Be it Resolved
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!