So, here’s what little regard Kerry Healey has for the judicial system for which she’s supposedly an expert:
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who’s made criminal justice a centerpiece of her campaign for governor, attacked a proposed pay raise for judges and court clerks yesterday as a prime example of “reckless” spending by the Democratic Legislature.
Healey, seizing on yesterday’s tax-filing deadline to renew the Republicans’ call for rolling back the state income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, told reporters at her campaign headquarters that returning money to taxpayers was more important than funding pay increases.
“Let’s get our priorities straight,” Healey said.
… The judges lobbied legislators successfully last year for the pay raise, arguing that they haven’t received one since 2000 and that Massachusetts lags behind almost every other state in judicial salaries.
Ok, so let’s get this straight: Kerry Healey is going to run on her supposed anti-crime expertise, but she’s going to withhold a long-overdue pay increase from people whose job it is to keep us safe.
Yes, the judges make good money, but at the proposed $130k per year, they would not be overpaid. They are extremely highly qualified, and do some of the most important work in the Commonwealth; they should get paid well. This is an example of the kind of thing you don’t want to skimp on as a taxpayer/consumer — unless you don’t think crime is so bad.
“Let’s get our priorities straight”, indeed: Healey has decided that tax-pandering is more important than public safety. Full stop.
We want the smartest people to be judges. Smart people in our knowledge-based economy in Massachusetts can make a lot of money in the private sector. In an area of the country where it’s increasinlgy hard to afford to live, we want to keep smart people here. Thus, the raise (along with automatic COLAs) are essential.
<
p>
Why would a lawyer want to become a judge and make $113K (or even 130K for that matter) when s/he could work in private practice and make tons more than that.
<
p>
Here’s an interesting note: 26 year-old first year associates at downtown Boston law firms who have never worked a day in their lives make $135,000. Small firm practicioners can make 125K and up after a while.
<
p>
If we want good judges, we have to make the economics work for them. I think we have a requirement that judges be lawyers for 10 years before being appointed. Do the math: after practicing for ten years, a big-firm lawyer can make upwards of 500K or more. Smaller firm/solo lawyers can establish their practice and make a ton of dough too. I would expect a good market-based politician like Healey to recognize that salaries need to be commesurate with what we expect of them.
<
p>
She’s a dolt.
Not giving a COLA to Judges who make a 112,000 a year is wrong????? YOu are obviously biased against Healey. I would love to make 112,000 a year. It is smart to say no to an additional 42 million going to the COLA. Obviously, the Legislature will pass this increase but good for Healey to stand up against it.
I am not a Healey fan.
<
p>
In this increasingly competitive legal market, we simply cannot afford to shortchange judges’ salaries. It’s not only too risky from a criminal law perspective (although most ADAs probably make less than 113k, so getting a judgeship is a raise), it’s also crucial from a civil law perpspective. It’s a very minor investment that will result in major benefits to our society and economy. Judges are overloaded already with caseloads. Having them feel pissed about salaries doesn’t help that at all, and appointing more judges is only a part of the solution (just as salary hikes is only a part of it). If we want to a)attract high quality jurists and b)keep them on the bench long enough so that they can develop quality jurisprudence, then we need to compensate them in a way that is fair based on what they could be making elsewhere. It’s not realistic to expect judges to want to do that work out of the goodness of their hearts.
<
p>
Note also that I am firmly opposed to appointing hacks to the judiciary. What Romney has done to the Judicial Nominating Process is embarassing (after making positive strides by trying to improve the vetting process). As ong as we get rid of the old-boy/political hack appointments and nominate judges who are qualified, I’m happy to pay them what they deserve (which in too many cases now is “not much”).
While I rarely if ever agree with Healey, I think that she is right in this case. There are many state employees, who make significantly less than $135,000, who have not received raises for many years. In fact, the majority of legislative aides (of which I am one) at the state house have not received a raise since 2001. The raises for aides are directly tied to the state budget, and since the economy hasn’t been great there has been no increase in the starting salaries for many aides for the past 4 or 5 years. These individuals work extremely hard, and do not have a staff or clerks, as judges do. In fact, these aides act as the clerks/staff to the State Sens & Reps. In addition, legislative aides receive no COLA increase. I think that before a Senator or Rep. votes for a pay increase for judges, they should make sure that their staff is compensated appropriately.
…in fact most state budgets are at 2001 levels. You ahve a point that the 42 million should be shared among many deserving employees and not one special segment of public severants. Of course you are not serving the cause of state employees well by opposing somehting that could eventually help you. If Judges get a raise, you have a stronger case next year.
<
p>
And just to clarify…aren’t legislative aides to Reps and Senators like clerks are to judges? You’re not comparing your work with a Judge’s work, are you?
Frank –
<
p>
House Aides and Staff have had their compensation frozen since 2001. No COLA, no step raise, no vacation time that can be accrued, and on and on. Not ‘pay at a 2001 level’ – ACTUAL 2001 pay rate. And the ONLY legislator to EVER even TRY to do a damn thing about it was Rep. Marie Parente. Don’t forget, the Reps. themselves DO have an automatic raise now. Aides serve entirely at the pleasure of the legislator, and they do not have a 9-5 schedule. They are on call 24/7/365.
<
p>
They work HARDER than court personnel.
You cannot compare their salary structure to any other state employee. They also receive typical lucrative state pensions. Does this change the group’s opinion?
… should be considered in compensation, yes. But no, they shouldn’t be compared to other state workers. They should be compared to other people with their degree of training and experience, and the importance of the job.
<
p>
So the staffer comparison, while interesting, is not really relevant to the discussion, to my mind.
Per Hoss:
<
p>
It’s a very minor investment that will result in major benefits to our society and economy.Â
<
p>
This is the crucial point. Pay the judges well, and the whole economy (not to mention society, ahem) will benefit.
<
p>
LAs should get paid more too, incidentally.
<
p>
In Singapore, for example, top government officials get paid as well as top corporate executives. Result: good government, rich country. (We can discuss the civil liberties of Singaporeans elsewhere 😉
As an attorney who is in court 3 or more times a week, I do not have a problem with judges getting raises. I agree that their pay has to be compared to what they can get elsewhere, not to aids and other state employees. My issue is that they are not the only ones who get raises with this raise. The Clerks in the court, from top to assistant clerk magistrates, which clearly outnumber the judges. (example – the courts I am in most often have two judges and 5 or 6 clerks). The clerks’ salaries are tied into the salaries of the judges. If the judges get an increase than so do the clerks. And many of the clerks are not lawyers getting paid very well to start in an often politically connected job. That is my problem with the raise. The judge’s absolutely deserve to be paid more. It will make for better attorneys wanting to become judges which makes for better judges.