Judges begin push for a raise

With a new Legislature convening this week, Massachusetts judges are mounting a campaign for a $34,000-a-year pay raise, but their effort faces a tough battle to overcome both a state budget deficit and political tensions between the judicial branch and Beacon Hill.

The judges, most of whom make $112,777 a year, have not had a raise in nearly five years, and they argue that their pay is at the bottom of the scale when compared with jurists in other states. The proposal for a 30 percent increase is being put forward by the Massachusetts Judges Conference, which represents the state's more than 370 judges, and would cost nearly $13 million in the first year.

A spokeswoman for House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called discussions regarding a proposed pay raise premature, echoing the skepticism of other lawmakers who say the state can't afford a big judicial raise at a time when the state budget deficit could reach $900 million. But beneath the talk of fiscal problems is a long list of conflicts that have created friction between lawmakers and the judicial branch in recent years.

The bad feelings reached such a point this past fall that DiMasi cut off communications with Robert A. Mulligan, chief justice for administration and management, after Mulligan ignored the speaker's recommendation that Suzanne DelVecchio be reappointed as chief justice of the superior courts, according to sources in the legislative leadership.

Mulligan could not be reached for comment last week.

In addition, those sources say, some lawmakers are considering a plan to grant a pay raise to trial judges but exclude the Supreme Judicial Court justices, reflecting their continued anger over controversial SJC decisions that include legalizing gay marriage and forcing the Legislature to provide funding for a public campaign finance law. The rulings have caused continuing political anxiety for lawmakers.

The chief justice now makes $131,512 a year and associate justices make $126,942. Under the bill filed for the Massachusetts Judges Conference, those salaries would rise to $170,597 for the chief and $164,670 for the associates on July 1.

The judges argue that if the salaries are not raised, the state could lose experienced members of the bench and fail to attract bright and talented lawyers, and they say their current pay is dwarfed by some of the starting salaries paid at large Boston law firms. A survey by the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly a year ago found that 75 percent of the state's attorneys make more than trial court judges.

A study by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based group that monitors judicial salaries, ranks Massachusetts halfway down the list of states for judges' pay. The base salary for trial court judges put the state 23d, below Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. And when the cost of living in each state is factored in, Massachusetts' ranking falls to 46.

Those figures have created some sympathetic ears in the Legislature.

''I think it is clear to many of us that we need to review the court system's salaries for judges and court officers," said Senator Brian Lees, the minority leader and an East Longmeadow Republican.

Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, the House chairman of the joint judiciary committee and a cosponsor of the pay-raise bill, said he recognizes that he will have a tough task of winning its approval in the face of the budget problems. He also concedes that if his colleagues approve the raise, many would then feel huge pressure to raise other state workers' salaries. ''It would open a whole can of worms," said a top aide to a legislative leader.

But O'Flaherty said the arguments for raising judicial salaries are compelling. He said judges and clerks are badly underpaid and that they should not have to pay for any decisions or actions by the SJC that have angered Beacon Hill. The last pay increase kicked in on July 1, 2000.

''They are out there every single day, working at a very difficult job," said O'Flaherty. ''The district court is where the disputes of society are remedied. It is not easy."

Under O'Flaherty's legislation, the trial court judges would get their raise to $146,351 next July, their first raise in five years. With two other annual step raises, the trial judges would be paid $156,775 by July 1, 2007. The pay of the SJC chief justice would rise to $182,748 in July, 2007, and the associates would get $176,398.

Superior Judge Paul A. Chernoff, speaking for the judges conference, said the group feels that the issue is a matter of equity and respect for those who sit on the bench. Chernoff, who has been a judge for 28 years, noted that he teaches in the evening at Boston College law school and that some of his students are headed to their first jobs in law firms where they will start at salaries $25,000 a year more than he makes.

''That part of it doesn't square," said Chernoff. ''You're supposed to look up to the judge. You're not supposed to put him on a pedestal, but when you have achieved a certain level in society, it ought to be recognized."

As it seeks to persuade the Legislature and Governor Mitt Romney of the need for salary increases, the judges conference is creating a special committee, headed by former attorney general Francis X. Bellotti, to press the case. The group will include some of the state's leading figures in law and criminal justice. Romney's office said the governor would consider the pay-raise proposal, but did not indicate whether he will include it in his budget plan to be unveiled this month.

The lawmakers, including some who see their local courts as patronage havens, have traditionally taken keen interest in the court system. Massachusetts is the only state whose Legislature dictates the spending for each individual court. An independent study by a former district court judge, James Dolan, for the Pioneer Institute, a fiscally conservative think tank, found that lawmakers had created 382 positions the judiciary never sought, costing taxpayers $48.3 million.

Judges, concerned over funding and their own salary levels, often tread lightly when dealing with Beacon Hill. They have seen some of their colleagues become targets of retribution. Three years ago, the lawmakers, in an assault on judicial independence, pushed through a little-noticed budget rider that stripped judges of their power to hire probation officers in their courts and gave the power to the state commissioner of probation. By giving the hiring authority to a state official who can bend to their whims and taking it away from court administrators who wanted to hire more minorities, the legislators gained some control of highly prized patronage jobs.

In a controversial dust-up in 1981, Senate President William M. Bulger slashed then-Housing Court Chief Justice George Daher's budget and demoted him after he resisted Bulger's patronage demands. A hidden budget rider in 1995 stripped SJC Chief Justice Paul Liacos, who had crossed Bulger and other lawmakers, of his use of a special hideaway office at the district court near his home.

Things haven't improved. Mulligan, who is getting good reviews from some on Beacon Hill, particularly in the Senate where he has reached out to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, has also created some tensions. His refusal to take DiMasi's strong suggestions to give DelVecchio, a popular figure among political insiders, another term as head of the superior court has rippled quickly through the courts. Judges see their pay-raise requests on the line.

''It may well have [derailed] the deal," lamented one legislative leader who backed DelVecchio's appointment and favors the judicial pay issue.

As for the House leader, ''Speaker DiMasi has the highest respect for Justice DelVecchio and he looks forward to the continuation of good working relations with Chief Justice Mulligan," said DiMasi spokeswoman Kim Haberlin. ''He does believe a discussion relative to pay raises for judges at this particular time is premature in light of the ongoing fiscal constraints the state faces."