Copyright 2005, San Francisco Chronicle

Bench, bar to mull ballot bid in closed meeting
Judges, lawyers to discuss increasing justices' pay, terms

(San Francisco Chronicle 2/10/05) -- Leaders of California's bench and bar will meet behind closed doors in San Francisco next Thursday to discuss a possible ballot measure that would change the way state courts are funded and could also lead to longer terms and higher salaries for judges.

More than 100 judges and lawyers are expected at the meeting, which was convened by Ronald George, chief justice of the state Supreme Court, along with the courts' administrative director and two legislators, Sen. Joseph Dunn, D-Garden Grove (Orange County), the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, and Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman of Tustin (Orange County).

"The general objectives are, how to protect the public's access to their courts in good times and bad; how do you protect the neutrality of judges and the judicial branch ... and how do you provide for appropriate accountability for the judicial system?'' said William Vickrey, administrative director of the state courts.

The meeting is a first step toward a state constitutional amendment that would be submitted to the Legislature for approval and then would go before the voters, possibly as early as next year. Provisions under discussion include:

-- A guarantee that the court system would receive at least the same level of state funding each year as it did the previous year, protecting the judiciary from cutbacks that many state programs face during deficits.

-- An increase in Superior Court judges' terms from six to 10 years.

-- Establishment of a commission to set judges' salaries, like the one that now determines pay for legislators and statewide elected officials. The likely result would be an increase in judges' pay, which is now set by state law and ranges from $143,138 for Superior Court judges to $191,483 for the chief justice.

-- New disciplinary options for the state commission that punishes misconduct by judges, including suspension without pay and referral to treatment for drugs or alcohol. The Commission on Judicial Performance can currently remove judges or reprimand them but lacks authority for intermediate penalties.

Some of those issues, like judges' terms, salary-setting authority and discipline, are covered in the state Constitution and can be changed only by a vote of the people. The courts' annual budget, one of the key provisions in the package, is regulated only by statute and subject to change by the Legislature, but judicial leaders have won some funding guarantees from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and would like to cement them into the Constitution, much like the protections now provided to schools.

"They are the third branch of government and should have a little more protection than Caltrans or the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles),'' said Ackerman, an organizer of next week's meeting.

He also endorsed increasing judges' terms and salaries, potentially the most controversial topics for the voters.

Ackerman said judges were underpaid in comparison to their responsibilities. "I'm aware of a lot of people who have turned down judgeships'' for financial reasons, he said.

Both Ackerman and Vickrey defended the exclusion of the public and the news media from next Thursday's meeting, noting that any proposal would be forwarded to the state Judicial Council and then to the Legislature, with opportunities for public scrutiny and comment before both bodies. Both men said participants would feel free to speak frankly at a closed meeting.

But Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, a group of news organizations and others advocating open government, said the meeting might violate Proposition 59, a ballot measure passed in November broadening public access to government proceedings and records.

By Bob Egelko