HomeMy Public PortalAboutORD11193 ® BILL N0. , 88-179
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN HALSEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1111'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AMENDING ORDINANCE
9552, FIXING SALARIES OF ELECTED CITY OFFICIALS, BY INCREASING THE
SALARY OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI,
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance 9552 of the City of Jefferson, Missouri,
fixing the salaries of elected city officials is hereby amended by
increasing the salary of the municipal court judge. The amended
subsection shall read as follows:
(3) The Municipal Court Judge shall receive the sum of
$1150.00 per month, as salary effective May 1, 1989. The
City Attorney shall receive the sum of $850.00 per month
as salary.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after the date of its passage and approval subject to the
® effective dates contained herein for the salary adjustment.
Passed de), /? Approved
Presiding Officer Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
VETO MESSAGE
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Louise Gardner, Mayor 17�
DATE: March 30, 1989
RE: Veto Message on 88-179 Salary Increase for Municipal
Judge
Under the authority vested in my office as Mayor under .
the Charter of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, I hereby exercise
my veto power under Section 3.11 (g) and veto Bill 88-179. As
required by Charter, I am delivering this message to the Council
prior to the commencement of the meeting on April 3, 1989.
The veto of this bill is based on several factors, each
of which by itself would be grounds for consideration of a veto;
taken collectively they overwhelmingly move me to reject this
proposed legislation.
The first issue with this proposed legislation which
should be addressed is a matter of fairness between the Municipal
Judge's office and the City Prosecutor's office. These two
positions are closely tied in terms of effort, hours, and a need
for a licensed attorney to fill the position. Historically, the
salaries for the two positions have been identical. If the salary
for one is inappropriate, it would be logical to conclude the
salary for both are inappropriate. They should be addressed at
the same time.
The timing of this legislation is also an issue which
should be addressed. Judge Nacy is currently unopposed for
re-election on April 4, 1989. By waiting to introduce and pass
this legislation after the filing deadline but before the general
election, the legislation amounts to specifying a raise for a
specific individual. If the position warranted a raise, such
legislation should have been proposed prior to the filing deadline
for the office to afford other potential candidates the opportunity
to consider the salary in their decision to run or not to run.
Veto Message: 88-179
March 30, 1989
Page 2
To address every issue presented by Judge Nacy would
require a very lengthy message and would be largely redundant based
on information put together by the City Counselor's office and
previously distributed to the City Council. The facts presented
by the City Counselor's office refute most of the issues raised by
Judge Nacy. Judge Nacy in his subsequent response attempts again
to raise an issue about the adequacy of facilities provided the
judge and the judge's need for certain legal support. It is not
the duty of the City of Jefferson to support Judge Nacy's private
practice nor should any elected City official receive support for
their private business. It is a qualification for this office that
one be a practicing attorney.
Practicing attorney would indicate that a full range of
tools necessary for the carrying on of the legal profession would
already exist prior to the time the person chose to run for office.
Should Judge Nacy or anyone else choose not to adequately provide
for the items used in his everyday business, including such things
as phones, that is the decision of that individual and does not
somehow become an obligation of the City. The Judge indicates the
need for such things in his office of law books, stationery, phone
services, copying equipment and indicates it is not possible to use
any of the same items provided through City Hall. This simply is
not an accurate reflection of what is available for the judge.
Two items in Judge Nacy's response deserve specific reply
in this message. The judge indicates that he has been paying his
own health insurance premiums. This is not correct. The health
insurance premium for the Judge himself is and has been paid by the
City of Jefferson. The Judge has chosen to avail himself of an
additional benefit available through the City by placing his family
on the City's health insurance plan. He, as any other City
employee', must pay for the additional premiums related to the
additional individuals.
The Judge's out of court time needs to be addressed. The
Judge has certain duties which he must fulfill which will
occasionally involve him in activities outside of normal court
hours. The activities that are appropriate for a judge are spelled
out in the canons of judicial ethics and are very specific. Many
of the items on the list providecj by the Judge, which should be
noted was two years old, are not items which a Judge must or in
some cases even should engage in. The Judge's work is to be
conducted in open court for the most part or through communications
via court clerks and the burden for out of court time in our court
system should rest much more heavily upon the City Prosecutor.
Veto Message: 88-179
March 30, 1989
Page 3
The final comment on the whole package as presented by
Judge Nacy has to do with the fact that he must have private
practice in order to make a living. At no time has it been
contemplated by this City Council or any previous City Councils
that this position was to be a full-time position. Court is
scheduled for Wednesday nights and two to three Friday mornings per
month. This does not in any way approach a full-time position and
the salary should not reflect a full-time effort. It should also
be noted that Judge Nacy has on occasion cancelled court dates on
short notice at the inconvenience of parties to enable him to
attend other courts.
If the City Council believes inadequacies exist in the
way Court is currently being operated, rewarding the Municipal
Judge seems to be a strange response. It has not been that far in
the past when this Council found it necessary to pass a minimum
fines ordinance in order to secure appropriate punishment for
violators of our ordinances. This action was in direct response
to inaction on the part of Judge Nacy. To turn around two years
later and increase his salary, when no significant changes have
been made in Court which were instigated by the Judge, does not
make good sense.
Changes in Court have been made in the last two years,
several of which reduced the amount of time necessary for the Judge
to spend performing his duties on behalf of the City which in
effect have increased his remuneration on an hourly basis. The
Judges hourly remuneration, assuming he spends one hour out of
court for every hour in court, would still place the Judge's salary
at the average rate for retention of lawyers in Jefferson City.
This is in spite of the fact that there is no directly attributable
overhead to his practice of Municipal Judge which he would not have
as a practicing attorney.
•