San Bernardino County to evaluate benefits for Superior Court judges

With the outlook of a bleak budget looming, Supervisor Neil Derry is calling for San Bernardino County to reconsider and possibly put a stop to the benefits it gives to Superior Court judges.

"This has been a concern, just nothing has been done about it," Derry said. "Now, we've got legal reasons for looking at it as well."

Derry has asked county counsel to review a recent court ruling that found Los Angeles County's payment of benefits to Superior Court judges unconstitutional. Los Angeles County had appealed the case to the state Supreme Court, but the court rejected hearing the case last week.

"There have always been questions about it in the past," Derry said. "Now, it seems cut and dried that we're not allowed to do it."

The benefits paid to Superior Court judges in San Bernardino County total $1.5 million, according to a letter submitted by Derry's office to county counsel.
That's the equivalent of paying the salaries of 23 full-time county employees, Derry said.

Under the state Constitution, judges' salaries are set by the Legislature, but some counties, such as Los Angeles and San Bernardino, have given Superior Court judges additional benefits.

Opponents of the recent court of appeals ruling say the benefits packages keep the positions competitive so that judges don't leave their positions to work in the private sector.

"I don't disagree with that statement," Derry said. "But they are state employees, and that's the state's responsibility."

In 2007, a grand jury report urged San Bernardino County to end or significantly reduce the money it was giving to Superior Court judges.

The report noted that the county paid nearly $20,000 in benefits to 83 judges presiding over court cases in the county.

The judges were paid salaries of $171,000 per year by the state, not the county, the report found.

Several years ago, the county enacted a sunset clause phasing out the benefits paid to judges starting Jan. 1, 2008. But the clause reportedly only eliminates the benefits packages given to newly elected judges.

Derry said the county is anticipating a 5 percent to 7 percent loss in overall revenue in 2009 due primarily to declines in sales tax and property tax revenue.
Given the tough budget time the county is expecting, the $1.5 million directed toward judges needs to be evaluated, Derry said.

But reconciling the issue may have deeper ramifications.

The letter from Derry's office also asks county counsel to examine whether the county would have an obligation to recover taxpayer money from the state if the benefits were deemed unconstitutional or illegal.