A Matter of Judgment

Photo Courtesy of Google Images

The New Jersey Constitution seems to be quite clear on the question of whether or not Governor Chris Christie and the Legislature of this state were within the letter and the spirit of that document when public employee compensation reforms were codified into law in June, 2010.

Those reforms provided for increased contributions by state employees for their pension and health benefits.

But – it seems – at least two members of the state judiciary think that the law does not apply to them, claiming that this legislation reduces their ‘salary’ under provisions of New Jersey’s constitution.

A plain reading of that document is quiet clear on this matter to anyone else with even a scintilla of common sense:  “The justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment.” 

(If you want more, Click here for the full source of this quote and scroll down to the Judicial section to read Paragraph 6, under Article VI, Section VI.)

Pretty simple, yet this has become a controversy which is now headed to the New Jersey Supreme Court under pending appeal by the Christie administration.

There is hardly any doubt within the business community and among major U.S. consulting firms that the word ‘salary’ means just that – ‘salary.’  It does not include pension and health care benefits in its meaning.  Nor does it include any other fringe compensation which may be provided to an employee.  

Yet, Judge Paul DePascale of Hudson County brought a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s pension reforms which require certain members of the judiciary to contribute more for their pension and health insurance benefits.  His claim is that these increases are an unconstitutional diminishment of ‘salary.’

Few of us in the Garden State will question that there are passages of the state constitution that might be ambiguous in their wording and, therefore, may provide a reasonable basis for appeal and clarification.  But the meaning of the word ‘salary’ is not one of those. 

To be emphatically redundant:  Salary means salary.  Most of us seem to know what that noun signifies, except, it appears, yet another member of the court – in this instance, Judge Linda Feinberg who sits on the Mercer County Superior Court. 

She upheld DePascale’s assertion that pension and health care benefits constitute ‘salary’ under the meaning and intent of our constitution and, therefore, “are a diminution of their salaries while they are in office.”

Feinberg’s ruling does not pass the smell test among average New Jerseyans and should be overturned by the New Jersey Supreme Court.