FITSNews Exclusive - Queen Jean’s Pay Raise Scheme
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL RECOMMENDS HUGE PAY JUMP FOR HERSELF, OTHER STATE OFFICIALS
FITSNews - February 5, 2008 - At a time in our state’s history when recession is imminent, unemployment is rising and government spending has grown twenty times faster than the ability of the average South Carolinian to pay for it, S.C. Chief Justice Jean H. Toal is nonetheless recommending hefty pay raises for state legislators, executive branch officials and, not surprisingly, the Judicial Department she overlords … err, oversees.
According to documents obtained exclusively by FITSNews, Toal’s “Salary Study Committee” issued a confidential memorandum to a select group of recipients six days ago outlining the sizable pay increases, which are bound to cause a political firestorm not only within Toal’s Judicial Branch (where her recommended salary increase more than doubles the proposed raises for every other judge), but also within the Executive Branch, where some statewide officials fared a lot better in the eyes of Toal’s committee than others. And let’s not forget state legislators, whose part-time salaries would increase by 53% under the proposal.
According to the memo, Chief Justice Toal’s current annual salary of $142,603 would jump to $171,063, a 19.9% increase. Comparatively, Associate Supreme Court Justices would see a 9.5% increase (from $135,813 to $148,750), and Court of Appeals Judges would only get 6.7% raises (from $132,417 to $141,313). Of course, Chief Appeals Judge Kaye Hearn - a friend of Toal’s - would receive the same 9.5% salary increase given to Associate Justices (from $134,454 to $147,263). Further down the rung, however, South Carolina’s Trial Court and Family Court Judges would only see 4% increases.
Of course, Toal’s wallet-padding fun doesn’t stop with the Judicial branch …
The document also recommends that state legislators receive $16,000 annually for their part-time service, an increase of 53% over their current salary of $10,400. With 170 legislators, these legislative pay raises would cost taxpayers an additional $952,000 a year.
Furthermore, Toal’s report recommends that the Legislature should consider additional pay raises “for leadership roles in the General Assembly.”
Moving on to the Executive Branch, State Superintendent Jim Rex would be the prime beneficiary of the Toal’s taxpayer-funded benevolence, receiving a 46.7% pay raise (from $92,007 to $135,000). Similarly, Gov. Mark Sanford would get a 41.4% salary boost, from $106,000 to $150,000.
State Treasurer Converse Chellis and Attorney General Henry McMaster would receive 35.8% pay raises, while Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, Adjutant General Stan Spears, Secretary of State Mark Hammond and Commissioner of Agriculture Hugh Weathers would each receive 19.5% salary increases.
Among the legislative luminaries joining Toal in issuing these recommendations were State Sen. Jim Ritchie and House Speaker Pro Tempore Doug Smith.
Developing …
Comments
By Pete on February 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Has Scotch gone up 19.9%?
By MADD on February 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Who’s on the committee? Were they all paid government employees? Was the Governor on the committee.
Was it uanamous to approve the pay raises?
By Confused on February 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Am I missing something? Why is she proposing salary changes for the legislative and executive branches?
By piepton on February 5th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Well how can she possibly be fair and impartial while only taking in 6 figures more than the median SC household income?
By CL on February 5th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I am generally unsympathetic to bureaucrats wanting pay raises, but Ithe court system is a unique case. A partner at a big firm with even mediocre legal skills easily earn two to three times what an associate supreme court justice earns. The very best legal minds (the kind we want on our courts) earn far more. I do not think we necessarily need to be at the top of the market, any more than the president should be paid on par with a top CEO. However, the “low” salaries do have negative byproducts. The types of lawyers who end up seeking the bench are disproportionately plaintiffs lawyers (e.g. liberals like John Edwards) who made their millions already and aren’t as interested in the money. Defense lawyers (generally more conservative) are salaried, and are less likely to seek the bench when it reduces their earning power so significantly. This means SC has a system that provides bad economic incentives on both ability and ideology.
By fitsnews on February 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
CL-
Toal could shoot somebody in the face with a .357 Magnum in the middle of a Fourth of July parade and you would probably have some long-winded justification for it.
And by the way, if pay-for-performance was the standard, South Carolina’s elected officials would owe us money.
