New Orleans public paid $75,000 for judges' trips to beach resorts, mountain lodges, more

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Times-Picayune

New Orleans public paid $75,000 for judges' trips to beach resorts, mountain lodges, more
By NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
on October 08, 2014 at 11:07 AM, updated October 08, 2014 at 3:52 PM

From the white sandy beaches of Florida to a mountain top resort in Montana and even a trip abroad to Panama, most New Orleans criminal district judges spent thousands in public dollars a year jetting off to conferences and events, even as they cut the court's operating budget and faced a large backlog of cases, records reviewed by NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune and WVUE Fox 8 News show.

The expenses totaled more than $75,000 for legal education conferences and other out-of-town trips in an 18-month period that ended in June. In that time, the court cut spending for jury services, legal transcripts, building maintenance and other key areas. The trips also took judges away from the bench, some for periods totaling weeks, as the court grappled with hundreds of backlogged cases.

Some of the most travel-happy jurists also were among those ranked least efficient in job performance by the non-profit watchdog Metropolitan Crime Commission.

Judge Arthur Hunter was the courthouse's undisputed travel champ in the 18 months analyzed, billing the court $15,347 for 10 trips, including treks to conferences in Denver, San Antonio, and twice to a resort in Destin, Fla. Hunter ranked 9th out of 12 judges in the crime commission's most recent performance evaluation, released in June.


Read more: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/10/criminal_district_court_judici.html

[KT2000]

1. RW think tanks cart judges

to their education camps. They select nice resorts for their indoctrinations. Not sure who pays but I consider it undue influence.

[24601]

2. These trips were likely all in the public interest.

According to Judgepedia, both Judge Hunter and Judge Marullo are loyal Democrats. We need to drain this swamp and clean up our own ranks.

http://judgepedia.org/Arthur_L._Hunter,_Jr.

http://judgepedia.org/Frank_A._Marullo,_Jr.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Why is it a swamp? Judges do need legal education, are they going to get it at a Motel 66?

Federal district judges make an average of 190K a year, not princely for what they do and as they struggle with a backlog created by underfunding and a gutted support system...they do not control the funds.

You need to step back a bit from the perpetual outrage machine that is today's "news".

[24601]

5. Did you read the article? Here's the description of one of the "conferences" that the paper cited:

"The event scheduled no more than 3-1/2 hours of legal training per day, and offered plenty of fun activities, including a golf tournament, a night on a party bus, a Panama Canal cruise, and more."

also,

"The expenses totaled more than $75,000 for legal education conferences and other out-of-town trips in an 18-month period that ended in June. In that time, the court cut spending for jury services, legal transcripts, building maintenance and other key areas. The trips also took judges away from the bench, some for periods totaling weeks, as the court grappled with hundreds of backlogged cases."

[KT2000]

6. Here is some research

from Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/28/12368/corporations-pro-business-nonprofits-foot-bill-judicial-seminars

Look at who is doing the educating.

[Fred Sanders]

7. So you agree it is better all around for judges education budgets to be paid by taxpayers, not

corporations? I would entirely agree....private payment to judges for conferences is the result of taxpayers not wanting to foot the bill.....some things are just worth the cost and not worth ignoring.

Anyone want to chip in and argue judges education conferences are not needed? And compare their work schedule and pay to the work schedule and riches available to Congress critters.

Congress critters need to have taxpayer funded education conferences as well, not corporate retreats. I think judges are far less vulnerable to influence and corruption than politicians.

[KT2000]

8. Education should be covered

by the taxpayers. But I really doubt the corporations are filling that need. They are "educating" judges on how to rule in their favor. As the Public Interest article says - transparency is needed. Why aren't the judges who attend insisting on that as a condition of their participation.
Judges may be less vulnerable but some are carrying out agendas that favor corporations, i.e., Supreme Court.

[Fred Sanders]

3. 12 judges, 75,000 for legal education over 18 months, about 4,400 a judge per year....outrage???