SUBMISSION TO THE 2019 COmmISSION ON LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION LAWRENCE K. MARKS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CONTENTS Executive Summary...............................................................................................1 I. The Mandate of the Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation ..............................................................................4 A. 2019 Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation ................ 4 B. Work of Past Commissions .......................................................................... 5 II. The New York State Judiciary ......................................................................7 A. State-Paid Judges of the New York State Unified Court System .......................... 7 B. The Work of the State-Paid Judges of the New York State Unified Court System ... 8 C. A Brief History of Judicial Compensation in New York State .............................. 9 III. Guiding Principles ....................................................................................... 12 A. Fairness .................................................................................................. 12 B. Objectivity .............................................................................................. 12 C. Regularity ............................................................................................... 13 D. Institutional Integrity................................................................................ 13 IV. Evaluation of Factors Relevant to Judicial Salary Levels for New York State Judges ................................................................................. 14 A. Parity Should be Continued Between the Salary of a Supreme Court Justice and that of a Federal District Court Judge .................................................... 15 B. Maintaining Parity Between the Salary of a Supreme Court Justice and that of a Federal District Court Judge Will Protect New York’s Judicial Salaries Against Inflation ...................................................................................... 15 C. New York State Judicial Compensation, While Substantially Improved by Prior Commissions, Lags Behind Other States when Adjusted for Cost of Living ... 16 D. New York State Judicial Compensation Lags Behind that of Many Professionals in Government, Academia, and the Private and Non-Profit Sectors . 19 E. The State’s Fiscal Condition Supports Continuing Pay Parity Between Supreme Court Justices and Federal District Court Judges and Keeps State Judicial Pay Growth in Line With Growth in the Cost Of Living .........................20 Submission to the 2019 Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation I V. Providing for Cost of Living Adjustments for 2021, 2022 and 2023 ..... 22 VI. Conclusion..................................................................................................... 23 Appendix ................................................................................................................ 25 A. L. 2019, Ch. 59, Part VVV L. 2015, Ch. 66, Part E ...............................................................................27 B. Final Report of the Special Commission on Judicial Compensation (August 29, 2011) .....................................................................................33 C. Final Report of the Special Commission on Judicial Compensation (December 24, 2015) .................................................................................53 D. Summary of Qualifications, Terms of Office and Jurisdiction of New York’s State-Paid Trial Court Judges and Justices .....................................................77 E. Chart of Judicial Salaries by Court, 2016-2019 ................................................83 F. Beer v. United States, 696 F.3d 1174 (Fed. Cir. 2010). ........................................87 G. Compilation of Salary Data for Public Officials in New York and Other States .... 121 H. State Economic Timeline 2008-2019 ........................................................... 143 II Submission to the 2019 Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY n behalf of the New York State Judiciary, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks presents this Submission to the 2019 Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive CompensationO to assist it in fulfilling its mandate pursuant to chapter 60 of the Laws of 2015, as amended1 (the “Commission statute”), to establish appropriate levels of compensation for State-paid judges and justices of New York’s Unified Court System for the four-year period commencing April 1, 2020. The Commission’s charge is to evaluate prevailing levels of compensation and, by December thirty-first of the year in which it sits, to make recommendations for adjustment of these levels as appropriate effective April first of each of the following four State fiscal years. The Legislature may then modify or abrogate any of the Commission’s recommendations, except that, if it fails to do so by the effective date of any adjustment, that adjustment will take effect and have the force of law. The Commission statute is the successor to a statute enacted in late 2010 (see L. 2010, c. 567) that established a quadrennial salary commission to provide the State with a fair, independent, and rational means by which to determine the compensation of State-paid judges. The 2015 statute ex- panded the Commission’s authority to include the compensation of senior officials in the Executive and Legislative branches. Previous commissions sat in 2011 and 2015. For as long as the quadrennial compensation commission system has been in effect, the Ju- diciary has recommended that its work be guided by four widely accepted fundamental principles: Fairness Senior government officials should receive fair compensation, determined in an equitable manner, that maintains its economic value over time. Objectivity Compensation of senior State officials should be based on criteria that are objective and easily evaluated by the public. Regularity A regular and predictable process must ensure that salaries are adjusted at recurring intervals so that they do not become inadequate over time due to increases in the cost of living. Institutional Integrity The compensation structure for senior State public officials should pro- mote public confidence in the excellence and diversity of each of our branches of government, and promote the effective management of pub- lic personnel and resources. The Judiciary presents the following facts for the Commission’s consideration in applying these four core principles: A STRONG JUDICIARY IS VITAL TO NEW YORK STATE. A strong Judiciary is vital to every aspect of civil society, protecting civic freedoms and the rights of children, families, and the most vulnerable members of the community while assuring swift resolution of civil and commercial disputes, and the fair and timely redress of criminal complaints. Adequate judicial salaries contribute to a strong Judiciary by attracting and helping to ensure the 1. The Commission statute as it was recently amended (see L. 2019, c. 59, Part VVV) is reproduced in Appendix A. The public officials affected by this statute include all State-paid judges and justices, State legislators, the Attorney General, the State Comptroller, and agency heads listed in section 169 of the Executive Law. The statute does not apply to the Governor or Lieutenant Governor, whose salaries are fixed, pursuant to section six of Article IV of the State Constitution, by joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly. Submission to the 2019 Commission on Legislative, Judicial and Executive Compensation 1 retention of the best-qualified lawyers to serve on the bench, and preserving the institutional and decisional independence of the courts. JUDICIAL SALARIES IN NEW YORK SHOULD KEEP PACE WITH THOSE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. The 2011 and 2015 Commissions found that the appropriate salary benchmark for the New York State Judiciary was the compensation level of the Federal Judiciary.2 Both tailored their salary recommendations in accordance with this finding, the 2011 Commission recommending that New York State Supreme Court Justices reach parity with the 2011 pay of a Federal District Court Judge over three years, and the 2015 commission recommending that Supreme Court Justices reach full par- ity with the 2018 pay of a Federal District Court Judge in 2018 and then maintain that parity in 2019. THROUGH THE STRONG WORK OF THE PAST TWO COMMISSIONS, JUDICIAL SALARIES IN NEW YORK HAVE KEPT PACE WITH INFLATION. A crucial element to a sound judicial salary structure is its commitment to maintaining pace with inflation. When the Judiciary went over 13 years without a pay adjustment between 1999 and 2012, the salary of a New York State Supreme Court Justice lost about one-quarter of its value.3 With the adjustments recommended by the past two commissions, the 1999 value of that salary has been essentially restored. THROUGH THE STRONG WORK OF THE PAST TWO COMMISSIONS, JUDICIAL SALARIES IN NEW YORK HAVE IMPROVED THEIR STANDING WHEN COMPARED WITH SALARIES OF JUDGES IN OTHER STATES. In early 2016, before the recommendation of the 2015 Commission took effect, the salary of a Supreme Court Justice in New York ranked 47th among the trial court judges of general jurisdiction of other states when adjusted for cost of living, a consequence rooted