When 11 Commonwealth Court judges went out to dinner in Harrisburg in March 2016, their meal included pear pizzas, two trout entrees and more than $80 worth of scallops, among other dishes.
Pennsylvania taxpayers picked up the $403 tab.
That much is known from state records.
And that’s about all that is known from state records.
The restaurant’s location and other seemingly mundane details about the dinner were redacted on more than 1,900 pages of receipts and expense reports — hidden from public inspection as a matter of routine, the court says, for “security” reasons.
Experts say big spending on meals and luxuries isn’t the worst of it. It’s the secrecy.
The big unanswered questions, critics say: Who’s dining with the judges? Who has their ear?
“It’s our money,” said Steve Davis, the former chair of Syracuse University’s journalism department and a former newspaper editor in Pennsylvania. “It’s like you put your money in the bank and the bank says, ‘I know it’s your money, but I’ll only tell you so much.’ ”
Price versus value
Senior Judge Jim Colins, though, thinks the redactions are “essential” to a judge’s safety.
“My services are damn cheap for the taxpayer for the amount of work that I produce and the degree of responsibility,” said Colins, who charges the state $600 per month for a leased car. As for taxpayer-funded meals, Colins said: “I don’t eat at McDonald’s anymore, nor do I think I should.”
As part of an ongoing review of transparency practices among Pennsylvania appellate court judges, The Caucus reviewed more than 1,900 pages of records for expenses they incurred from December 2015 through February 2018.
The review found that Commonwealth Court judges spent more than $141,000 of taxpayer money on lodging, meals and valet parking during that time — with thousands of redactions throughout. About a dozen pages were redacted almost entirely, save for a few words.
Despite the redactions, The Caucus was able to identify the restaurant where the 11 judges and one staff member grabbed dinner in March 2016 as The Millworks, an American-style restaurant that offers a unique menu.
Still, it’s routine for court administrators to remove the names of attendees, who include staffers and others, to be redacted and concealed from the public eye.
This is standard procedure for judges, who are exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law. The practice allows judges to spend taxpayer funds on a $46 “Piedmontese Tenderloin,” like Judge Michael Wojcik did in May 2016, without disclosing his dining partners or location.
For the dinner, Wojcik expensed $107, including the tip.
‘Judiciary duties’
Each time judges submit expense reports, they sign off on the fact that the costs are “correct, reasonable and incurred in the performance of judiciary duties.”
The definition of “judiciary duties,” though, is broad.
Court spokeswoman Stacey Witalec said the duties “encompass any activity that is proper for a judge to perform, whether adjudicatory, administrative, educational or ceremonial in nature.”
The expenses include more than just meals. Much of the $141,000 spending total is filled with hotel stays. These trips are a key part of a Commonwealth Court judge’s role. The judges travel across the state for conferences, trainings and court sessions.
There is no cap on how much judges can spend while out to eat.
Car leases max out at $600 per month, Witalec said.
Commonwealth Court Judge Kevin Brobson spent more than $400 on valet parking and valet tips over the course of a little more than two years.
Roughly half of the more than a dozen current, retired and senior Commonwealth Court judges whose expenses this newspaper reviewed had similar valet spending habits, while the other half preferred less expensive self-parking options that typically cost $10 a night.
In addition, judges are able to lease vehicles of their choice. The leases cost the state between $250 and $600 per month.
Because of a Philadelphia leasing tax and other fees, Colins said the cost of his Chevrolet with all-wheel drive is “the best I can do.” Without these fees, he said the monthly lease rounds out to about $520 per month.
He uses this car to drive from Philadelphia, where his court is based, to court sessions across the state. He once used the car to transport legal briefs, too, but they’ve all since been digitized.
During a brief stint off the bench, Colins said, he earned more than $330,000 a year as a private attorney. He added that he “very seldom” submits itemized receipts, noting that he does not charge the state more than $35 per meal. He frequently spends more than that and pays out of pocket.
“I’m big,” he said. “I weigh 225 pounds. I’m over 6 foot. I don’t fit into compact cars, and, quite frankly, it takes a lot of food to fill me up.”
‘Taxpayers are not a doormat’
Still, scholars and activists believe judges should be conscious of how much taxpayer funds they’re spending.
“Judges have to learn how to tighten their belts and live within their means,” said Gene Stilp, a longtime Pennsylvania judicial critic. “Taxpayers are not a doormat for the judges. Judicial expenses have to be kept in line.”
Robert Strauss, a professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, said the public’s concern should be placed on how much judges are spending, not on where they’re going to eat.
“The public needs to know how much is spent and whether they’re having $20 meals or $200 meals,” Strauss said, noting he believes judges are underpaid compared with the private sector.
Taxpayer-paid perks such as leased vehicles help bridge the gap between judicial salaries and what they would make at a law firm, Strauss added.
“Listen, judges think they’re special,” Strauss said. “They probably deserve special treatment. What’s going on is they get a little bit of latitude.”
The Caucus review found judges expense even the smallest things. Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer, for example, expensed $1.06 for “lunch” in April 2017. Judge Rochelle Friedman submitted an expense request for $2 in May 2016 for two doughnuts at a Dunkin’ Donuts in Philadelphia.
On the other side of the spectrum, Senior Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter enjoyed a $13 alligator appetizer at an undisclosed restaurant in Pittsburgh in mid-November 2016, records show. The Caucus determined the location to be NOLA, a Creole restaurant, because it shares the same menu items and ZIP code as the orders of the judge and her guests.
The receipt totals more than $100 and doesn’t state with whom Leadbetter was sharing her fried green tomatoes and alligator platter. It does show, though, that she split the bill and paid $47 toward it.
Safety or secrecy?
Throughout his 35-year career as a judge, Colins said he’s had his life threatened several times.
The former president judge of the Commonwealth Court said he has received many letters with overt threats to his physical safety.
“From those (expense) reports, you can find out where I’m staying or where I will probably eat if I’m in Harrisburg or Pittsburgh,” Colins said. “I don’t want anyone to be able to follow me and surprise me. ... I don’t have a security guard; I don’t travel with a security person. Judges are prime targets.”
But Davis disagrees on the need for secrecy.
Hiding any details from the public is “bulls- - -,” Davis said.
It would never be tolerated with everyday citizens, Davis said.
Using security as a reason to redact information is “so obviously baloney,” said Davis, a former USA Today World Page editor. “It hardly even needs to be argued. In Florida, damn near everything is open, and the state hasn’t fallen into the ocean. It makes no sense.”
Many states also handle their judiciary outside of its Right-to-Know Law, but Pennsylvania’s redactions for safety are “distinct” from other states, said Noel Isama, a senior policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation.
Florida is the gold standard for open records, with almost all government documents made available to the public. Florida’s judiciary is not subject to that state’s open-records law, but it shares most of the same language, said Craig Waters, a spokesman for the state’s Supreme Court.
Waters added that Florida redacts only sensitive personal information such a judge’s Social Security number. He laughed at Pennsylvania’s redaction of restaurant names.
If a judge does not stay at a hotel routinely, then that information should be available “as reasonably as possible,” Isama said.
Many of the itemized receipts obtained by The Caucus show one-time visits to restaurants, which Isama said is concerning.
“Would the name of the hotel be redacted 10 years from now, even if that judge is retired?” he questioned. “Judges do face physical violence. ... It’s important to protect judges and their privacy in that sense. With that being said ... there should be transparency about how they spend taxpayer money.”
Full Article & Source:
Pennsylvania judges eat well on taxpayer’s dime, can shield expense details from the public ![]()
