Whatever sympathy New York’s judges had from average citizens in their quest for a pay raise, they are quickly losing with their petulant, injudicious actions aimed at getting their way. The most recent action, reportedly taken by some judges, is to recuse themselves from, and thus delay, cases involving state legislators or their law firms. This is part of a protest against the Legislature’s failure to approve judicial pay raises for nearly a decade. And the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which disciplines judges, has just properly issued a warning against it. The commission wouldn’t say whether it is investigating any judges for ethics violations, but strongly suggested that it is prepared to — and would even be obligated to. Chief Judge Judith Kaye has also warned judges not to protest through action from the bench. The trouble is, it is Kaye who has encouraged the judges’ sense of grievance and entitlement, and therefore this “black fl u,” by bringing a silly lawsuit against the Legislature to secure raises. The lawsuit raises questions about separation of powers and conflict of interest. After all, who is going to rule on this issue, which is really a political rather than a constitutional one, but a judge? The view among professionals seems to be that the judges deserve a raise after not having one for so long. Working-class people seem less sympathetic when they look at a Supreme Court judge who makes $136,700 a year with excellent benefits, and enjoys enormous prestige and respect. The judges will get their raise eventually, but they should stop their childish behavior and do their jobs now.
CAPITOL Judge balks at call to trim court spending BY BOB CONNER Gazette Reporter Reach Gazette reporter Bob Conner at 462-2499 or bconner@dailygazette.net.
Chief Judge Judith Kaye and the Office of Court Administration are resisting Gov. David Paterson’s call to trim spending by 3.35 percent from what Gov. Eliot Spitzer had proposed. In an April 29 letter to Paterson released Friday by the OCA, Kaye linked the budget issue to the question of pay raises for judges, which she has become increasingly vocal in demanding. She has also sued state leaders, including Paterson, claiming they are violating the state constitution by failing to increase judges’ salaries. Kaye said in the letter that the OCA is “not able at this time to identify savings of a specific amount or percentage. As you know, the issue of judicial compensation remains unsolved. Until that issue, and any potential impact on our budget, is addressed, it is premature to commit to any particular reductions.” The State University of New York also is resisting the Paterson spending restraint, and has been holding discussions with the governor’s Division of Budget to try to get it to accept a lesser amount of budget savings. In an April 24 letter to Kaye, the leaders of the Legislature, the attorney general and comptroller, Paterson asked them to follow the lead of state agencies in making the 3.35 percent downward adjustment (it is not an actual cut, since spending would still be about 1 percent more than last year, according to the DOB). State agencies also were supposed to submit their own plans to DOB by Friday, spelling out how they proposed to make the 3.35 percent adjustment. Most agencies said they had submitted plans, but would not divulge details. Nor would the DOB. Specific information also was hard to come by from the other government entities, including SUNY. Dan Weiller, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said he did plan to submit proposals to meet the governor’s spending restraint targets. Paterson’s April 24 letter said: “The Enacted Budget Financial Plan assumes that the Legislature, the Department of Law, the Office of the State Comptroller and the Office of Court Administration will join in this effort and reduce their operating budgets by 3.35 percent. To the extent that your agency does not achieve anticipated savings, deeper reductions will be required in other agencies.” OCA spokeswoman Kali Holloway said Kaye’s April 29 letter stands as her response to Paterson’s request. The letter said: “In formulating the Judiciary budget request, we were aware of projections of a decline in state revenues and therefore sought only the resources necessary to support core court operations and to enable the courts to fulfill their constitutional mandate in the face of an ever-growing workload.” While most Albany leaders have been in favor of a pay raise for judges, there hasn’t been one for a decade. Paterson has suggested raises are not a good idea this year because of the tight budget. The Senate has approved judicial pay raises, but Silver has tied the issue to a raise for state legislators, who also have worked for a decade without one. No pay raise bill has passed the Assembly.
Given the way the state Legislature gives money away, I can understand the frustration of the judges. But let's be honest, their feet are not nailed to the floor and they can leave at any time.
They could be replaced easily with probably hundreds of other judges or attorneys who would be happy to accept the position at the current salaries and perks. LARRY KELLEY Delmar larry1211@gmail.com
State judge orders pay hike for fellow jurists Officials given 90 days to take action The Associated Press
NEW YORK — A state judge has ordered the governor, Senate and Assembly to raise the pay of all the state’s judges within the next 90 days. Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner said in a decision Wednesday that the defendants had unconstitutionally abused their power by depriving the judges of a pay hike for almost 10 years. Lehner noted that the judges have been denied a pay hike because state legislators linked a judicial salary increase to one for themselves. He said this linkage is illegal. He ordered the state to raise judicial pay to reflect the amount the cost of living has jumped since 1998. He also told the state to consider an appropriate provision for retroactivity. He did not suggest any amounts. The governor’s office was exploring its legal options after the judge’s ruling, spokesman Errol Cockfield said. “While the governor has long supported salary increases for judges, today’s opinion flies in the face of the state Constitution, which makes clear that only the Legislature has the power to set judicial salaries,” he said in a statement. The state likely will apply for a stay and then appeal the ruling. Whichever side loses can — and is likely to — petition the Court of Appeals in Albany. The appeals process typically takes several months. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s office was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment, spokesman Dan Weiller said. The attorney general’s offi ce referred calls to the governor’s office. Lehner ruled on a lawsuit by four judges: Susan Larabee, of Manhattan Family Court; Michael Nenno, of Civil Court in Cattaraugus County; Patricia Nunez, of Brooklyn Criminal Court; and Geoffrey Wright, of Manhattan Civil Court. Chief Judge Judith Kaye, the state’s highest-paid judge at $156,000 a year, is leading another lawsuit against the Legislature to secure raises, and she has warned judges not to protest through action from the bench. Lehner has said judicial pay has been so ravaged by inflation in the last nine years that a first-year associate at a large New York City law firm would have to take a pay cut to become the state’s chief judge. He acknowledged that he would benefit by his own decision, but he cited the “rule of necessity,” which says that when every judge who is eligible to hear a case faces a conflict of interest, then it is proper for one of those judges to hear the case. One of the lead attorneys on behalf of the judges, George Bundy Smith, a former state Court of Appeals judge, called Lehner’s ruling “significant.” “I think it has great meaning,” he said. “The judge found there had been linkage between the salaries of the judges and the legislators and that was an abuse of discretion.” He said he hopes that within the 90 days the issue will be resolved. “If they don’t go along that will be a tragedy for our form of government,” he said. “They can’t just say, ’You can issue decrees, and we’re not going to enforce them.’ ” Mark Hansen, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, said he had no comment on the ruling and referred questions to the attorney general’s offi ce. He said the Senate had passed two judicial pay raise bills that were not acted on by the Assembly.
There's no conflict of interest in that ruling is there. If the judges feel that they truly need a raise put it on the ballot in November and let the people who are going to have to pay for their raise decide the matter.
I have three words for this judge... "Separation of Powers." Or, if you don't like those 3, try on these 3 and see how they go... "Checks and balances." There's a reason you can't just make a judgement and it goes into law...because it's illegal. D'OH!!
Logged
