[nfbmi-talk] justice for hire? connect the dots

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Mon Nov 18 12:53:15 UTC 2013


Michigan judges warned against opposing controversial Court of Claims bill By Paul Egan Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau The Michigan Judges Association

opted not to take a position on the new Court of Claims law partly because its leaders thought doing so could hurt chances of getting a long-awaited judicial

pay increase, e-mails obtained by the Free Press show. Oakland County Circuit Judge James Alexander, the association's legislative co-chair, told members

that for the association to oppose the bill would be "a suicide mission that will impact our ability to get compensation," according to the e-mails obtained

Friday. On Thursday, two days after the law took effect, a long-awaited bill to raise judicial pay was introduced in the Legislature. Despite that timing,

there's no suggestion in the e-mails that anyone in the Legislature or the executive branch linked judicial pay to the controversial court shake-up bill.

Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, the court bill's sponsor, said Friday that he never linked the issues. Sara Wurfel, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rick Snyder,

said "absolutely not" when asked whether anyone in the executive branch linked them. Public Act 164, which Snyder signed into law Tuesday with immediate

effect, sailed through the Legislature in two weeks. It moved the Court of Claims, which handles many lawsuits against the state, from the Democratic-leaning

Ingham County Circuit Court to a panel of four Michigan Court of Appeals judges. The law also expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to many

cases previously handled in circuit courts around the state. Opposition to the law - which some critics decried as a Republican court-packing exercise

- softened Wednesday when the Michigan Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 majority of Republican-nominated justices, unanimously named two Republican- and

two Democratic-nominated justices to the revamped court. But many concerns remain, including the use of an appeals court as a trial court, having Court

of Claims appeals go from one Court of Appeals judge to a panel of three other Court of Appeals judges, and the makeup of the court changing in future.

Wayne County Circuit Judge Lita Popke, president of the Michigan Judges Association (MJA), said in a Nov. 1 e-mail to members that the association should

stay neutral on the bill, partly because it did not impact the entire membership. "Moreover, we do have legislative issues which MJA has been working diligently

on for years, most notably is our current strategy to restructure how judges are compensated," said Popke, who did not respond to a phone call and e-mail

seeking comment. "We cannot afford at this critical time to jump into a legislative train where we may negatively impact an issue of concern to our entire

membership. Alexander, the Oakland County judge, had stronger words after Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Shapiro requested an emergency meeting

be called over the fast-tracked bill. "If y'all want to engage in a suicide mission that will impact our ability to get compensation through so be it,"

Alexander said in an Oct. 30 e-mail. "Count the votes. You may not like it, but it's big boy politics being played," he said. The "SCAO (State Court Administrative

Office) is neutral and that's the position we should take. "Sorry to be obnoxious on this, but I'm concerned with getting us additional compensation at

this point. Do what you want to do individually, but MJA should stay out of it. Alexander confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails Friday but declined

further comment. Three Ingham County Circuit Court judges testified against Senate Bill 652 at a committee hearing and other Ingham judges attended, sent

letters in support of their positions, or spoke to the news media. No other state judges were heard from on the issue. Shapiro, an appeals court judge

who sits in Lansing, raised numerous concerns about the legislation in his e-mail to association members and said: "Given the shocking speed with which

this major legislation is moving, MJA needs to act very quickly, and so I request that we have an emergency board meeting. Shapiro could not be reached

for comment Friday. Judges have not had a pay increase since 2002. In May, the State Officers Compensation Commission called for a 3% pay hike for judges.

But under state law, the recommended pay hike takes effect only if the Legislature approves. Nearly six months later, the Legislature had taken no action

on the recommendation - until Thursday. That's when state Rep. John Walsh, R-Livonia, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Judiciary,

introduced House Bill 5153 to implement the recommended pay hike. Walsh could not be reached for comment. Currently, Supreme Court justices are paid $164,610.

Circuit and probate judges are paid $139,919. District judges are paid $138,272. Jones said the pay issue "was never ever brought up to me. He said he

didn't think it would have mattered if the judges association had taken a position against the legislation. "It's always difficult for anyone to get a

pay increase, no matter how deserved," Jones said. 

 

 



More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list