Judge rattles his tin cup
-
- February
- 15
   The state’s chief administrative judge didn’t quite beg lawmakers to give judges a raise this week, but he came close.
    “I come to you today to say that the most critical issue facing the judiciary in this state is the desperate need for a long overdue increase for our judges who are truly suffering,’’ Jonathan Lippman told lawmakers at a budget hearing.
 “It is wrong, particularly for the judicial branch of government to have to go regularly, hat in hand, to the other branches seeking the very basic necessities of life…’’
   While the recent hike in the minimum wage didn’t affect judges, it is true that they haven’t had a raise in eight years. The salaries differ, but the pay of a state Supreme Court justice, $136,000 a year, hasn’t changed since 1999.
 Gov. Eliot Spitzer has set aside $69.5 million in his budget plan for 25 percent raises for judges starting April 1, retroactive to April of 2005. It would boost the pay of a Supreme Court justice to $168,000 a year.
   None of the lawmakers said they opposed the idea, but then again neither mention the real reason the pay hasn’t gone up: judges’ pay has always been linked, unofficially, to what state legislators get, and they have determined that the political climate wasn’t right for a hike any time in the last few years. Their base pay is $79,500 a year, although “leadership’’ stipends bring the average annual compensation above $90,000.
 And since the state Constitution doesn’t allow a hike for lawmakers to take effect until after the next election, judges could be out of luck until 2009.
   Lippmann and Spitzer, among others, want to break the tie between lawmakers’ pay and that of judges. They also want to create a new commission that would regularly recommend cost-of-living increases.
   Without a raise, “we cannot attract or retain the quaity judiciary that the citizens of New York State deserves,’’ Lippmann said.
 ÂÂÂ
This entry was posted
on Thursday, February 15th, 2007 at 10:14 am by Jay Gallagher.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
| 
Email This
The Committee for Modern Courts supports the inclusion of more than $111 million in the state’s budget to provide all state judges with a raise in salary retroactive to April 1, 2005. Increased judicial compensation for New York State’s judges has been advocated by Modern Courts for many years.
We are encouraged that Senator DeFrancisco and Assemblywoman Weinstein, the respective Chairs of the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees, have expressed support for this needed budget item.
Modern Courts has long believed that insufficient compensation may dissuade our most talented and committed lawyers from becoming judges. For most judges, the call to public service, rather than the salary, is the motivating factor in seeking judicial office. But the judiciary and, perhaps more importantly, the public are ill-served by the failure to adjust judicial compensation more than twice in 19 years.
The inclusion of funds for increased judicial compensation in the Governor’s budget provides an opportunity to break the legislative log jam that for far too long has tied judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises.
In recent years, Modern Courts has proposed, not only an increase in judicial compensation, but has vigorously supported Chief Judge Kaye’s proposal to create an
objective mechanism which would separate judicial compensation from legislative compensation.
Linking the salaries of State Supreme Court justices to those of federal district judges is entirely appropriate, given the work load New York’s major trial court justices. In addition, the budget proposal will provide increased compensation to all the other judges in the state, including Housing Court judges who were previously excluded, according to a formula that ties their salaries to those of Supreme Court justices.
Modern Courts further supports the establishment of a Quadrennial Commission as a means by which judicial compensation can be determined in the future. Such a system ensures that New York’s judiciary will enjoy the independence and respect it deserves.
As a retired second generation court employee and past president of the NYS Supreme Court Officers Association I would agree that judges need and deserve regular raises to maintain integrity in the system. I also think it’s important to note that the public needs a legitimate judiciary. All to often we read and hear stories about how judicial candidates pay off political bosses for nominations that lead to their elections. Former Brooklyn Democratic boss Clarence Norman is currently on trial for selling judgeships. The federal courts recently ruled that the method for selecting judges in NY was undemocratic and unconstitutional. The practice of cross-endorsement is the most despicable and reprehensible part of the process because it effectively rigs elections and cheats the voters of any real choice. Yet, many of our current judges willingly and knowingly participate in the corrupt process. How can we trust them? In fact, the state’s chief administrative judge, Jonathan Lippman, used the influence of his office and his control of court system resources to broker himself a cross-endorsement for a 9th judicial district supreme court judgeship in 2005. Most people don’t know that Mr. Lippman is not a jurist but a career Office of Court Administration bureaucrat with no real judicial experience. He was appointed as a Court of Claims judge shortly after being named chief administrator of the courts to give him some credibility with judges, whom he now supervised. Since then, he actively sought a cross-endorsement for a supreme court judgeship in Westchester County, which he achieved in 2005. The code of judicial conduct says that judges must avoid impropriety or the perception of impropriety but apparently that code did not apply to Mr. Lippman. In 1999 he lobbied the legislature for 15 million dollars to build a judicial institute on the campus of Pace University in White Plains. This institute could have been located anywhere in the state and the 15 million dollar project and the related administrative employment opportunities could have benefitted a sagging local economy in many locations throughout the state but Lippman chose wealthy Westchester where he was coincidentally seeking a cross-endorsement for the supreme court.Impropriety or perception of such?
In 2002, in his capacity as chief administrative judge, he lobbied the legislature to create one new supreme court judgeship due to increased volume. This new judgeship wasn’t for courts in NYC, Albany, Buffalo or anywhere else where the courts were overwhelmed but it was for Westchester County where he coincidentally was looking to be cross-endorsed. Clearly, he meant the job for himself but he withdrew his name from consideration when he couldn’t secure the cross-endorsement that would guarantee the election, which he claimed he deserved. He told the NY Law Journal in August 2002 that if he was elected to the position he intended to remain as chief administrative judge, which means that Westchester never would have gotten a new judge to address the increased volume. Again, impropriety or perception of such?
Finally, in 2005 he was granted a cross-endorsement by local political bosses as part of a deal on multiple judgeships. The following year the federal courts ruled the process unconstitutional.
Under his leadership, patronage, nepotism and cronyism have become the standard in the courts. His reclassification initiative ended civil service promotions and in turn created promotional opportunities by appointment. The director of employee relations is the “goddaughter” of the previous director of ER,the chief clerk of Staten Island Family Court is the little brother of court officer union boss Dennis Quirk aka “King of the Courts”, the deputy Inspector General is son of a Bronx Judge, a top investigator in the IG’s office is son in law of a former chief clerk, the chief court officer in Nassau County is the brother of former assemblyman and current state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, and most supervisory positions are held by friends or relatives of judges, admimistrators or politically connected insiders.
Chief Judge Judith Kaye wants to establish a commission to study and implement a process for regular raises for judges. I suggest that she also establishes a commission to investigate and root out internal corruption in the courts and the Office of Court Administration, which should start with the chief administrative judge. Until then, the true administration of justice that the public expects is compromised by the patronage and cronyism that has become the life’s blood of the system under the current leadership. Judges undoubtedly deserve raises but at the same time, the public deserves a legitimate and honorable court system.