Proposal Calls for Municipal Judges to Get Job Allowance

Los Angeles County Municipal Court judges will receive a $3,600-a-year “professional development allowance” on top of their $77,409 annual salaries under a proposal to be voted on by the Board of Supervisors next Tuesday.

With 178 Municipal Court judges allowed the county, the program would cost $640,800 a year. Six of the judgeships are now unfilled.

The money would be used to finance trips to educational seminars, the purchase of books and personal computers and for other purposes to help them do their jobs, according to Municipal Judge Veronica Simmons McBeth, head of the Municipal Court Judges Assn., which prepared the proposal.

The extra money will go to the judges as part of an agreement needed to bring Los Angeles into a new program of greatly increased state support of the Superior and Municipal courts, now largely financed by county government. Los Angeles County will receive $131 million a year from the program, easing financial burdens on a government hard-pressed to pay for health services to the poor, prisons, law enforcement and courts packed with criminals and civil litigants.

Under the state legislation, enacted last year, boards of supervisors and judges must vote approval before a county is eligible for the aid. That gives local authorities a voice in how the money will be spent.

Under the agreement, much of the money will go for new courthouses and courtrooms to relieve overcrowding, improve security in courtrooms, reduce delays in trials, improve courthouse maintenance and make other improvements in court administration.

Superior Court judges told Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Officer Richard E. Dixon, who prepared the agreement, that they wanted all the money to go into courtroom operations, construction and maintenance.

But another use of some of the money emerged in negotiations between Dixon, McBeth and three of her Municipal Court colleagues.

During the discussions, McBeth said, the judges mentioned long-standing desires about keeping up their professional educations by attending seminars and classes, some of them out of town.

“We have always asked for more judicial education,” she said.

Citing the need to attend seminars in other cities, she said, “It costs to go to those things and it comes out of our pockets.”

She said Dixon noted that the county was already planning to give additional funds for professional education to some of its top executives and suggested that the judges be included in that program.

Thus, the agreement was written to assure that the “county agrees to provide each Municipal Court judge with a monthly professional development allowance to facilitate continuing professional growth in an amount to be determined by the county.”

McBeth said the allowance would be $300 a month.

That would be added to the judges’ taxable income, she said.

Some judges would use the money for travel to meetings and seminars, she said, while others would purchase personal computers or books.

There would be no auditing to determine whether the funds actually go for education, she said, but “I would like to think that the public will trust us with what is not a lot of money.”

After seeing the agreement, the Municipal Court judges voted for it overwhelmingly.

Sources in the Superior Court, who declined the use of their names for fear of antagonizing Municipal Court colleagues, said the Superior Court judges flatly refused to accept such money when Dixon offered it to them. “Every buck we have is to support the (court) program, every buck is for the public,” one source said.

The legislation also improved the Municipal Court judges’ health insurance plan, making them eligible for reduced benefits after retirement.