Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 15, 2010,
Item 16
Number 16 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding the process and schedule for developing the advertisement for the public hearing to set elected officials salaries for fiscal year 201 1 and the calendar for action for reminder of the salary setting process. Good afternoon.
>> good afternoon.
>> we have judge perkins with us today. I'm from the planning and budget office. Randy roads, executive manager planning and budget. We have two ads that have been prepared for approval or your consideration. Our calendar states that we don't necessarily have to have these ads approved until next tuesday, but there were a few outstanding questions that you had potentially related to judicial salary issues. And judge perkins is here to address any questions.
>> judge, good afternoon.
>> good afternoon. How y'all doing?
>> pretty good.
>> how you doing, judge?
>> we have had this issue i guess before annually, of late.
>> last year.
>> last year, i think.
>> > okay. Any points you'd like for us to keep in mind, judge?
>> i'm sorry, what did you say?
>> any points you would like for us to keep in mind?
>> i think pretty well, it was pretty well explained in terms of the matter that i saw that was sent over to you, i believe, from pbo. The office of media sent that over, a three-page document. Actually, this year one of the things that will happen, if the court adopts the longevity page for district judges who have, let me see how to say this, who are not, who don't have state longevity pay but have served more than 16 years as either county court law judge or district judge, if they don't adopt that this year, then that means that judge david crane, who is going to be succeeding me is the only cad date left on the ballot. That is why i say that. He will actually get a cut in pay because right now as county court law judge he is getting longevity page because he already served as justice of peace or county court law judge for 16 years. He is getting longevity pay right now. When he succeeds me as drits judge unless the court approve they would have to cut off that pay and he would get a cut even though he got promoted to be a district judge. That is the effect of it. From a budgetary point of view, i think the total request in terms of the presiding judge for the criminal side is 5,000 and then the total amount for the longevity pay i think is like a thousand dollars. Because judge crane and briefen are getting longevity pay right now. Breven will be leaving the bench at end of december. So if you were to adopt this, judge kennedy would be entitled to get it but her salary would be made up by the loss of judge breland. Basically the net cost is $1,000 on that line item. So that is the total request in terms of that item would be $6,095 i think is is what that was. I believe when we had our meeting with the pbo, understanding that we had was that this money had been set aside when statutes were passed in 2009, that pbo's standard operating procedure is when they see legislation going through that is going to effect the budget, theyary mark money for that. Money understanding is that money has been ear marked when they had that meeting early this year.
>> judge, let me ask this question. Since the law was made, it wasn't a situation where it said shall. As far as the salary, my concern is precedent setting. Let's say that, there is a county law judge. And if i am wrong, correct me y'all. Let's say the county appointed law judge that received, has longevity and they decide to run for higher position, which would be the district judgeship.
>> right.
>> they would like to carry this longevity forward with them to the district judge setting. Of course, in instances where the pbo set money aside this time, what i'm thinking about is future situations where by if county judges ee look to go to the, and run, and successfully run to become a district judge, then is that pbo will have to do that every time. (technical difficulty)-- and lon jeff ty, i guess depending what the court decides to do, you want to recognize the longevity or not.
>> right.
>> you know, so is it precedent setting where by every time a person would like to run for a higher judgeship, i guess i wouldn't necessarily say higher.
>> it is higher.
>> i would like to say higher . But a judge is a judge is a judge. I don't want to get into an argument about that.
>> some of then can only fine you and some can put you in the county jail and some can put you in the penitentiary. It's kind of a stairstep.
>> right. My concern is are we establishing a precedent here and i need to know that. Because i think that, sorry, go ahead.
>> the thing you have adopted so far is that somebody serving as county court law judge for 16 years. You adopted that in 2007, i think. And that kind of matched up what the state was doing. State was also paying that to people that had served over 16 years. So you adopted that at least in 2007 if not before. I'm not sure exactly when that was.
>> right.
>> it does take 16 years for that judge to get out to that. I believe it's combination of justice of the peace service and county court law service. And if that totals out to 16, they can get longevity pay. Y'all have already voted to do that. So if that happened, they would basically be in the same situation david crane is in. That money is ear marked and you are spending that money. Once he becomes district judge jan 1 next year, if you vote for this he will continue to get longevity page, just continue to get the same amount he is getting now. If you don't vote for it, then he gets a cut in pay. That is 3800 a year. He will say good-bye to that even though he got promolted. That is the effect it would have. In answer to your question seems to me it's already built into the process they are already going to be paid that amount because they are they already in the county court of law. If they get elected district judge they would carry that with them. The budgetary effect is nil. It's still going to be the same amount as what you were already paying them. I guess you could get to a situation where somebody could serve exactly 16 years as county court law judge and become a district judge and not have received it up until then. But then gets elected and starts becoming a district judge. Then i guess there would not have been anything in the budget at that point but it would have been something that we would have had to ask for at this time in the early summer for the next budget year. That is what we would have to do like we are doing this year.
>> for judges who have 16 or more years of district court experience, the state pays $380.
>> state pay of 38 something. I'm not sure exactly. 3874.
>> 3874.
>> that is how much it is. And that is how much y'all pay the county court law judges is my understanding.
>> the county court law judge for 16 years or more of experience, we pay them $3800 also. Where you get caught in the middle is if you serve as county court judge and then get elevated to district court, then you have a total of combined, combining 16. Right now there's no provision to pay that 3800.
>> right.
>> that is the issue before us.
>> the statutory provision is there. It just needs a vote, affirmative vote by the commissioners.
>> the authorization is there.
>> yes, the authorization is there.
>> we can do it or we cannot do it.
>> it's your call.
>> if or may situation, i think.
>> i'm sorry?
>> may.
>> yes, it is.
>> it's a may situation rather than shall.
>> it's not mandatory.
