Senate Acts to End ‘Backdoor’ Pay Rise for Judges

Senate leaders on Monday took steps to gradually rescind a pension perquisite for San Diego County judges that some claim is actually a “backdoor” scheme to give the jurists a 7% raise with little public fuss.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, at the behest of its chairman, Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), fashioned legislative language Monday that officially rescinded an agreement calling for San Diego County to pay for $800,000 in annual pension contributions that would otherwise come out of the pockets of its 127 Municipal and Superior Court judges.

The special agreement was contained in a bill sponsored last year by former Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), who saw the measure signed into law a few months before he left the Legislature to become a municipal judge himself.

Reached Monday at home, where he was recovering from the flu, Stirling said he has made several telephone calls to his former colleagues here to stop Lockyer’s attack on the pension benefit, which he now receives. He said he has encouraged other San Diego judges to follow suit, and legislative aides confirmed Monday that some offices have received many calls from worried jurists.

“The implication that something underhanded is happening is not accurate,” Stirling said. “The San Diego bill went through in the full light of day and was voted on in the full open committee and full Legislature.”

“The San Diego judges, to their credit, went through the legislative process in the full light of day to validate a duly negotiated agreement,” he said. “What so evil about that?”

Plenty, according to Lockyer. The Northern California Democrat said he and Senate President Pro Tempore David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) are concerned that San Diego judges slyly gave themselves an indirect pay raise at a time when social spending for the blind, indigent and disabled is being “decimated” by budget cuts.

They are also worried that San Diego will become a precedent for other judges in California. Already this session, the Legislature has approved a measure giving better medical and dental benefits to Orange County jurists. But it balked when it received a request from Riverside County to pay judges’ pension contributions in the same way San Diego does.

In fact, it was the Riverside request that recently piqued Lockyer’s interest, as well as ire. After asking questions, he found out that it was patterned after Stirling’s measure--a bill he admits slipped through without much notice when it was presented by Stirling as a mere “housekeeping” measure.

“He managed to do it cleverly. People didn’t focus on the precedent. We didn’t have a chance to mull it over,” said Lockyer, adding that he in part blames himself and his closeness to Stirling for the bill’s going through unscrutinized.

“He was a good friend of mine. He was my racquetball partner,” Lockyer added. “It may be because of my friendship I didn’t take a closer look.”

The bill approved by the Legislature last year gave enhanced pension benefits for San Diego County municipal and superior court judges, who make $86,157 and $94,344 a year respectively.

Under the old plan, an amount equal to 16% of each judge’s salary was put into a pension fund each year. The county and the judge split the obligation, each paying 8%.

The Stirling measure ratified a local agreement that called for the county to pick up 7% of each judge’s personal pension obligation. For the individual municipal judge such as Stirling, the savings are $6,031 a year; for a Superior Court judge, the savings are $6,604 a year.

Overall, the changes have translated into the county spending an extra $804,000 a year from its general fund toward judicial pensions for its 56 municipal and 71 Superior Court at a time when social programs are being squeezed tightly by the state. County officials are looking at another $22 million in cuts they have to make in welfare and other programs because of the lean state budget passed this summer.

Lockyer on Monday said his information was that the San Diego County judges demanded the pension benefit in exchange for their cooperation in obtaining state funds to run the court system. A 1987 law, authored by Lockyer, required judicial approval before the county could receive the money.

“They are the only abusers--no one else in the state is doing this,” he said. “It’s a backdoor form of a pay increase.

“What you’re seeing here is the human side of judges, and it’s not an attractive image.”

Stirling said Monday he did not know if such a demand was ever made. David Janssen, the county’s assistant chief administrative officer who negotiated the pension agreement with the judges, was out of the office and unavailable for comment Monday.

Whatever the circumstances, Lockyer took steps Monday to unravel the San Diego agreement. He inserted an amendment in an otherwise unrelated bill before his committee that would drop the double pension payment for each San Diego County judge at the end of his current term. Municipal judges serve four years and Superior Court judges six.

The amendment also forbids similar pension deals in other counties until the Legislature can study the matter further.

Stirling said Monday that judges in Los Angeles County have been making such special arrangements for years, and it was only when their San Diego counterparts decided to follow the state Constitution and receive approval from the Legislature that they got caught. He said he considers Lockyer’s amendment Monday fair, but defended his measure last year as proper, even with the recent budget cuts.

“I don’t think it looks bad for judges to be paid responsibly and in accordance with their educational requirements,” he said. “The judges are required to be law school graduates and veteran attorneys, and they have important and difficult jobs.

“I think their compensation is probably appropriate, and it depends on the quality of the judiciary you want to attract and maintain.”