Las Vegas NowI-Team: Supreme Court Contracts come into Question

I-Team: Supreme Court Contracts come into Question

It is a trend lawmakers wanted to end; yet contractors continue to wield power and big paychecks in Nevada.

During the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session, lawmakers unanimously overrode the veto on Assembly Bill 463. That bill would have restricted state agencies from hiring former employees without a one-year "cooling off" period. The bill would also have required new oversight and fiscal accountability.

It is a law, however, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nevada says does not apply.

Carole Vilardo with the Nevada Taxpayers Association believes the "revolving door" nature of Nevada politics needs to end. "You can very easily have the appearance of impropriety," she said. "You have people who retire from an agency, form a consulting group specifically to make a proposal on a contract."

Assemblywoman Debbie Smith from Washoe County introduced the bill in Carson City. Her goal was to include every state agency and department. She noted one consultant that required lawmakers to make paper collages at a convention. "I just think we need better accountability. I think we need better oversight in that area," she said.

Back on the payroll

If the name Janette Bloom is not familiar, you likely have not tried a case in the highest court in the state. Bloom was one of the most respected members of the Court staff and until January of 2008, she was chief clerk of the high court.

She retired on New Year's Day, but the I-Team learned that she was back at work just six months later, not at her old job, but as a consultant.

During the final year of her employment at the court, Bloom made $135,239. That created a sizable retirement benefit. She still continued to receive those benefits during her eight-month contract as a consultant for more than $4,200 a month.

Bloom's company, JMB Consulting, LLC, was paid to assist a major revision in the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct. That was a job Chief Justice James Hardesty says Bloom was well suited to do. "Here, she was requested because she is a lawyer and has an expertise," he said.

Double dipping allowed?

In a rare interview with the I-Team, Hardesty claimed AB 463 does not apply to the Judicial Branch because it would restrict separation of powers.

Assemblywoman Smith disputes that in both law and legal intent, yet under direct questioning, Hardesty said there were no problems with the current system. "Forgive me if I don't laugh, but if you saw the process we go through with the fiscal analysts -- yeah, there's plenty of oversight. They know every dime we spend," he said.

He believes there is no revolving door policy. "It doesn't appear to me to be. We needed the service. She provided it. We were very thankful to have it," Hardesty said.

To him, the law does not and should not apply. "I think the Judiciary is in the best position as a separate branch of government to make a decision about who can best assist it," he said.

For Smith, the excuse does not work. "It's not fair to the taxpayers," she said.