Senate OKs Amendment to Rescind Extra Pension Benefits for Judges

Dubbed a “symbolic poke in the eye to San Diego judges,” the Senate on Friday passed an amendment that would eventually rescind a special agreement permitting San Diego County to kick in extra pension benefits for its Municipal and Superior Court jurists.

The amendment was attached by Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) to a speedy-trial bill that was virtually certain to be ratified by the Assembly before its midnight deadline to the 1990 session.

Lockyer wrote the amendment this week as a belated reaction to a bill passed last year ratifying an agreement that allows the county to pick up $800,000 in annual pension contributions that would otherwise come out of the wallets of its 127 judges.

Under the old system, a sum equal to 16% of each judge’s salary was put into an individual pension plan each year. The judge and the county paid 8% each.

But, since August, 1989, the county has paid an additional 7% for each Municipal and Superior Court judge, who earn $86,157 and $94,344 a year respectively. The result: Each jurist has been able to pocket an extra $6,031 to $6,604 annually.

Lockyer now contends that the arrangement was tantamount to a “backdoor” raise pushed through the Legislature by former Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego). Stirling now enjoys the benefit as a municipal judge, a post he accepted several months after shepherding the legislation.

When Riverside County judges came to Sacramento this year for the same kind of deal, Lockyer decided to roll back the San Diego precedent until the Legislature has time to review judicial compensation throughout the state. His amendment would not affect judges immediately, but would discontinue the 7% payment when a San Diego jurist is appointed or wins reelection after January.

Sen. Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) on Friday voted for the amendment, but said she objected to the fact that it was crafted in the final week of the session.

“What we began four days ago as an attempt to reform judicial compensation has wound up to be a symbolic poke in the eye to San Diego judges,” she said. “I don’t doubt for a moment that Sen. Lockyer’s good intentions were there, but 40 men and women with good intentions can make a mess of things when we act impulsively with our legislative power.”

Lockyer conceded that he and other senators were not completely ignorant of the San Diego deal when it sailed through the Legislature last year on consent calendar. They just want to remove it now before it becomes “fossilized” in law.

“I think what happened is people learned more since that precedent was set and realized that is was just a terrible mistake,” he told his colleagues. “Judges ought to contribute to the retirement system, just like everyone else does, in equivalent amounts.”

Lockyer’s amendment drew protests from San Diego County judges, including Stirling, who said this week that he has even called the governor’s office to complain. Stirling said judges in Los Angeles have enjoyed the pension benefits without going through the Legislature for approval.

Presiding Municipal Judge E. Mac Amos Jr., along with Superior Court Judges Barbara Gamer and G. Dennis Adams, traveled to Sacramento earlier this week to lobby against the Lockyer amendment.

Amos said Friday that he objects to Lockyer’s implication that somehow Stirling and the San Diego judges put one over on lawmakers last year.

“If you want to say we snuck it through, I don’t think that’s fair,” he said. “I testified before his (Lockyer’s Senate Judiciary) committee when Stirling was getting it through the Legislature last year.”

He also said he disagrees with Lockyer’s assertions that it looks bad for judges to be seeking the added compensation, especially in a year when the state has dramatically cut social programs to the poor, indigent and blind. San Diego County itself is expected to absorb a massive $22-million cut because of diminished state funds.

“I don’t consider the salary to be in the high category,” Amos said about judicial pay. “You’ve got associates three or four years out of law school making as much.”