STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1529-04

Honolulu, Hawaii

, 2004

RE: S.C.R. No. 119

S.D. 1

H.D. 1

 

 

 

Honorable Calvin K.Y. Say

Speaker, House of Representatives

Twenty-Second State Legislature

Regular Session of 2004

State of Hawaii

Sir:

Your Committee on Labor and Public Employment, to which was referred S.C.R. No. 119, S.D. 1, entitled:

"SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2004 JUDICIAL SALARY COMMISSION,"

begs leave to report as follows:

The purpose of this Concurrent Resolution is to disapprove the recommended salaries submitted by the 2004 Judicial Salary Commission as set forth in their report dated March 8, 2004.

Testimony in opposition was received from the Judicial Salary Commission, Attorney General, and a concerned citizen.

Your Committee recognizes that judicial salaries are woefully low, and salary increases are deserved.

However, your Committee also points out that the main reason for these low salaries is the economic difficulties that the state has faced -- a situation that continues to serve as a major consideration with respect to this measure.

 

Your Committee recognizes that the last increase of judicial salaries was in 2000. Thus, because judicial pay raises have historically come every 5.4 years, the initial recommended raise given by the Commission for 2005-2006 would follow that pattern.

Further, while that initial 14% raise seems high on its face, averaged over the years 2000-2005 when there were no raises, it is a reasonable increase that tracks inflation at 2.8% per year.

However, your Committee has concerns that this state will not be able to afford the increases proposed by the Commission for fiscal years 2007-2012, pegged at 3.5% per year. Further, the fiscal impacts of the recommended salary increases on the Employees' Retirement System (ERS) and the Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund (EUTF) must be carefully considered.

Thus, your Committee feels that the initial 14% salary increase is reasonable, but the subsequent 3.5% escalator clause may not be affordable for the state. Your Committee points out that our judges' and justices' salaries are currently 32nd in the nation. With the 14% initial increase, without the 3.5% escalator clause, their salaries will jump to 14th in the nation. Thus, their salaries will have jumped from near the bottom third in the nation to near the top third in the nation.

Therefore, your Committee cannot entirely support the Commission's recommendations, and has amended the Concurrent Resolution as follows:

(1) Language was inserted to indicate that the Legislature is concerned about the fiscal impact that a recommended salary increase will have on the ERS and EUTF, which must be considered when the Commission reconvenes;

(2) Language was inserted to request that the Commission's report upon reconvening includes a new salary recommendation that reflects a one time 14% salary increase but no escalator clause;

 

(3) Language was inserted to request that the Commission's report be submitted to the Legislature at least 20 days prior to the convening of the Regular Session of 2005; and

(4) Technical, nonsubstantive changes were made for style and clarity.

As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Labor and Public Employment that is attached to this report, your Committee concurs with the intent and purpose of S.C.R. No. 119, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends its adoption in the form attached hereto as S.C.R. No. 119, S.D. 1, H.D. 1.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Labor and Public Employment,

 

____________________________

MARCUS R. OSHIRO, Chair