....April 21, 1:29 PM
 
 
   
Has The System Been Fair To Judges?

The scales of justice have been out of balance concerning compensation of New York State judges.
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

It’s funny; as I write a weekly political commentary, readers have assumed I am anti-establishment. My criticism of government and a number of elected officials has been translated to, or accepted by some, as a severe condemnation of the system and the people who serve.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our system of government, in this county, in this state and in this city, is an exemplary form of the best this world has yet seen. I am a devotee of democracy and all the foibles that come with it.

I am a devotee of democracy and all the obligations that comes with it, too. In addition to voting, democracy requires that we speak out and make changes when the system requires. I have devoted a good portion of this column space over the years, to that end. But please, don’t interpret my criticisms of the system and some elected officials as anything but my form of participatory democracy – my belief and participation in the system.
When change is needed, I’ll be yelling – right here, at least on paper.

And, to those who categorize me as a perennial critic of government, at least this time, the change I call for may seem out of character.

The judiciary in our State continues to function — with minimal blemishes — as was intended by the founding fathers when they conceived of separations of powers. The people have faith in the system, and it serves them well. The rules of the judiciary have helped judges maintain their professionalism and not get embroiled in the ugly fundraising and special interest lobbying that has badly marred the legislative and executive branches of government. Judges, like other public servants, are subject to corruption, but the recent instances have been few and far between. Basically, although unheralded, our court system – our New York State Court System – functions far better than either of the other branches of government.

So what does our State do when the system works?
It has been over six years since the last judicial pay increase way back in 1999.

What is the message to the judges who are asked to remain on the bench and make financial sacrifice? A Judge serving since 1995 would have received only one pay increase; while one serving since 1988 would have received only two pay increases.

Since 1999, when the NYS Legislature re-established parity between Federal District Court Judges and New York Supreme Court Justices, federal judges have received six annual salary increases. Federal District Court Judges now earn more than $25,000 a year more than New York Supreme Court Justices.

Although, I have not researched the issue, I assume that every other public servant – elected or appointed – has received a raise and/or cost of living adjustment several times in the past six years.

Haven’t we all?

Do our judges deserve less?

Last week, the New York County Lawyers’ Association Board adopted a resolution stating, “The pay disparities between federal district judges and judges and justices in the New York State Unified Court System are demoralizing, disrespectful and discouraging, as is the fact that other state employees have received raises while state judges and justices have not.” They called for an immediate increase of 18% to reflect the cost-of-living increase since judicial salaries were last adjusted, and recommended legislation providing for an automatic, annual cost-of-living increase.

At a time when the judiciary is under attack from national forces who wish to punish judges for independence, it is essential that we do our utmost to attract and retain quality public servants on the NY State bench.

This writer, this paper and justice itself, all call upon the State Legislature to immediately right the financial wrongs being done to N.Y. State judges. Certainly the maintenance of a quality judicial branch of government deserves a small portion of the funds that Albany disperses to their own favorite projects.

It may be an unusual occurrence for this column to call for an increase in compensation to public servants. However, in this instance, it seems to be a no-brainer. Sadly, the media, the people and the State legislature have allowed this deserving group of public servants to quietly suffer the pains of near anonymity and lack of representation.

The courts work well. Judges do their job. Let’s compensate them fairly.

You be the judge!

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.

 
 
On The Merits: Special Interests vs. Public Interest

Henry Stern
By HENRY STERN

One of the points that good-government types like to make is that they represent the general interest, rather than the special. It is not easy, however, for honest folk to determine just what is a special interest, or who expresses the general interest, or whether and, if so, when special and general interests conflict.

A labor union speaks for its members and their economic interests, even when their demands conflict with taxpayers’ ability to pay, or the city’s ability to compete with areas with lower costs. However, the garment workers organizing the sweatshops a century ago, fighting for fire safety after the Triangle disaster of 1911, teaching their members English, sending their children from the slums to summer camps in the country, struggling for the eight-hour day? They were a special interest as well, but they were humanitarians whom we admire today.

What about taxpayers, tenants, landlords, pensioners, veterans, welfare recipients, parents, teachers, school custodians, advocates for public spending to fight particular diseases or to serve special populations? Are they special interests? Their supporters do not represent the entire population. They support the needs of their group, and perhaps make alliances with other forces who also demand that more money be spent on their programs.
Then there are the industrialists, small business people, taxpayers, economists, professors and others who seek less public spending, who want lower taxes, who worry about New York State’s place in the national economy, and the hemorrhaging of jobs, downstate and particularly upstate.

Practically every civic issue — the closing of a firehouse, the siting of a marine transfer station, a radio tower, a zoning change, the building of a particular school or park, as opposed to others — may be viewed as a contest between differing special interests, or between special and general interests.

The landmarking process is rife with these conflicts. Whose wishes should be respected? The property owner, who may have bought the building before it was landmarked? The neighbors, who don’t care if the local church is bankrupt, but want to continue receiving light and air over the roof of the low-rise structure? The zealots who worship existing buildings, even if they denounced them as ghastly when they were built? The unions seeking construction jobs even if means the demolition of the Taj Mahal? Does the workers’ desire to feed their families constitute a special interest?

On the other hand, if you are looking for a real special interest, consider the politicians who keep the New York State election laws so rigid and baffling that they stand as artificial, expensive barriers to public participation in free elections. The incumbents’ narrow, self-serving desires clearly work against the public interest in open, competitive elections in what is supposed to be a democracy (a Greek word which means that the people rule).

Special interests are not intrinsically bad or good. One weighs their merits on the basis of how their demands support or conflict with one’s view of the more general public interest.

But just what does the general public interest require? High taxes or low taxes? An enhanced level of public services or a lower, more affordable level? Specifically, a cop on every corner, or on every other corner? Park lawns mowed once a week or once a month? Fire response times of six minutes or eight minutes? How much does it cost to provide the higher service levels, who will benefit from it and who will be asked to pay for it?

In politics, one must make judgments. Crooks side with the people who are paying them off with money. When the payoff is votes, the moral judgment is more complex. After all, isn’t democracy supposed to reflect the will of the people? And if a decision is popular, is it necessarily wrong?
Today, the right thing is not as clear as it was generations ago, when the enemies of justice and fairness were racketeers and, to some extent, Communists. But those forces have their successors today. The good guys may not be as clearly defined as once they were.

We know that ideas vary as to what is the public interest, but there are core values of honesty, integrity and fairness. We can compare those values with special interests, which can be good or bad, more likely of intermediate value, but principally motivated by the needs and demands of interested parties. The public interest tries to represent those who are not directly involved in a case, but will be affected by its outcome, even if they are unaware of it.

Henry Stern can be reached at:
StarQuest@NYCivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.