Loading...
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. •