Charges of Irresponsible Accounting in Lippman's Judicial Pay Raise Mess

Raises for Justices Mean Higher Pay for Some D.A.s
The New York Law Journal by John Caher  -  September 2, 2011

With last week's recommendation to increase judicial pay 27 percent over the next three years, many upstate and Long Island chief prosecutors are in line for a substantial raise under Judiciary Law §183-a, which links their salaries to judges'. However, district attorney salaries, unlike judicial salaries, are primarily a local expense, and the counties, already reeling over a new law that imposes a limit on property tax increases and perpetually leery of mandates that do not come with money, are alarmed.

ALBANY, NY - A statutory link between judicial and district attorney salaries means many upstate and Long Island chief prosecutors are in line for substantial pay increases over the next three years, and the increased cost may be entirely borne by counties already up in arms over "unfunded mandates."  Under Judiciary Law §183-a, district attorneys in counties outside of New York City with more than 500,000 residents are entitled to the same salary as Supreme Court justices, and full-time prosecutors in counties with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 get paid the same as a county judge.  The provision would affect 22 of 57 counties outside New York City. The law does not apply to the city's district attorneys, who earn $190,000 a year.  With last week's recommendation by the Special Commission on Judicial Compensation to increase judicial salaries 17 percent next April and 27 percent over the next three years—which is binding unless the Legislature and Governor Andrew M. Cuomo enact legislation rejecting the proposal—district attorneys will receive the same raise. Supreme Court justices now make $136,700 and county court judges are paid between $119,800 and $136,700.  However, district attorney salaries, unlike judicial salaries, are primarily a local expense.  In the past, when judicial salaries were determined by the Legislature, lawmakers routinely added an offset to help cover the additional expense for prosecutors imposed on counties.  For instance, the last time judicial and district attorney salaries were increased, in 1999, the state picked up between 36 percent and 42 percent of the cost of the D.A. raises, depending on the county.  But in this round, the Legislature and governor are not involved in setting judicial, and therefore district attorney, salaries and, so far, there is no offset. And the counties, already reeling over a new law that imposes a limit on property tax increases and perpetually leery of mandates that do not come with money, are alarmed.  "It was incredibly irresponsible [to not factor in district attorney salaries while debating judicial salaries], especially as the counties are all earnestly working to cap their property taxes," said Stephen J. Acquario, executive director of the New York State Association of Counties.  William C. Thompson Jr., the former New York City comptroller and the chairman of the now dissolved pay commission, was not immediately available for comment.  Mr. Acquario said he and the counties are lobbying for additional state funds, but it remains unclear whether the state will cover any portion of the increased expense.  Mary Pat Hancock, chairwoman of the Genesee County Legislature, is hopeful that when the monies are actually appropriated for the judicial raises funds will be included to reimburse the counties for the district attorney raises.  "I certainly hope they do it, because we sure don't need another mandate," Ms. Hancock said.  Michael Whyland, spokesman for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that if the matter is addressed, it will have to be addressed in Mr. Cuomo's budget for the next fiscal year, which begins on April 1, 2012, the same day the first phase of the raises takes effect.  Mr. Cuomo's Division of Budget did not respond to several inquiries on the issue this week.  John Caher can be contacted at jcaher@alm.com.