Don't force experienced judges and solicitors to retire early

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums Guest column • Edwin Leap: Many people have become slaves to pain medicine (06/12/05) • John DeWorken: It's no longer business as usual in South Carolina (06/11/05) • Amy Sutherland: Don't force experienced judges and solicitors to retire early (06/11/05) • Rep. Bobby Harrell: Progress and teamwork made 2005 a banner year (06/09/05) • Tony Beam: Church-state argument against school choice unfounded (06/08/05)

While there, I had to compete with a virtual army of other individuals, all of whom were vying for "face time" with legislators. Most of these people were not paid lobbyists. They were employed by state agencies. All of these people worked at the highest levels of their agency, and, therefore, one can assume they were paid at the higher pay grades offered by state service. Although they were full-time state employees with year-round job responsibilities, they nevertheless had to put their normal duties on hold or delegate those duties to someone else while they spent two to three days a week at the South Carolina Statehouse.

Why are there legions of state employees walking around the halls of our legislative office buildings and crowding outside the doors of the House and Senate chambers from January until June each year? Because when bills are introduced that affect the way a state agency does its job, the General Assembly needs to know about it. Is the practice of sending state workers to Columbia to educate the General Assembly the most efficient way to do the job? Probably not. But it is up to the General Assembly to dictate how it wishes to receive information about pending legislation.

Some divisions of our government structure are not centralized. Instead of a state agency to handle criminal prosecutions, we have 16 individual solicitors who are elected by the people. If one or two solicitors go to Columbia to educate the General Assembly on a particular piece of legislation affecting the way they can prosecute criminal cases, they are sacrificing their time in their home circuits for the good of all 16 solicitors' offices and, indeed, for all victims of crime across the state. But they subject themselves to criticism at election time if an opponent wants to make an issue of the time they spent in Columbia instead of staying at home and managing their offices.

In evaluating Solicitor Bob Ariail's management decision to employ a lobbyist to inform the General Assembly on issues affecting solicitors' offices, one needs to understand that many of our local government divisions have used this same strategy for years. Law enforcement, county and city governments, special purpose districts, hospitals, state colleges and universities, and a host of other government entities send either employees or registered lobbyists to Columbia to educate the General Assembly on legislation. It would seem to be more cost-efficient to use a lobbyist who knows the legislative process rather than employees who are not hired for their lobbying skills.

The proposal to allow judges and solicitors to continue in service after they become eligible for retirement pay reflects current practice for other government employees and should be considered for judges and solicitors. At present, all state and county employees, teachers, law enforcement officers and even legislators have the ability to work for the government while receiving retirement pay. Some of these employees "triple-dip" or draw retirement from two previous jobs while working full-time in a government job.

The argument in favor of this system usually centers around the need to encourage experienced employees to remain in state service. This argument is no less sound for judges and solicitors. More retired judges would stay in active service if they could serve while drawing retirement. This could go a long way toward alleviating the court backlog without the expense of new judgeships. Retired judges should serve at the pleasure of the chief justice and without support staff, thereby saving the cost of law clerks and administrative staff. Solicitors who reach retirement eligibility in the middle of a four-year term should not have to forgo what may amount to several years of retirement pay in order to finish out their term. The people elected them to serve a full term, and the people should have their service.

Solicitor Ariail's management ideas, like his trial skills, have served the 13th Circuit well. The state benefits greatly from other retired state employees remaining in full service. It is an idea whose time has come for judges and solicitors. Amy Sutherland of Greenville is a retired Family Court judge, having served 10 years in that position. The retirement proposal would not apply to her because she did not serve a full 25 years.