SOFIE VS CARLOS: SHOWDOWN OVER JUDGES' SALARIES LOOMING

By Juan Montoya
There is a showdown in the making in the commissioners' court over the Texas Legislative mandated hike of judge's salaries coming up on Tuesday meeting at the Dancy Building.
One one side will be the commissioners who think that the county should pass the increases for the judges passed by the legislature and increase the $15,000 county supplement by $3,000 to reach the $18,000 cap approved by the legislature.
The previous $125,000 a year salary and the $15,000 cap was passed by the legislature in 2005 and local judges believe that the salary hike is long overdue.
The new legislation mandates raises to $140,000 for the district judges and indirectly raises the county-court-at-law salaries as well.
On the other side, Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos has said that despite the obvious legislative intent, commissioners should decrease the county supplement in the name of fiscal frugality between $3,000 to $4,500. Cascos cites the other legislation that dictates that county-court-at- law judges must be paid within $1,000 as district judges, necessitating that the commissioners fork out some $45,000 to meet that mandate.
Championing the proposal to award the legislatively-mandated increases is Precinct 1 commissioner Sofie Benavides and Pct. 4 commissioner Dan Sanchez. Although Sanchez's motives for his advocacy  – he is an attorney who practices before the judges in question – may be an issue, it is nonetheless clear that the district judges and county-court-at-law may prevail with the court and get the votes to award the increases.
445th District Judge Rolando Olvera – writing August 9 from Houston where he is receiving medical treatment – asks the court to award the increases and says that cutting the supplement instead of increasing it be $3,000 would fly in the face of legislative intent.
"-Texas has the lowest paid judiciary of all the major urban states. The last Texas judicial pay raise and county supplement increase was in 2005. The judiciary has taken no part in any Cameron County raise granted to other county employees since 2005. The manner in which judicial raises are chronologically delayed over years in Texas forces the Texas judiciary to request all available funds when approved.
-The TX Legislature factors in county supplements as an integral part of establishing judicial salaries. The 2013 TX Legislature approved a 12 percent judicial raise and $3,000 county judicial supplement, to become effective Sept. 1, 2013.
The Senate had proposed a 21 percent increase, with the House proposing 10 percent; the compromised result was a 12 percent judicial raise, along with a $3,000 county supplement factored into the salary equation. The idea that a county would attempt to cut the 2005 county supplement violates the legislative intent of the 2013 judicial raise; after eight years, the state did not intend for counties to unilaterally manufacture relative 2005 pay rates."
Olvera then goes on to point out the actions by the judges to save the county money in then form of orders that ease jail overcrowding, and limiting court-appointed attorneys fees. He writes:
"Though not required to do so, but in the spirit of cooperation with the county, our judiciary actively pursues countless steps to assist the Cameron County budget, including but not limited to the following examples: assisting county with jail overcrowding through numerous forms of judicial orders, allowing the existence and expansion of duties of the magistrates to assist in avoiding or reducing inmate jail time, monitoring and even cutting court appointed attorney fees to be paid by the county."
And tacitly acknowledging that each of the judges has a constituency that put elected them to office, he writes the commissioners that the county has a $380,000 budget surplus to play with and states that:
"The Cameron County Judiciary has a long standing history and relationship of professionalism and cooperation with the Cameron County Commissioners' Court. The proposed cut of the 2005 judicial county supplement would be a severe blow to said relationship and counterproductive. Furthermore, it is possible that any proposed cut of a judicial supplement in place since 2005 may not be legal. Regardless, given the general strength of the upcoming county budget, there is no valid basis for such a drastic option...A vote in favor of the 2013 judicial county supplement is a vote in support of our local judiciary."
It is expected that at least another of the commissioners – Pct. 2 Ernie Hernandez or David Garza – will join Dan and Sofie to award what Olvera calls "long overdue" increases in the salary and county supplement. The bout is set for Tuesday in commissioners court.