Public in Dark as O.C. Courts Dish Out Raises

With no public input, more than 80 of Orange County’s top court managers received raises this year totaling nearly $500,000 under a new state system that gives judges authority to approve payroll and other expenditures.

All but a handful of the 94 court administrators got salary boosts, which averaged 8%, or $5,500. One manager saw his pay rise from $90,000 to about $100,000, according to records released Friday at the request of The Times.

The pay hikes come when there is growing concern among state lawmakers who say the new system for funding California’s courts provides little public scrutiny over how money is spent. The debate intensified earlier this week with disclosures that some Los Angeles County court administrators received raises of 20% or more.

Orange County officials said the raises are justified because the managers received no more than periodic cost of living increases during the last five years as the county struggled to emerge from bankruptcy. They are the first “merit raises” since 1995, according to Alan Slater, the court system’s chief executive officer.

“People lost a lot of money from what they should have been paid for the last few years,” Slater said. “I see this as a recovery year.”

But critics said the situation highlights how the state’s new process for funding courts removes a key level of public review and discussion about how money is spent. Moreover, labor leaders are now demanding that rank-and-file workers also get more pay in line with managers.

“These people are probably worth every penny we pay them. . . . But that is an aside,” said H. Eric Schockman, a professor of political science at USC. “Here, we are dealing with taxpayer money, and there should be more accountability.”

The issue has its roots in a 1997 law that shifted responsibility for funding courts from counties to the state. The change was designed to end the continuous battles between county officials and the courts over funding, which in Orange County led to a bitter lawsuit filed by judges in 1996.

But one byproduct of the law was the loss of local public oversight of court budgets. Under the old system, all budgets--including payroll--required approval by the Board of Supervisors in open meetings and after several public hearings. With funding now coming from the state, court budgets are reviewed in San Francisco by a 21-member panel of the state’s Judicial Council. The panel is headed by California Chief Justice Ronald M. George.

Right now, there are two bills in the Legislature that would require judges to make budget information more accessible to the public.

The bills would force the state Judicial Council to provide “reasonable public access” to budget and spending information at the state and local levels.

In addition, the Judicial Council will consider a rule to force local courts to make their budgets available to the public.

“It was an oversight that public accountability was not included when the state assumed funding of the trial courts,” said Assemblywoman Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa), who wrote one of the bills. “This legislation will bring public scrutiny back to court budgets.”

Last month, Los Angeles judges quietly approved raises ranging from $700 to $25,000 for 46 of their high-ranking managers. The actions have drawn criticism from labor leaders.

“Why are the managers getting raises when the rank and file are equally impacted by the amount of work?” said Rae Valverde, an official for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents court workers in Los Angeles.

Slater defended the raises in Los Angeles and Orange counties, saying that the merging of municipal and superior courts, approved by voters two years ago, added new duties and responsibilities to court managers across the state.

In Orange County, the number of managers has remained fairly constant since the merger. But officials assert that workloads have nonetheless increased because of the complexity of the cases they now handle.

“If they are doing a bigger job, they deserve bigger recognition,” said Slater, who was one of the few administrators not to receive a raise.

Orange County labor leaders, who are seeking raises for rank-and-file workers, said they don’t object to the managers’ raises. But they expressed concern that the pay hikes were not discussed in public.

“It is very important for the public confidence and for the confidence of the employees that these kinds of things are done in public,” said Nick Berardino, assistant general manager for the Orange County Employees Assn. which represents 1,400 court employees.

Under the current system, the Judicial Council’s panel approves each court system’s annual budget and payroll; local judges or court officials then have authority to set individual salaries.

“The new process is not conducive to public review,” said William Brennan, the court system’s executive officer of fiscal management services. “But I don’t think anyone has been irresponsible. There are multiple levels of review of all our expenditures.”