Lots of light-fingered characters troop daily into the courthouse at Tulane and Broad, where some of them proceed to don robes. Technically, it has not yet been established that the title "criminal court judge" is apposite in more ways than one.
As David Caldwell, who heads up the public corruption unit for his dad, Attorney General Buddy, points out, "Sometimes things that are not legal are not necessarily criminal."
Let us not quibble. The popular prejudice runs strongly in favor of judges whose behavior is legal. Criminal or not, this bunch has been making off with our money sure as the most brazen mugger, and on a much larger scale. No mugger could hope for a haul of $2 million, which is what their honors are estimated to have spent illicitly in the last five years on deluxe life and health insurance.
Freeloading judges have for years been a staple of the local news, whether they sit on district, appeal, traffic or municipal court. The usual dodge is to travel, often to distant shores, on some flimsy pretext and stick it to the taxpayer for ritzy hotels, fancy cars and well lubricated meals. Criminal court judges are among our most dedicated junketers, but this appears to be the first time they have been discovered meeting household bills from the fees they impose on guilty defendants. The judges can stuff $2,000 for each felony, and $250 for a misdemeanor, into a fund that is supposed to cover court-related expenses.
Caldwell was wheeled out to investigate, after the legislative auditor questioned judicial perks, because DA Leon Cannizzaro was obliged to recuse himself. Cannizzaro "thinks" he got the insurance benefits himself when he was a criminal court judge. If he really is uncertain, it must be the first time in living memory. The notion that our driven and obsessive crime fighter is prone to absent-mindedness seems very droll.
Whether the judicial money-grab qualifies as criminal is a question that may not be worth settling. The cops are not going to swoop down and quote Miranda to the entire bench, and it seems unlikely that the attorney general would file charges. Still, the law is quite clear, and, if the judges did not know they were breaking it, they are in the wrong job.
Judges are forbidden to accept any "additional salary, compensation, emolument or benefit from the state or any of its political subdivisions." That would appear to cover it. There are a few exceptions, but life insurance is not one of them, and health insurance premiums are allowed only for "programs contributions to which" are "at the same rate as those paid by other state employees."
If everyone on the state payroll got the same coverage as the judges have awarded themselves, health insurance would eat up pretty much the entire budget. The judges even signed on with a company that specializes in high-end coverage for top executives, freeing them from the inconvenience of co-pays, deductibles and prescription costs.
The company, Exec-U-Care, believes its customers "deserve recognition for the contributions and sacrifices they make on a daily basis."
This must surely bring a smile to Cannizzaro's face after his repeated exhortations for the judges to try working hard for a change.
The judges are clearly embarrassed that their prodigality with the public dollar has come to light, for they have refused to provide records of how much the expense fund has paid for their benefits. Their attorney, Norman F. Pizza, told the newspaper its public records request was being denied on grounds that medical records are confidential.
Excuses don't come any more pathetic than that. Nobody is asking for information on the health of any judge. All that is requested is information on where public money has been spent, and it is pure effrontery to maintain the public is not entitled to it. The medical history of the judges is their business; the money they pay insurance companies is ours.
The law that established the judicial expense fund is pretty vague about what it may be used for, blessing "any purpose connected with, incidental to or related" to the court. It does, however, rule out salaries and can hardly be construed to authorize these monkeyshines, which clearly violate the general prohibition on supplementary compensation.
In truth, it is inaccurate to suggest that robes are the only difference between judges and the thieves whose cases they hear at Tulane and Broad. The judges, who make more than $130,000, are much better dressed overall.
???????
James Gill is a columnist for The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at jgill@timespicayune.com.
Source: http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2011/10/deluxe_insurance_was_new_orlea.html
apple ii pixar growing pains growing pains cupertino htc flyer review westboro
