By Chief Judge Jerry A. Wiese II and Andres Moses
On July 1st, I officially began my second term as Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court. Looking back on my first two years, one of the greatest privileges has been the responsibility of overseeing the numerous dedicated public servants who make up the administrative personnel of the District Court. One thing I have learned is the importance of the judiciary’s ability to control its own workforce independently and without interference from external pressures.
Separation of powers is a fundamental principle that is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. Judicial independence is essential for ensuring courts make decisions based solely on the law and facts, free from political pressures or interests. When other branches have the ability to exert control over court personnel, there is a risk of undue influence that can compromise judicial impartiality and integrity.
Decisions from the Supreme Court of Nevada have reinforced that the judiciary is empowered to manage its workforce. In Harvey v. Second Judicial District Court, 117 Nev. 754, 32 P.3d 1263 (2001), the Court held that a district court lawfully assumed the supervision and control of the operation of a court clerk’s office from the county clerk. Then, in the landmark decision of Sparks v. Sparks Municipal Court, 129 Nev. 348, 302 P.3d 1118 (2013), the Court expressly recognized the judiciary’s exclusive authority over the management of its employees, including administrators, marshals, court clerks, interpreters, and other employees who are essential to fulfilling the court’s duties.
In Clark County, there has been a steady movement towards greater judicial autonomy over personnel management during the past several decades. On July 1, 2022, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was implemented between Clark County and the Eighth Judicial District Court, recognizing the court’s complete autonomy over personnel management and leading to the creation of our own Employee Handbook. This change has significantly improved court operations’ efficiency and cohesiveness. With direct management of our staff, we have streamlined hiring practices, ensuring that we can bring in the best candidates quickly and effectively. The MOU also recognizes that the court operates within a unique environment requiring specialized knowledge and skills. Judges and court administrators best understand the specific needs of the judiciary. With workforce control, we can ensure that employees have the necessary skills, training, and dedication to support the judicial process, aligning with our core values and mission.
Judicial autonomy in workforce management also fosters accountability and high ethical standards. When courts set their own policies and procedures for hiring, performance evaluation, and disciplinary actions, they uphold the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. This internal oversight swiftly addresses misconduct or inefficiency, free from external political considerations. An independent judiciary, in control of our own workforce, free from outside interference, is essential for the effective administration of justice and maintaining public trust in our legal system. By safeguarding this aspect of judicial independence, we uphold the rule of law and ensure our courts can continue to serve as impartial arbiters of justice for all.
About the author
Chief Judge Jerry Wiese serves in Department 30 of the Eighth Judicial District Court Bench. Since taking the bench in January of 2011, Judge Wiese has presided over numerous trials, both civil and criminal, and has presided over many settlement conferences. He coordinates the Judicial Settlement Conference Program and presides over the Medical Malpractice Sweeps. He was elected Chief Judge by his peers and has served as the Chief Judge of the District Court since July 2022.
Andres Moses serves as Assistant Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District Court.
About the article
© 2024 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (Sep. 2024), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2024/communique-sep-2024/.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.