SPITZER'S GRAND DESIGN
The judicial pay raise imbroglio reached a new pitch yesterday when Governor Eliot Spitzer proposed an increase in the pay of state Supreme Court justices by almost 21 percent to $165,200 from the current $136,700 a year, retroactive to 2005, a rate equal to federal district court judges. As reported in The New York Times and The New York Post the measure was one among a number of proposals, including four amendments to the state Constitution, that touched on election law and the courts. “The legislation and constitutional amendments I am proposing today will bring long-needed reform to our court system, which is one of the most convoluted, politicized, outdated and expensive in the nation,” the governor said in a statement. The Legislature has been vocal about its own pay raise desires — like judges, they haven’t had an increase since 1999 — but Spitzer has, critics say, used this issue as a bargaining chip to push through campaign finance reform. This week the state Senate introduced a bill, sponsored by all 62 senators, that would give raises to the judiciary but also create a commission to consider pay raises for all branches of government every four years, with appointees picked by the governor, the legislative leaders, and the chief judge. With respect to the courts, Governor Spitzer proposed restructuring the state court system to contain several layers within a two-tier structure: a Supreme Court and district courts. He has also proposed replacing the election of higher court judges with a network of commissions that would select them.

 
WATCHING, NOT LISTENING
The New York Times also explores the legal and moral questions related to police videotaping of actual and would-be protestors that were raised in a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan yesterday. The hearing was in conjunction with the so-called Handschu case, a 36-year-old class action suit brought by lawyer Barbara Handschu that prohibits police from investigating political groups unless it is believed that some sort of unlawful activity is happening, in which case the police must apply for permission to the deputy police commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Division. In February, federal judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., of the Southern District of New York ordered the Police Department to stop routine videotaping of public gatherings. Yesterday, lawyers for the city asked the judge to reconsider his order, but the judge declined to make a ruling. As reported in The Times, the roots of the current debate lie in the wake of 9/11, when the city asked Judge Haight to relax the anti-videotaping provision and allow more leeway to investigate political groups. While Judge Haight partially agreed, he also vowed to hold in contempt any police official who violated the rules. “The Police Department has no interest in people’s First Amendment activity,” said Gail Donoghue, special counsel for the city’s Law Department. “When the Police Department polices public demonstrations, their concern is public disorder and public disorder alone.”

 
REDACT, APPEAL, REDACT
The Appellate Division on Thursday ruled that the redaction of personal information on the so-called 9/11 tapes by the New York City Fire Department, on behalf of the survivors of eight men who wished to preserve the privacy of their loved ones' final moments, “outweighs any countervailing public interest in disclosure." The decision in New York Times Company v. City of New York Fire Department was covered by The New York Law Journal and likely ends a long-running fight between the Times and the fire department over a Freedom of Information Law request filed in 2002 by reporter Jim Dwyer, which sought "any and all tapes and transcripts of any and all radio communications involving any FDNY personnel on Sept. 11, starting from 8:46 AM." Supreme Court Justice Richard F. Braun originally ordered a full release of the tapes, and was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals in March 2005. However, the tapes released by the city contained 30 redactions that hid specific callers. Although Justice Braun ordered the tapes released without the redactions, the case was controversially appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed yesterday. "At each juncture, FDNY has sought to protect the privacy interests of 9/11 victims' surviving family members in the release of tapes and transcripts of the victims' 911 calls made during the terrorist attack,” the unanimous panel wrote. “Here, it merely seeks to extend the redaction of information identifying the caller to a circumstance that it had not previously recognized.”