Saturday, April 14, 2007

BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A DIME?: NEW YORK JUDGES FORCED TO SURVIVE ON $136,700 PER YEAR.

By Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

The Tragedy

There is a new concern in America—a “tragedy” that is beginning to surface. According to the New York Bar Journal, which can be read here, Chief Justice Judith Kayes used the words, “Disgraceful. Shabby. Infuriating,” to describe a lack of a pay raise. According to the Democrat Chronicle out of Rochester New York, in an article entitled “Judicial Pay Equity,” “Clearly infuriated and distressed, Kaye’s shift in style and tone was understandable and appropriate.” The Democratic Chronicle claims, “Increasing the pay of Supreme Court justices, for example, from $136,700 a year to a recommended $165,200 is hardly asking too much.” Notes the New York Bar Journal, “The bar cannot be complacent, for this may be the last chance for common sense to take hold.” According to a Albany Times Union article, “Kaye Willing to Sue for Pay”, there were threats of work stoppages and unionizing.

According to the United States Census bureau, the median income for a family household is in ballpark of $46,326. In other words, today, New York judges make approximately three times that median household income. All over the web, article after article, discusses Judith Kaye and her drive to increase New York Judges Salaries. As of April 15, 2007, the terms “Judith Kaye” and “salaries” listed 52 articles in a Google News search—and not every newspaper or news station has stories that appear in a Google search. In fact, the Chief Judge is so uncontrollably angry, she has threatened a lawsuit on numerous occasions.

The Not So Much of a Tragedy

You the reader should know something about Chief Judge Kayes. In 2005, Chief Judge Kayes had a matrimonial commission, which met around the state. (The report was published in February of 2006). I spoke to the Matrimonial Commission in Albany. Despite fathers rights activist after fathers rights activist appearing at these hearings to express their pain, the commission offered an 88 page report that hardly mentioned shared parenting. In an 88-page investigation on matrimonial law (the law of marriage and divorce), the term “father” or “fathers” never appeared. Though there were numerous members of the panel, not a single fathers rights activist was on the panel. And while the sole purpose of the panel was to examine the state of matrimonial law and how it was handled in New York, shared parenting was reduced to but a single paragraph, and did not discuss any findings by psychologist or learned professionals. In fact, those four sentences can be reproduced here:

Presumptions. (Sentence 1) The Commission heard extensively about the current law governing custody decisions, including whether any presumptions regarding the awarding of custody should exist. Under the precedent set forth in the Court of Appeals decision in Braiman v Braiman and its progeny, New York courts have determined that where the parties have engaged in a bitterly antagonistic custody proceeding, joint custody is inappropriate, thus creating a de facto presumption in favor of the granting of custody to one parent. (Sentence 2) Following extended consideration and debate, the Commission concluded that no presumptions whatsoever should be created via legislation, case law or otherwise. (Sentence 3) This conclusion was reached in the hope and expectation that well-trained, competent judges would evaluate each individual case and each individual child’s needs without prejudice. (Sentence 4) Further, the conclusion was reached that a presumption of either joint or sole custody would be inconsistent with the optimal functioning of the judge.

These four sentences— a mere 156 words—were the result of endless discussions, reports, scientific analysis, and the reaction to entire fathers’ rights community in New York. In short, Judge Kayes did not care, and the matrimonial commission’s report focused mostly on how to restructure the bureaucracy, rather that how to elicit real change. Because so little was said about shared parenting, a story that would affect millions of New York children, was hardly covered.

An Ability to Relate

According to one article by the Associated Press, “The state’s top judge on Monday said the Legislature’s failure to give judges a raise since 1999 is threatening to undermine the judicial system and held out the possibility of a lawsuit to achieve long-sought raises.” Threatening to undermine the legal system? Give us a break. The article concluded:

“Kaye said judges cannot maintain public confidence if the there are questions whether their decisions are influenced by efforts to encourage pay raises and said the lack of adequate pay keeps the best lawyers from entering public service. She noted that some judges have already left the bench for better earnings.”

Give me a call if judges are leaving—I graduated in the top half of my class from a top twenty-law school. If $136,700 cannot purchase objectivity in a courtroom and a sentiment that someone is not being “underpaid,” we desperately need other judges. $136,700 is a million miles from chump change, even with someone with a law degree and years of experience. It is a disgrace that someone would call that type of salary “Disgraceful. Shabby. Infuriating.”

More troubling is the disconnect. How can one expect justice from a family court judge so far removed from what an average father makes? If you take 30% or even 50% of a paycheck from somebody that makes $136,700, they can still enjoy a comfortable living. This percentage of take simply cannot be done when one makes $30,000–$40,000. The real result is a loss of an ability to keep oneself afloat financially. When fathers claim they don’t have the money to pay for child support arrears, someone that makes $136,700 is far less apt to believe the money is not under the couch somewhere. The concept of not being able to pay for groceries, having to struggle in between jobs, and the every day difficulties of staying alive are hopelessly beyond their understanding through ordinary experience.

Justice Kayes’s priorities are way out of place. It is doubtful that writing more than 4 sentences on shared parenting (she calls them “presumptions” without using the warmer term) would erase my sentiment that $136,700 a year constitutes a reasonable salary putting most judges above most Americans, even most lawyers. But when the Chief Justice of New York’s highest court goes on a rampage about how $136,700 is not enough to live on, and when virtually every media outlet cannot resist sticking a microphone in her face, and when uncountable millions of children are growing up without their fathers with little media, something not only is wrong with our media, but there is something wrong with America.

If just shy of 19 million people live in New York state, how many are growing up without fathers? Apparently, this is not a story, because it doesn’t happen to be foremost on one person’s mind—Judith Kayes. That is ridiculous. Let her fly coach on her Aruba vacation instead of first class—I am sure she will live to tell about it.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...