Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government
18 Tremont St., #608 * Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 248-0022 * E-Mail: cltg@cltg.org
* The Commonwealth Activist Network *
Visit our homepage at: http://cltg.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*** CLT&G Update ***
Monday, April 28, 1997

Here it is, folks!

The “Silver Bullet” we've been waiting for.

Why did an editorial in yesterday's Boston Sunday Herald, “Reality check on term limits,” in part state?:

“Dorothea Vitrac, leader of LIMITS, which championed the [term limits] initiative, enacted by the voters three years ago, has charged that Beacon Hill is deliberately holding up a $695 million courthouse bond measure to pressure the SJC.

“There is not a shred of evidence to support this charge, and Vitrac does her cause no service with paranoid mutterings.”

Apparently the left hand at the Herald didn't know what the right hand was doing—for today's Herald front-page banner headline story provides evidence—or at least strong grounds for healthy suspicion—that the court itself is providing its own pressure on the Legislature to “do the right thing” to keep the court happy! [Be sure to read the historic “coincidences” I've documented in Note 1, below.]

Do I detect any justified moral outrage out there from any of my fellow “paranoids”?

Chip Ford
Co-director
* * *

Boston Herald
Monday, April 28, 1997
[Front Page banner headline] Courting cash:
Bay State judges push for automatic pay raises, perks
By Andrea Estes

Complaining they're underpaid, state judges want Beacon Hill lawmakers to approve a controversial plan that would automatically boost their $96,000-a-year salary.

The judges, who number 350, have filed more than a dozen proposals that would raise their salary, increase their pensions and provide such added perks as workers' compensation coverage while driving to and from work, and cost of living adjustments for retirees.

“They've asked for everything but a uniform allowance,” said one longtime court employee who makes much less.

One bill would allow judges to work part-time during retirement and collect their full pay.

The judges, who last received a 19 percent pay hike in [1] 1995 phased in over 18 months, say they earn at the bottom of the rung for judges nationwide and barely as much as a first year lawyer at a Boston firm.

[Story jump to Page 18]

Judicial raises have critics crying disorder in the court

“We're underpaid, definitely,” said Gloucester District Court Judge David Harrison, Legislative Chairman of the Massachusetts Judges Conference, which filed the bills.

“A lot of people making $150,000 to $200,000 take this job.

We do it because we want to. I'm not saying I don't like my job. I enjoy it very much.

“Anybody worth his salt should be making more than $100,000 a year as a lawyer. Even public defenders make $60,000 or $70,000,” he said.

Under the pay raise proposal, each year a five-member commission would review judges' and lawyers' pay here and in other, similar cities and recommend a salary.

State lawmakers would have 90 days to vote the recommendation up or down—and would not be permitted to make changes

If lawmakers neglected to act, however, the recommendation would become law immediately and automatically.

“It isn't as crazy as it sounds,” [2] said one judge who didn't want to be named.

“It's important to put together a mechanism that is fair and doesn't screw the public.”

But critics say judges, who are rarely disciplined or removed from office, should give up their job security before they're handed any more benefits.

“Do people in law firms have lifetime tenure no matter how well or badly they perform?” said Barbara Anderson, [co-] head of Citizens for Limited Taxation [& Government].

“Will the commission measure the judges' performance against other judges in the country? The judges would have to give up lifetime tenure before this (package) could even be discussed seriously,” she said.

Paul Fitzgerald, of Common Cause, said the automatic pay raise provision “undermines the credibility and public confidence” in the system.

“It's not a question of whether judges should be paid more.

There are arguments for and against. We're concerned about the process,” he said.

Among the bills pending before lawmakers are proposals to:

• Let judges work part-time after retirement but collect full pay. On so-called “senior status” they could work 100 days (or more) and collect their pensions and enough money to equal what their salary was when they worked full time.
• Grant cost-of-living adjustments to retired judges by adjusting their pensions every time working judges receive a raise.
• Credit judges with their six weeks' annual vacation and 20 days' sick leave at the beginning of the year, rather than on a monthly basis.
• Give pension credit for any state employment before becoming a judge—one day for every three days in previous state service.
• Offer state-funded malpractice insurance for judges called before the Judicial Conduct Commission for an administrative transgression.

Some of the proposals—including the pay raise—may have support on Beacon Hill, said Sen. William Keating, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

“It's an effort to find a middle ground so judges are not held hostage by legislators holding them up for their own benefit,” Keating (D-Sharon) said. [3]

John Carroll, head of the Massachusetts Bar Association's judicial administration committee, says the proposals could make judges more independent.

“It tries to get politics and patronage out of compensation and eliminates the problem of pay raises becoming political footballs,” he said. [4]

Joseph McDonough, executive director of the Judges Conference, said annual reviews don't necessarily mean annual raises.

“The Legislature can vote no pay raise and nothing would happen and they would wait until the next year,” he said.

* * *

[1] Prior to the 1995 payraise, the Legislature passed a judicial payraise bill in 1992 -- later *on the very day* the state Supreme Judicial (Kangaroo) Court ruled that the Legislature did *not* have to vote on the people's initiative for a term limits constitutional amendment, thereby killing the effort. No doubt the Court would say that the timing was purely a “random coincidence unrelated to any political pressures”, as mentioned below in Note 3.

Much like, after years of battle with SJC Chief Justice Paul Liacos, the Legislature, which had ordered him out of his second office in the Peabody District Courthouse, abruptly relented and fully funded his second office only days before the SJC found “technical errors” in our payraise repeal initiative. Just another “coincidence”?

How about SJC Justice Lynch's refusal to order Secretary of State Galvin to print our payraise repeal petitions—as is *clearly* mandated by the constitution and which Galvin had denied us—once again killing the people's effort?

[2] Did someone call it “crazy” already, or did the courageous “judge who didn't want to be named”—think it sounds crazy all by himself?

[3] Note Sen. Keating's recognition and *admission* of how the Legislature manipulates the Court? Can we stop calling each other “paranoid” yet?

[4] Doesn't the head of the Massachusetts Bar Association's administration committee sound a little “paranoid” too?

“It tries to get politics and patronage out of compensation and eliminates the problem of pay raises becoming political footballs,” he said. Our judges and the courts currently are *not* independent? He should know, but isn't that the very *definition* of “conspiracy”?

What does it mean when *everybody* is “paranoid” and recognizes existing “conspiracies” that just “can't possibly” exist?

They'll be calling it “mass-hysteria” next!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

• HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS REFLECTOR LIST—

If you are on the CLT&G / CPR98 e-mailing list and you want to be removed, please do the following:
Send a message to: cpr98-request@world.std.com
Type the word: < unsubscribe > in the body of your message with *NO* other information
Leave the subject field BLANK
(DO *NOT* try to send a message to: cpr98@world.std.com or your message will bounce and have no effect)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *