Accord seen for judges' pay hike

House and Senate leaders have reached agreement on a plan to provide pay raises of up to 15 percent to state trial judges, their first raise in more than six years, according to legislative sources familiar with the plan.

A lawmaker involved in the talks said Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi agreed this week to raise the salaries to about $130,000 a year, up from the current $112,777 a year paid trial judges. It remained unresolved last night whether the 15 percent raise would be spread over three years, at about 5 percent a year, or delivered in a single year.

Another legislative source said the House plans to include money for a judicial pay raise in a supplemental state budget to be released today.

The Massachusetts Judges Conference, which lobbies Beacon Hill for most of the 370 judges in the state, had been seeking a raise of about $34,000 a year, or approximately 30 percent, for the judges, giving them $146,000 a year. The conference argues that the judges are underpaid when compared to those in other states.

A 15 percent pay raise for judges would cost about $7 million in the first year, but the price tag would be higher because the salaries of court clerks and county sheriffs are tied to the judges' pay.

Court clerks make 80 percent of a trial court judge's salary, but a senior legislative source said yesterday that the clerks are trying to persuade the Legislature to increase that percentage to as much as 90 percent. That provision may be a sticking point, particularly with Governor Mitt Romney, who doesn't want to increase costs of the package by handing the clerks an even bigger pay raise, according to one lawmaker who is pushing the judicial pay raise.

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's director of communications, said the judicial salaries have not been ''an issue that has been discussed inside the administration." He said the governor will look at the proposal when the Legislature sends it to him.

Another complication from the emerging plan is rooted in the Democrats' strategy in dealing with Romney. Some legislators are concerned that an immediate 15 percent hike would prompt a host of judges to retire, handing the Republican governor the opportunity to fill the vacancies. Unlike most public employees whose pensions are based on a worker's three highest salaried years, judges are in an elite category. Their pensions are based on the salaries they get on their last workday.

If the salary increases are spread over three years, judges considering retirement would be inclined to wait. Delaying the retirements until after the 2006 election would give Democrats a shot at controlling the judicial appointments.

The judges and the clerks have mounted strong lobbying campaigns this year with House and Senate members. Legislators traditionally have had close relationships with judges and clerks in the district courts, which have been patronage havens for lawmakers.

In addition, the judges conference created a special committee, headed by former attorney general Francis X. Bellotti, to press the case. The group includes some of the state's leading figures in law and criminal justice.

The judges conference argues that the pay levels of Bay State judges rank 46th in the nation when their salaries are adjusted for cost of living. The group told lawmakers that Connecticut pays trial judges an average of $147,000 a year, Rhode Island, $120,000; New Jersey, $147,000; and New York, $137,000.

In Massachusetts, the chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court is paid $131,512 a year, and associate justices make $126,942. The judges conference had advocated raising those salaries to $170,597 for the chief and $164,670 for the associates. If the lawmakers settle on a 15 percent hike, the chief justice will make about $151,000, and an associate justice's salary will rise to just under $146,000 a year.

The issue arises at a time of tense relations between the Legislature and the judiciary. Some lawmakers complained that the Supreme Judicial Court created a huge political firefight for them in an election year when the justices, by a 4-to-3 vote, declared same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts, effective in May 2004.

But the issue of patronage and control of the court system has also been contentious in recent years, particularly in the House where DiMasi, a practicing lawyer, has dominated the criminal justice system. A House initiative three years ago stripped local judges of their control of probation officer hirings and gave it to the state probation chief, a close ally of House leaders.

Bad feelings erupted a year ago when DiMasi cut off communications with Robert A. Mulligan, chief justice for administration and administration, 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.