When The Chronicle told readers in a Dec. 5 story that one of its local retired judges was, in fact, making more money than active judges, some letter writers took it as an attack on the judge.
|
ADVERTISEMENT
|
|
|
Have a thought?
Go to the Forums or Chat.
|
|
|
"Blame the system," said one reader.
"Whether the senior Superior Court judge system is economically beneficial to the taxpayers is obviously fair game for a newspaper article," wrote another.
We agree on both counts.
And that, after all, was the entire point of the article.
Supporters of Senior Judge Bernard J. Mulherin Sr. took umbrage at the report - which indicated he was the top earner among the state's senior judges last year, taking home $206,340 in retirement pay, senior judge pay (earned on a $467-a-day case-by-case basis) and $128-per-day expense checks. Friends noted the judge's many good works and civic involvements over the years.
We take no exception to those plaudits whatsoever. But people have an absolute right to know where their tax money is going. Period.
In this case, the state's attempt to save money by hiring back retired judges - rather than installing additional full-time judges - seems to have backfired rather badly.
Moreover, the case numbers and availability of other on-duty judges in Richmond County Superior Court doesn't seem to justify the amount of use the court is making of Judge Mulherin.
We also question a system that pays anyone - not just Judge Mulherin - $128 in expenses for making the 15-20 minute trip from Augusta to Columbia County. It's outrageous.
Just as outrageous is the fact that the court system fought disclosure of this information. The Chronicle sought expenses for senior judges from the Council of Superior Court Judges; the council rejected our Open Records Act request. Thankfully, state auditors provided enterprising reporter Sandy Hodson a side door through which to obtain it.
Far from being an attack on a judge, this case is about an assault on taxpayers' wallets - and on the availability of the public's information.
The judicial branch in this country has a less-than-stellar record in the realm of public accountability, and, sadly, this is a case in point.
