Judges angry
over pay veto

They don't buy the reason
Cayetano rejected their first raise
in seven years

By Mike Yuen
Star-Bulletin

Hawaii Chief Justice Ronald Moon is criticizing Gov. Ben Cayetano's veto of a pay hike for the state's judges, who have gone without a raise for seven years.

"In light of the fact that the governor approved every other pay raise bill, I am perplexed by the governor's suggestion that the state's economy was a factor in his decision to veto the bill," Moon said yesterday, speaking on behalf of state judges.

The raises that unionized public workers received for the fiscal biennium beginning next Tuesday totals $239 million, Moon said.

The total cost of the judges' pay hike -- $1.7 million -- would have been only 0.7 percent of the salary increases Cayetano approved, Moon added.

Under the bill, judges would have received an annual 4 percent pay hike for three years. The first year would have been retroactive to July 1, 1996, the beginning of the current fiscal year.

Moon also accused Cayetano of "a disservice to the Judiciary" by associating judges' pay raises with the controversial "high-three" pension perk that legislators abandoned for themselves but kept for judges.

In his veto message, Cayetano stated: "Increasing salaries across the board without adjusting retirement benefits will not result in keeping our qualified judges on the bench. Indeed, it will only provide them with a greater incentive to leave."

Moon found Cayetano's reasoning flawed. The controversy over high three has always centered on lawmakers, who make $32,000 annually, moving from their elected positions to higher-paying appointed positions to boost their retirement benefits, Moon said. It has never focused on judges -- whose salaries range from $81,780 annually for District Court judges to $94,780 for the chief justice -- because judges' salaries are comparable to those for appointive positions, Moon added.

There must be "a more objective, more predictable process" for judges to get salary increases, such as linking judicial raises to collective-bargaining increases or the Consumer Price Index, Moon said.

Cayetano's veto "is as demoralizing as it is unfair," Moon stated.

During this year's legislative session, Cayetano had suggested that pay hikes be given to judges who are in at least their second term on the bench as a way to retain them.

The state Judicial Salary Commission, which recommended pay hikes, has pointed out that in the past five years, eight experienced judges have left the bench for higher-paying positions.

Federal judges have seen their salaries increase by nearly 38 percent this decade, while the salaries for Hawaii judges remained flat, the commission found.

Cayetano, currently in Washington, also rejected seven other measures before yesterday's veto deadline. Leftover bills now become law with or without Cayetano's signature.

Three of the seven vetoed bills had economic implications:

Solar tax credit: Cayetano said there is no need to extend the tax credit for solar, wind, heat-pump and ice-storage systems another 10 years to Jan. 1, 2009, because the tax break was originally meant to aid a then-fledging industry, which has now matured.

University of Hawaii budget: Cayetano vetoed a bill that would prohibit him and Budget Director Earl Anzai from reducing any budget request or allotment to the university below what the Legislature appropriated, unless university officials request the reduction.

Repair and maintenance: Although Cayetano found merit with a bill creating a repair and maintenance special fund for state buildings, he found fault with a provision requiring 25 percent be directed for work on Judiciary buildings. The Judiciary represents only 1.5 percent of state facilities and public works appropriations, Cayetano said.

Cayetano vetoed two bills because they were similar to two other measures that met his approval.

Cayetano also vetoed:

A bill intended to ease the transition of welfare recipients into the workforce because it duplicates efforts already being done by the state.

A measure intended to foster volunteer relationships between public-school students and service providers because the bill is vague and because state law already authorizes the Board of Education to establish policies for educational programs.