-FITSNews
By Rakim on February 5th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Thinkin of a master plan
Cuz ain’t nuthin but sweat inside my hand
So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent
So I dig deeper but still comin up with lint
So I start my mission- leave my residence
Thinkin how could I get some dead presidents
I need money, I used to be a stick-up kid
So I think of all the devious things I did
I used to roll up, this is a hold up, ain’t nuthin funny
Stop smiling, be still, don’t nuthin move but the money
But now I learned to earn cos I’m righteous
I feel great! so maybe I might just
Search for a 9 to 5, if I strive
Then maybe I’ll stay alive
So I walk up the street whistlin this
Feelin out of place cos, man, do I miss
A pen and a paper, a stereo, a tape of
Me and Eric B, and a nice big plate of
Fish, which is my favorite dish
But without no money it’s still a wish
Cuz I don’t like to dream about gettin paid
So I dig into the books of the rhymes that I made
To now test to see if I got pull
Hit the studio, cos I’m paid in full
By truthseeker on February 5th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
If they didn’t like their pay, why take the dam job in the first place?
By CL on February 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Nothing in your post even attempts to refute my point. As to the hypo, does Toal still have the gun when I have to give my opinion?
By Wow on February 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
CL, I agree with the judiciary needing pay raises, but I disagree with any comparison to the large, “corporate” firms. Those firms were paying entirely too much, as evidenced by the dismissal of approximately 30 attorneys at NMRS. And while state employees are paid less, they generally have the perk of lower hours. Every lawyer can name an exception to the rule, but good luck finding a judge in chambers around 3:30 on a Friday afternoon outside of the major metropolitan areas.
By Brandon on February 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
It’s not about the pay…It’s about the retirement. What ever increase they get now…they will get 50% of that amount for the rest of their life upon retirement.
The state retirement is based on your highest three consecutive years of earnings, not your total contributions.
Ever wonder why someone with years of seinority in the legislature all of a sudden takes a full time state job?
By CL on February 5th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Wow,
Whether the firms pay to much is largely irrelevant to the incentive problem we have. The concern is the significant disparity between what the public and private sectors can offer to bright lawyers. The fact that the firms may be overpaying only increases the disparity. It would be relevant if you think a market correction is forthcoming that will lower firm salaries and reduce the disparity. But I think the NMRS layoffs demonstrates the firms will react to losses with layoffs rather than reducing their own pay.
By Sollicitus Civis on February 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
This is a travesty and if it passes, every taxpaying citizen in this state needs to go to their employer, halt paying income taxes, then drive to NC or GA to purchase anything. I certainly would love a 9.5% to 46% pay increase.
What is even more criminal is that after 8 years in office, a legislator can purchase 20 years of state retirement at $1000 a year, then retire making more money $36,000 in state retirement a year. What is wrong with this picture? I don’t know of any other job where when you retire you make more money than you did when you were working. When are we going to wake up and put an end to this??
By Harry on February 5th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
The General Assembly, a body full of lazy rat bastrds, should not be able to participate in the state retirement program.
The reason? They are lazy rat bastards.
By Me on February 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think lobbyist should get retirement.
They are greedy rat bastards.
Which is better than being a lazy rat bastard.
By Todd on February 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
The present Supreme Court Justices don’t need retirement. They can all go down to the Charleston School of Law and get way more than the state retirement pay rate on Alex’s payroll. I mean, he owes ‘em.
By StanD828 on February 6th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Does Jean Toal even bother to think about how anything looks before she does it? This report is absurd, and coming close on the heels of the bar exam scandal, her leaving the scene of an accident scandal, and her unsurprising criticism of the idea that the public should be able to vote for judges, no wonder it seems more and more that the Court is so insulated that they haven’t a clue what’s going on in the real world. Or, more likely, because of the unchecked power they are given by the legislature, they just don’t give a damn. Judicial independence indeed…no wonder they call her Queen Jean. I know how we could really save some money…fire everybody else and just let her run the damn state, it seems like she does anyway.
Why aren’t we outraged? Just last week, after allegedly having a comittee investigate the issue, it was announced that the legislature would not change the way judges are appointed in South Carolina. All but one other state elect their judges and things seem to work fine, but our state, being so much wiser, declined to follow their examples. And, as usual, not willing to risk upsetting Toal, the SC Bar issued an official statement supporting that decision.
Now, I agree that our legislators deserve a raise. Most of them have to drive to and from different parts of the state and often maintain apartments or pay for lodging in Columbia when they are in session. But to suggest that those like judges in cushy govenment jobs making several times what the average South Carolinian earns, in addition to health insurance and other benefits, is outrageous.
Of course, no one will seriously challenge this. In a few days the SC Bar will probably even release an official statement in support of the raises, saying that judges work too hard for the little pay they get and they deserve every penny this recommendation suggests, if not more, blah blah blah. Pathetic.
By Sollicitus Civis on February 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
StabD828 writes..
“Now, I agree that our legislators deserve a raise. Most of them have to drive to and from different parts of the state and often maintain apartments or pay for lodging in Columbia when they are in session.”
