Honolulu Advertiser
Honolulu Star Bulletin
TESTIMONY ON
H.C.R. No. 189, RELATING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
2004 JUDICIAL SALARY COMMISSION
Although the Judicial Salary Commission is
administratively attached to the Judicial Council, it is an
independent body tasked with "determining the salaries of the
justices and judges and appointed judiciary administrative
officers..." (§608-1.5(b), HRS).
To ensure its independence, the Commission is composed of
five citizens: two appointed by the Speaker of the House, two
by the President of the Senate, and one by the Governor.
The Commissioners clearly took their charge seriously and
met every two weeks since the middle of November through the
end of last month. The Commission reviewed numerous
materials, as reflected in its lengthy Report and Appendix,
and came to the conclusion that judicial salaries in Hawaii
were neither fair nor just and that the State could not
afford not to adjust salaries.
The resolution to disapprove the Commission's salary
recommendations indicates the following objections:
-
The salary recommendations would increase the
Judiciary's total budget by "over one percent..."
-
The salary recommendations "represent a permanent
increase..."
-
The Legislature "refuses to commit future legislature
to the liability resulting from these annual 3.5 percent
salary increases without knowing their full impact on
future financial plans..."
Point number one places the salary increase within the
context of the Judiciary's total budget. As such, the FY06
recommendation would increase the Judiciary's total budget by
1.11 percent. If this increase is divided over the period
since the last increase, it would be about 1/5th of one
percent (1.11 divided by 5), on average, per year.
Point number two indicates the recommendations would be
permanent. While it is true that almost all operating
appropriations, whether for the Legislative, Executive, or
Judicial branches, are reoccurring, it is difficult to see
what the relevance of this point is within the context of the
central question: Is a modest increase of 1/5th of one
percent per year justified? If it is justified, than the fact
that the recommendation is reoccurring simply mirrors the
fact that the judges are required now, and in the future.
Point number three seems to miss the fact that
§608-1.5(c), HRS, specifically authorizes "incremental
increases that take effect over the span of years occurring
prior to the convening of the next salary commission." It
appears that the current Salary Commission was simply
observing the statutory requirement when it recommended
incremental increases. It is unclear, then, how there can be
an objection to their methodology.
As to the full impact of, for example, the $373,842
recommended for FY07 on the State's financial plan, one must
remember the context in which this recommendation resides. To
put this in perspective, the recommendation reflects an
increase of about 1/200th of one percent of the combined
Executive, Judicial, and Legislative appropriations for
FY04.
Lastly, as the Commission Report states;
If we are to expect quality justice from our
courts...then we must do more to ensure that we
are...attracting and retaining the most highly qualified
individuals in the State. If we should put off to the
future, adequate judicial compensation, we run the clear
and significant risk of jeopardizing the tradition of
excellence established within our Judiciary. Judicial
excellence cannot be preserved unless compensation levels
are sufficient.
In conclusion, fundamental reforms in how judicial
salaries are determined came to fruition with Act 123, SLH 2003. These
reforms are vital steps toward securing the rule of law in
the State of Hawaii. To reject the Judicial Salary Commission
Report, and the salary recommendations therein, is to
jeopardize these reforms which are at the foundation of our
democracy.
For these reasons I respectfully urge you to hold H.C.R.
No. 189 in Committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Aloha!