>> yeah, it's a may. Right.
>> is the law written so that if you serve 14 years in the county courts at law and then you achieve two additional years as district court judge, that it is a may under that circumstance?
>> it is a may that the commissioners court may choose to pay that judge the longevity as if they had, were still in a county court at law type of situation. In the district judge. If they serve 14 and then two in the district court, it is a definite no as to the state paying them. The state will not pay them unless they have served--
>> six teen in the district.
>> six teen years. The way that the law is written, it isn't district. It is in a judgeship where you participate in the state of texas retirement plan one or two i think is what it is called. That is appeal court, supreme court, district court and covers all of them.
>> so judge, it's your position.
>> and state judge.
>> is your position today just to cover those individuals who have 16 years of previous experience? Or those who have had 16 years of experience below the district court level before they achieved district court level? My point being i can see if we make this accommodation, if we elect to utilize this authority that we now have under statute that we didn't have before for judge crane and judge kennedy, are we saying that in the scenario where someone has 14 years in the county court at law but then achieves a district court bench and two additional years and comes back and says from an equity standpoint, i have 16 years of experience just as judge crane and judge kennedy did back when y'all did it--
>> commissioner, my understanding is that when this legislation was pending that that was specifically what was drawn up. My understanding is that the wording of that was specifically in mind of where a person could combine the county court time with district court time. But they cannot, even though they could get longevity pay from the county, they cannot get the way the statute is drawn, cannot get longevity time from the state and from the county at the same time. Once they become vested to get the state time, theoretically their county longevity pay would ee evaporate at that time. You know--
>> the court would not have the authority to pay them longevity pay without it be deducted from the base salary.
>> i spos my question is, are we--suppose my question is are we electing to utilize the authority under the specific facts of crane and kennedy longevity in the county courts of law being more than 16 years, or--
>> no.
>> --are we electing a policy where by someone has 16 years of judicial experience in travis county irrespective of whether it's in the county courts at law or the district courts, we will pay them longevity if the state, if they are not eligible for state longevity pay.
>> if it is your intention that both judge kennedy and judge crane be given this longevity pay, then you are approving the latter of your descriptions.
>> okay.
>> because judge kennedy would not qualify on the basis of having worked for 16 years as a county court at law, combination county court at law justice of the peace within travis county. She moved over to the district bench.
>> before 16.
>> before 16. To be quite honest your the exact numbers but i think like ten and section or something close to that.
>> cray, --okay, thanks.
>> i think she served 167 years --16 years and some odd months so it would be a come nation. I would say, commissioner, the thing is of course, it does seem to me, of course, that you would be leaving yourself open if you vote to do this. Then as you say, somebody in ten years from now come along and say i served 14 over there and now i have done two over here. Like --i'd like to be paid the same as the other people. I think you would be leaving yourself open to that argument.
>> the question is whether that is such a bad thing from an equity standpoint.
>> it does seem to me, i have to say, the way the statute is wording kind of confusing in terms of that. My understanding of what was intended was it was supposed to combine those two, district judge and county court time. As long as they were not already vested under the state retirement.
>> actually, what the statute says, if i remember correctly, is that it could be any judicial position.
>> that's correct.
>> it's not just the county court at law. It's the justice of the peace and the county court at law.
>> or probate court.
>> or probate court.
>> right.
>> and the time on the district bench, that you could consider in coming to providing the district judge with the longevity for 16 years of service until they qualify for the 16 years under the state plan.
>> okay.
>> judge is a judge is a judge. Like i said.
>> (laughter.)
>> especially if you are standing in front of them. Kind of doesn't make any difference.
>> any other issue goes to the administrative judge responsibilities, an additional type. Two separate issues, right?
>> two separate legislations, two separate issues, yes.
>> the argument on the other one is that the administrative judge in the civil courts gets the premium pay from the state.
>> yes, the situation in my experience, when i became a district judge in 1982, judge matthews was the presiding judge. And the presiding judge of the administrative judge of travis county has always been a civil judge. I have never seen it different than that. Maybe for instance mae thurmen was a district judge from 1957 on. I don't think he ever served as the presiding judge even though i think he had more senior ty than anybody else. So the tradition in travis county has always been that the presiding judge is always a presiding judge . For instance, seven judges and seven criminal district courts. You always have more civil courts than you do criminal. And so it's logical for the person that is going to be the administrative judge to be a civil judge. That is the way it's always worked out. So the legislation as passed contemplated that continuing to exist as a fact. The thing is that with the problems that we have on the criminal side and with jail overcrowding, et cetera, et cetera, there's just a lot of administrative work for the presiding criminal judge to do. And it does take up a lot of time to do all of that. The way the legislation was passed, it would authorize payment to the presiding criminal judge up to the amount that the administrative judge is making, which we're assuming is always going to be a civil judg.
>> has that premium pay always been $5,000?
>> my understanding is since it started, it was 5,000 for the administrative judge. It was just enacted a few years ago. First legislature enacted it but they didn't fund it. Then later they actually funded i think the next session, they came back and actually funded the amount. I think it's been 5,000 since it started, which was in 2005 or 2003, somewhere back in there. I'm not sure exactly the year.
>> okay. We also indicate here that we may take this up in executive session under consultation with attorney. In case there are other legal questions.
>> if the court has legal questions, i will be pleased to attempt to answer them in executive session.
>> okay. I anticipate us taking action when we come back out today, judge.
>> okay. I have a jury waiting on me and i'm head back to the courthouse. If you all need me to come back i'll be glad to come back this afternoon to talk about this.
>> thank you for that.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
>> and finally, well, rod, are you still there?
>> i'll see if i can find them, judge.
>> he was in the executive session conference room. And this will take one minute. Ms. Mo if, fet, we will get to you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 2:35 PM
