Judges’ Pension Plan Needs Revising : Gov. Deukmejian should sign a bill that rescinds this veiled pay increase

Lots of people have pension plans, but it is doubtful that many enjoy benefits like the ones that San Diego County’s judges negotiated for themselves a couple of years ago.

The 127 Municipal and Superior Court judges used to contribute 8% of their salaries into their pension plans, a figure the county matched. But in 1988, the judges struck a deal calling for the county to also contribute the lion’s share of each judge’s pension contribution.

For a municipal judge earning $86,157, the added county contribution totals $6,031 annually. For a Superior Court judge, who earns $94,344, it’s $6,604. The total cost to the county is $804,000 every year.

Shortly before he was appointed to the Municipal Court bench, former State Sen. Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) successfully carried a bill through the Legislature to legitimize the deal, after the state determined that the county lacked the authority to enter into it. The pension plan went into effect early last year.

Friday, the Legislature approved State Sen. Bill Lockyer’s proposal to rescind the San Diego judges’ deal and prevent any other counties--Riverside has tried--from adopting a similar one.

Lockyer (D-Hayward) is right. With the county absorbing an estimated $22 million in budget cuts this year, rescinding this special, roundabout pay increase makes sense both financially and ethically.

Gov. Deukmejian should sign the bill that contains Lockyer’s amendment, ending a precedent for other counties at a time when the whole state is financially strapped.

Then the Legislature, which technically oversees payment of the state’s judges, ought to look into whether benefits for judges need to be made uniform statewide.

The county has taken no position on Lockyer’s legislation, which would end the pension contribution as each judge’s term expires.

After all, county officials agreed to the plan as part of the bargain with the judges. Trying to renege now would be hypocritical. But, with cuts looming in mental health programs, social services, juvenile diversion programs and funding for the trial courts themselves, it is safe to assume that the county will have no trouble spending an extra $800,000 annually.

Reportedly, the judges held some additional trial court funding hostage to win the pension increase.

Budget negotiating can be a brutal business, but, if true, that tactic seems a bit on the extortive side.

Stirling argues, persuasively, that judges’ experience, education level, responsibilities and difficult working conditions justify their pay scales.

In providing the new pension plan, the county was trying to help out the judges without subjecting them to a hefty tax bite, he says.

But there’s something discomfiting about this kind of arrangement. It may be legitimate, but it seems sneaky. The judges would be better served by taking an old-fashioned pay increase and facing the inevitable public outcry.