BUDGET CRISIS : Judiciary Is Not Just a County Department

The County of Los Angeles regularly appears as a party in Superior and Municipal courts. To maintain their impartiality, judges of these courts must remain divorced from the county’s administrative business. For five years, that wall of separation has been breached. It’s time to seal it.

Chief Administrative Officer Sally Reed has recommended that all county departmental budgets be cut by 20% to balance the books. She and the Board of Supervisors choose not to recognize that the judiciary is a separate branch of government, not just another county department. The judiciary cannot afford a 20% trim without grinding to a halt.

Since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, the judicial branch has been empowered to act as a check on the arbitrary use of power by the legislative and executive arms of government. The supervisors, who constitute both the executive and legislative branches in county government, subvert the “checks and balances” principle when they attempt to coerce judges to reduce services that have the effect of impairing the judicial system.

Although there is no denying that the county is in a fiscal fix, the question is whether the county judiciary has the fortitude to fight for its independence and unilaterally pull any budget cuts off the table. Unfortunately, judges are not in a strong bargaining position to reassert their independence.

In any governmental system, there is a certain amount of back-scratching to ensure that everyone gets a little something. In 1990, L.A. County judges quietly risked much of their independence for a little extra money. For that error, the time may have come to pay the piper--and Reed is holding the piccolo.

When Ricardo A. Torres ran for presiding judge in 1989, he promised judges a “megaflex” and a “professional development allowance,” or a PDA. The allowance amounts to an extra $432 a month in the paycheck of every judge and court commissioner. (Commissioners, essentially, are full-time judges without the title).

Megaflex is even more lucrative and is available not only to judges but to all county managers who are not unionized. Under the megaflex formula, a recipient is given 19% of gross salary. Part of that 19% goes to pay for health, dental and life insurance and other megaflex benefits. The rest is received in cash.

An L.A. Superior Court judge is paid $104,000 a year. Thus, the megaflex/PDA adds about $25,000 a year to his or her paycheck. The megaflex/PDA is not audited. No other county has it, although some counties offer their judges varying amounts to cover their expenses as a result of doing judicial business.

In practical terms, the megaflex/PDA meant a Superior Court judge made more money than a presiding justice of the Court of Appeal. It was justified, with substantial good cause, on the ground that living expenses in Los Angeles are so much higher than in other counties that judges needed the money just to make ends meet. Indeed, considering their station and accomplishments, L.A. judges are radically underpaid compared with their local private-sector counterparts, or their federal brethren.

But it is an argument that should have been addressed to the Legislature. Because now, in the worst budget crisis in memory, that $25,000 may give the supervisors a sword of Damocles to hang over the county judiciary: Judges must juggle their own self-interest and their constitutional duties to the court, as an institution, and to their oaths of office.

Before the Torres administration, Los Angeles had a long line of Brahmin presiding judges who remained above the political fray. When fighting for their annual budget, they sent the court’s executive officer, then Frank S. Zolin, to negotiate with the chief administrative officer and the supervisors. Intrinsic to their discussions were the budgets for the district attorney and public defender. In other words, what did it take to make the court system function.

If the supervisors mangled Zolin, he could return to the judges, who, in turn, would reject the county’s proposal while remaining above the fray. The judges ultimately got what they wanted. When Torres became presiding judge, the judges started negotiating for themselves--a quality for which they showed little talent and a lack of tactical skill.

Having enmeshed themselves in the daily negotiations of the budget process, the judges contributed to the judiciary’s loss of mystique and prestige as a separate branch of government and became--in the eyes of the supervisors--nothing more than a large county department.

The duty of judges is to uphold and protect the Constitution and to ensure that the laws are administered justly. The duty of judges is to act with courage when necessary, regardless of personal consequences, either from the electorate or to their own pocketbooks. The ancillary benefits they receive from the county should never be discussed when determining the court’s budget. When the subject is raised, the judges should get up and walk out.

By so doing, the judges will begin the process of restoring their independence. They may even alter the supervisors’ perception of the county judiciary as just another county department, inhibiting them from dismantling piecemeal the budgets of the district attorney and public defender. After all, should budget reductions impair the quality of prosecution or public defense, judges can simply shutdown the system until they are satisfied that justice is being served. In the end, of course, they can flex their constitutional muscle and tap the general treasury to block the supervisors from endangering the integrity of the judicial system.

The message, then, to the supervisors must be clear: The judiciary must be funded to meet the demands of the public. In other words, at 100% of need.

The integrity of the judiciary must be placed on a plateau far higher than bargaining over the perks granted to judges. It is the judges who must provide a high-minded and principled approach. It is they who set the tone. The choice is not justice versus health insurance. It is justice versus injustice.