Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel of Maryland judges urges modest $7,500 stipend for administrative judges
Summary
Judicial leaders told the House Appropriations Committee HB 608 would authorize a $7,500 annual stipend for 37 administrative judges to compensate extra management duties, arguing the change would improve retention while excluding pension increases; the Judicial Compensation Commission recommended the stipend unanimously.
Justice Jonathan Biran, chair of the judiciary special committee on judicial compensation, told the House Appropriations Committee the group compared Maryland judicial pay with other states and the federal courts and asked the committee to issue a favorable report on House Bill 608, which would authorize annual stipends for administrative judges.
Judge Fred Hecker, administrative judge for Carroll County, said the stipend recognizes that administrative judges “manage budgets and personnel, coordinate with clerks, county governments, law enforcement, service providers, assigned judges, respond to emergencies, [and] ensure compliance with statewide policies” on top of their caseloads. He described administrative judges as the effective chief executives of their courts.
Chief Judge John Morrissey of the District Court of Maryland and other administrative judges described day-to-day responsibilities during testimony, including responding to information-security scams and courthouse power outages. Morrissey highlighted programs his administrative judges run such as Schools in the Court and new mental-health and veterans courts, saying the work “is kind of a 24/7 job” and modest additional pay would help retain experienced leaders.
Megan Casey, chair of the Judicial Compensation Commission, said the seven-member commission voted unanimously to recommend an annual stipend to compensate the “significant additional burden” associated with administrative duties. The commission’s recommendation sets the stipend at $7,500 per year for the 37 judges the panel identified; if enacted at that level the additional annual cost would be $277,500.
Committee members asked whether nonadministrative judges supported the measure; witnesses said they had not received negative feedback and that nonadministrative judges participated in the commission’s deliberations. The witnesses emphasized the stipend would be paid only while a judge serves in an administrative role and would not increase retirement pensions.
The committee concluded the hearing after members expressed appreciation for the judiciary’s work and said they would consider the judges’ testimony as they review HB 608.
The bill was presented as an authorization (not a salary increase tied to the four-year Judicial Compensation Commission review process) and witnesses said the change requires statutory action rather than a commission-only recommendation.
