Louisiana Supreme Court justices are divided over a state legislative auditor’s conclusion that administrative expenses for a supplemental compensation fund for judges were incorrectly paid using state general revenues.
In a report published last month, Auditor Mike Waguespack concluded that the high court may have violated state law because the reimbursement of those expenses came from state general fund revenues rather than the Judges’ Supplemental Compensation Fund. The latter fund doesn’t receive taxpayer money but depends on fees on civil lawsuits filed in all jurisdictions.
State law mandates that the JSCF be used only for supplementary pay for judges and commissioners, certain retirement fund costs and associated administrative expenses, including travel reimbursements, according to the auditor’s report.
The auditor’s report calls on the high court’s Office of Judicial Administrator or the JSCF board to consult with the state Legislature to clarify the intent of the law pertaining to payment of the JSCF’s administrative expenses.
“Until intent is clarified, the JSCF board should reimburse the Judicial Administrator for the costs of administering the JSCF and should make provisions for administrative expenses before the monthly payment of supplemental compensation to judges and commissions …” the Sept. 20 auditor’s report states.
For fiscal year 2023, the administrative costs handled by the court’s Office of Judicial Administrator amounted to $51,000, according to the report.
“We will follow up to see what they have done to resolve this issue,” Beth Davis, the auditor’s director of financial audit services, told the Louisiana Record. “...We normally do an engagement on the Supreme Court every two years.”
Davis noted that the response to the audit by the seven Supreme Court justices was not unanimous. Chief Justice John Weimer agreed with auditor Waguespack about the obligations of the JSCF.
“The JSCF board, a legislatively created body, should pay, and the Supreme Court should accept reimbursement for ‘necessary and associated administrative expenses,’ as stated in your recommendation,” Weimer said in a letter to the auditor.
But the six other justices emphasized that the court and the auditor disagree on the meaning of “necessary and associated administrative expenses” within the state statute and “whether the work performed by court employees is part of the court’s overhead (and hence is neither quantifiable nor reimbursable), or whether an obligation exits to quantify and reimburse the employees’ work done on behalf of the JSCF and its board.”
The justices added that the Office of Judicial Administrator would provide information to state lawmakers interested in clarifying the reimbursement language in the law pertaining to the judicial sector’s funding.
“The court has transmitted the legislative auditor’s findings and the Supreme Court’s official response to the JSCF board,” a letter from the six justices to the auditor says. “Notably, the Louisiana Supreme Court has advised the JSCF board that no reimbursements are due to the court.”
The state audit also concluded that the court overpaid judges in travel reimbursements for lodging costs by a total of $1,828. The court responded that the overpayment occurred during a time when a position whose duties include travel oversight was vacant and that a corrective action plan has been implemented.