Commission reviews judge longevity payments and leadership stipends, sets Jan. 2 report deadline

The commission charged with reviewing judicial pay discussed whether to recommend changes to longevity payments and leadership stipends and agreed to circulate a draft report for member comments ahead of a Jan. 2 submission deadline.

The chair (Speaker 3) said the panel has “talked a fair amount about retention” and asked whether longevity payments in statute—cited in the meeting as 45147—should be part of the Commission’s recommendations. The chair noted longevity payments are commonly viewed as retention incentives and said they can be “up to a 3% of salary.”

Melissa (Speaker 6), providing background, said longevity payments for state employees were discontinued but that judges’ pay is set in statute and some judges were grandfathered in. “If a judge was receiving longevity payments before the change was made, they continue to receive it,” Melissa said, and she estimated roughly 50 judges still receive such payments and that the number will diminish over time.

Members asked procedural and factual questions about how longevity and leadership stipends are paid. Attorney Ogilvie (Speaker 2) asked whether the payments are automatic or discretionary. The chair said leadership stipends appear as an annual additional payment, while the statutory language on longevity did not make the cadence clear; staff said they will follow up on whether payments are rolled into regular wages or paid in lump sums.

The commission also discussed small statutory stipends for administrative judges. The draft statutory example cited for 2024 specified that “a judge designated as an administrative judge of the appellate system shall receive $1,371 in additional compensation,” and similar $1,371 amounts were cited for chief administrative judges in superior court divisions. Melissa described the administrative roles — covering operations, training and scheduling — and said the positions historically rotated so an individual typically serves no longer than five years.

Some members urged caution about making longevity payments a central retention tool. One commissioner (Speaker 5) said, “I can imagine an argument where we don't want to keep the judges who've been on the bench for 20 years,” urging more information before taking a position; another member recommended noting the longevity payments in a footnote because they are phased out and affect a diminishing number of incumbents.

The chair said staff will circulate a draft report to members for comment and asked that comments be returned promptly. The commission is required to submit its report by Jan. 2; if members prefer, the group can approve a final draft virtually.

The meeting closed after brief expressions of thanks and holiday wishes.

Ending — Next steps: staff to circulate draft by the next business day, members to submit comments, and the Commission to file the final report by Jan. 2.