 'YOU DON'T BLOW A BUNCH OF CASH IN VEGAS ...': Obama remark reopens wound
  • LAUGHLIN EDGEWATER: Two dead in casino car crash
  • NORM: Ad's Strip scenes raised eyebrows
  • Shutting down the Ritz
  • Shutting down the Ritz
  • Former commander of USS Cole considers run against Reid
  • NORM: $1 million wager on Super Bowl approved
  • Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two
  • Tourist describes chaos as car plows into Laughlin casino, killing two
  • IMAGES FROM 1860S: Photos show historic Nevada
  • Fighter battles rare disease that shatters mixed martial arts dream
  • Flood advisory for Las Vegas Valley




  • During the 2009 session, the Legislature approved a plan to save 4.6 percent of state salary costs by requiring state employees, including court employees, to take one unpaid day off a month.

    The Supreme Court, however, is an independent, co-equal branch of government that does not have to follow legislative decisions.

    But justices announced in July that they would meet each quarter and determine whether furloughs were necessary.

    During a public hearing last week, justices said their budget analysts determined that through program savings the court returned $85,908 more to the general fund in the July through September quarter than would have been reverted by furloughs.

    They said in the Nov. 13 order that court revenues generally are lowest during that quarter and they expect savings will continue and the court can revert a substantial amount of money during the current fiscal year.

    Nonetheless, the justices said they have directed their staff to prepare a plan for one day per month of "minimal operations" in case furloughs become necessary in coming months.

    The court employees are not the only state employees to avoid furloughs. The state Board of Examiners voted Nov. 10 to exempt Department of Corrections employees from the furlough requirement because of safety concerns. The Legislature's Interim Finance Committee will review this decision Thursday.

    In its order, the seven justices also pointed out that in the 2008-09 fiscal year they reverted $2.5 million to the general fund, which was three times the 7.9 percent reversion Gov. Jim Gibbons requested from state agencies.

    Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 12 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    batman wrote on November 20, 2009 09:04 PM: So, the NSC asked for too much money in order that it be able to give it back. How magnanimous.

    Karen, if your department is fully funded by federal dollars, then you should not be furloughed. After all, administrative assessment fees that help fund the NSC are not funds subject to the furlough.


    Karen wrote on November 20, 2009 12:19 PM: Oh, really! Thank you so much Supreme Court people for returning the $85,000 back to the the general fund. BIG WHOOP! I work for an agency that is FEDERALLY FUNDED - yet, we are being forced to furlough! I really want to know how is that benefitting the general fund? State and Federal are TWO different entities and they usually don't cross paths or SHARE their money. Where is the money that Federally Funded State Workers are supposedly saving the State going to? How is that helping the general fund???? Is it making the Federal Government richer? I hear it could hurt this agency because using less $ means no grants to keep Nevada a better place. I really want to know and I should KNOW as a TAXPAYER! Who is really benefitting??? Certainly not my SINGLE INCOME household nor the ecomony b/c I am not spending ANY money at any place other than the dollar store and the thrift store these days. "Merry X-mas, Mom, I got you a sweater with some pills on it b/c I could only afford the thrift store this year - yes, it smells, but it's the thought that counts!"
    THANKS FOR NOTHING SUPREME COURT PEOPLE!


    Oscar wrote on November 20, 2009 10:32 AM: Those High Paying jobs are the ones that SHOULD be cut. Instead, they decided to make themselves exempt. Government is corrupt, and these Federal Employees prove that. When these people are held to the same standards as everyone else, then they might merit some respect, but until then, they should be Tarred and Feathered and run out of town.


    link wrote on November 20, 2009 09:44 AM: http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html


    fire fighter's work only 10 days a month wrote on November 20, 2009 09:15 AM: http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/search/?name=&title=fire&year=0&jurisdiction=3&sort_by=T#results


    H wrote on November 20, 2009 08:38 AM: Is that loser Chuck Short, who presided over the fiasco RJC construction with its enormous over budget expenditures, and behind schedule construction, now an employee of the Supreme Court?

    Chuck Short is an absolute joke.

    I heard his former employee Michael Ware is back at the RJC working again. Any verification of that? If so, good for him.

    That must make Kathy Hardcastle very happy. She might be even happier with her life if she spent as much time on her daughter as she does apparently scheming against others. Hey RJ reporters, what ever happened to Judge Kathy Hardcastle's daughter's criminal case? Was it swept under the rug?

    Kathy Hardcastle might be happier if she spent as much time on her daughter as she evidently does kibbutzing with her chattering and gossiping friends swilling glasses of wine.

    The effect of alcohol and her meanness is showing on her leathery and soured face already. I would hate to see her in another couple of years. Hate makes you ugly.


    Mike Ault wrote on November 20, 2009 06:59 AM: For lawyers, these morons are pretty inept.

    Memo to NSC: It is NOT an either/or proposition. It is BOTH!


    FED UP wrote on November 20, 2009 06:23 AM: Simple math no matter what department say's what you can not be running a business as usual mentality right now and expect the taxpayer to pony up in 2010.(below is not actual numbers)

    4 billion to run the state
    2 billion in tax revenue
    2 billion deficit

    I hope Nevada voters are awake in 2010!!!!


    blondeeee5 wrote on November 20, 2009 05:28 AM: I work my butt off while others sleep on the job, i still am furloughed, lets get rid of ALL THE DEAD WEIGHT,then lets get our money back...


    Christy wrote on November 20, 2009 05:26 AM: " the court cited program savings, saying it has returned more money to the state general fund than would have occurred with furloughs".
    Then with the furloughs they could have returned EVEN MORE MONEY.
    Another sacred cow!


    Read All Comments