PLEASE READ AND FORWARD ON TO YOUR CONTACTS: In a prior post, I provided reasons as to why the incumbent Judge in Department L, Jennifer Elliott, has graded poorly in the Judging the Judges judicial surveys conducted by the Las Vegas Review Journal. You will recall that 40% of responding attorneys indicated that Judge Elliott SHOULD NOT BE RETAINED as a Judge. In addition to to the reasons previously set forth, there is another glaring reason why attorneys, and members of the public, are frustrated with Judge Elliotts performance. This additional reason has to do with something as elementary as showing up for work. It is common knowledge among attorneys who practice before the Family Court that Judge Elliott has issue showing up for Court timely, if at all. Judge Elliott missed substantial time from her position during her current 6 year term. I contacted Family Court Administration to confirm the extent of her absences. I was informed no record of attendance was kept, but was referred to District Court Administration. I contacted District Court Administration. Again, I was told no record of attendance was kept, but this time was referred to the Director of the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court. The Director of that office informed that no record of attendance was kept, but records were kept pertaining to Orders of the Supreme Court assigning Senior Judges to hear matters for a District Court Judge who was unavailable. I was required to utilize my investigator to visit the Directors office in Carson City to go through binders of Orders to ascertain the extent of the Supreme Court having assigned Senior Judges to take the place of Judge Elliott when she was absent. The results obtained from the Directors office are staggering, but confirmed: Days Missed during One Calendar Year: 167 days Working Days during Calendar Year: 245 days % of Time Missed during Calendar Year: 70% During 1 calendar year of Judge Elliotts current term on the bench, Senior Judges were assigned to hear matters in Department L a total of 167 days. These days are confirmed by Memorandum of Temporary Assignment which are copied and in my office. Taking into account weekends, holidays, and vacation time, I believe it is fair to assume that there are 240 working days for a District Court Judge during a calendar year in the State of Nevada. (There are probably less than 240 working days in a year, which gives every benefit of the doubt to Judge Elliott) This means that during 1 calendar year, Judge Elliott was absent approximately 70% of the time she should have been providing services to the voters, taxpayers and families of Clark County. You should know that this only begins to tell the story of Judge Elliotts work ethic. There are other days on which she has not appeared where no Senior Judge takes her place. Those days are covered by her fellow District Court Judges, or litigants and attorneys are sent away with a continuation date by her staff. So in actuality, the time Judge Elliott has missed from the bench is greater than what Ive been able to confirm through the Administrative Office of the Supreme Court. The costs to taxpayers as a result of Judge Elliotts absences from the bench are appalling. According to records maintained by Transparent Nevada, Judge Elliott has received the entirety of her salary, regardless of the time she has missed from the bench. In addition to her salary which we, the taxpayers, pay, the Senior Judges are also compensated for performing her duties. It is very difficult to determine the amount which a Senior Judge receives to take Judge Elliotts place. The rule pertaining to a Senior Judges compensation does not set forth a specific amount; instead the rule states that the Senior Judge is compensated at a rate which is a proportional amount to the gross monthly salary of a regularly elected judge. For purpose of this post, Ill assume a Senior Judge receives $500 per day of service. That means that during 1 calendar year, Judge Elliott cost us, the taxpayers, $83,000 above and beyond her salary. Of course, if a Senior Judge receives more than $500 per day of service, Judge Elliott costs us more than that. I have focused my campaign on change and restoring efficiency for Department L. In a prior post, I indicated the primary complaints of litigants and attorneys in Family Court cases: 1) time to get through the system, and 2) costs incurred in getting through the system. It goes without saying that the time it takes to get through the system grows each time a Judge fails to appear for work. It also goes without saying that having attorneys prepare when a Judge fails to appear increases the overall costs of the case. Judge Elliotts failure to show up for work, in addition to her lack of Judicial efficiency as indicated by attorneys responding to the Judging the Judges survey (set forth in prior post), make it clear that she is directly responsible for the complaints of litigants and attorneys. She should be held accountable, as she has taken advantage of the taxpayer far too long. Again, please assist me in getting this information to the attention of the voters of Clark County. The public knows little, if anything, about these statistics. They are kept hush by the powers that be. It is past time that we, the voters and taxpayers, know what is going on in Department L of the Family Court. The options are straight-forward: Do we pay a substandard Judge for another 6 years, or do we make a change to improve the efficiency of the Court? With your help, I can make a change in Department L for the better of our community. Thanks.
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:23:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015