One can get to Columbia from any part in the state in under 4 hours. The legislators opted to run for public office. Why should the taxpayers have to fund a second residence for them? Travel the interstate and they will blow you off the road to and from Columbia. Most of these “lazy rat bastards” (to quote Harry) are doctors, lawyers, insurance agents, etc. They are from the upper strata of society in this state. They are not exactly working the job in the GA to make ends meet.
They don’t need a raise. Don’t give it to them. They are quick to cute the budgets of state agencies and schools. I don’t think they have ever been asked to sacrifice.
By State Employee on February 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
State employees that are required to drive their personal vehicle for state business are not even reimbursed at the IRS rate of 50.5 cents per mile. State employees are still reimbursed at the 44.5 cents per mile rate from a few years ago. And, before anyone posts about how state employees being overpaid, check the salaries. Most employees that are driving their personal vehicles are not in the upper management positions making over $100,000 a year. These are the poor slobs barely making $25,000 to $30,000 a year. So, before the Supreme Court Justices and the legislators receive a raise, perhaps the state could enter the year 2008 and pay the current IRS mileage reimbursement rate!!!
By sc@comcast.net on February 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
1. Why is the Judicial Branch involved in the salary determination process for other branches of government?
2. If we have all this extra money for pay raises, then why don’t we have the money to hire full time attorneys to do indigent work? As it stands, private attorneys are drafted to do this work for little or no compensation.
3. I think the poster who referenced the retirement pay calculated on the last three years’ salary hit the motivation for this plan on the head.
4. These is no shortage of people fighting for these coveted judgeships, so obviously the pay scale is not that out of line with economic reality.
5. The poster who thinks that partners at large law firms make 3 times the amount of an associate supreme court justice is forgetting that those partners are few and far between, and those partners have to fund their own retirements, pay self employment taxes, pay their own insurance and take the risk that business produces enough money to pay the bills and result in a profit. Plus they had to work their way through the system to make it to that point.
6. This proposal is DOA.
By CL on February 7th, 2008 at 8:55 am
“These is no shortage of people fighting for these coveted judgeships, so obviously the pay scale is not that out of line with economic reality.”
I agree, there are many liberal plaintiffs lawyers very eager to be judges. The problem I was discussing is the lack of incentive for conservative and/or brilliant attorneys to pursue the bench. Take a look at our judges and see how many were at big defense firms (which hire 95% of the top law school students each year).
As for your statement about partner salaries, I work in a big firm and your summary is incorrect. Large firms are huge businesses, many of which have 500 or more employees. Even junior partners at a place like NMRS take home 200k-300k (which is 2 to 3 times the assoc. justice salary as I stated before). They are not paying the firm’s light bill out of this money and they are not left to their own devices for retirement and insurance. The firms have a 401(k) and cafeteria plans that are fully available to the partners.
I don’t know what “system” you think a partner has to go through, but all it really takes to make partner is to last 7 years (a pretty standard figure at law firms) as an associate without getting asked to leave. It is not some extreme meritocracy were only the best make it through. It is basically expected at my firm that you make partner as long as you are doing your work and don’t do something incredibly stupid. The weeding out is largely done at the initial hiring stage, as the big firms only hire those that did well in law school.
By sc@comcast.net on February 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
CL,
If you make it to partner, you’ll have a better understanding of what is involved in business ownership. There is a big difference between lifetime retirement composed of 50% of your average salary from the past three years, and the honor of being able to contribute $15,500.00, plus match, into your company sponsored 401(k). Your firm must do a great spin job because most would consider funding your own 401(k) as being “left to your own devices for retirement.”
I have one question for you, where does the money come from to pay for your firm’s light bill if it doesn’t come out of the firm’s revenue?
By Anonymous on February 7th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
My firm has very generous 401(k) matches (for partners too). I did not say the light bill did not come out of revenue. I said it did not come out of their take home, which is easily 2-3 times an associate justice’s salary.
Sounds like you may be coveting a judgeship.
By sc@comcast.net on February 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Although I have the greatest respect for our Judges, I do not covet a judgeship because I have one of those fine jobs you speak of so fondly in your post. As such, I’m not real enthused about the idea of paying increased taxes to support 20% pay raises when market forces (supply and demand) don’t dictate it.
Capiche?
By CL on February 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am
“market forces (supply and demand) don’t dictate it”
This statement is only accurate if you like having the system set up to encourage the mediocre and the liberal to seek the bench. As a conservative, I believe the market forces are most definitely impacting our bench in an unfortunate manner. Since you clearly disagree, I must assume you are either a liberal who is happy with the current system or you do not comprehend my point.