|
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid your an-
swer may be confusing. You are speaking
then of the retired judge? I thought there
was a distinction drawn in the last two
sentences between the judge removed and a
judge retired.
DELEGATE MUDD: You are right. My
answer was incorrect. Only in the matter
of removal would the court have the right
to impair his retirement privileges.
THE CHAIRMAN: And in event of re-
tirement either voluntary or involuntary,
the judge would have retirement rights
accorded by law?
DELEGATE MUDD: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, as a result of the question, I find my-
self a bit confused and would like clarifica-
tion, if I may ask the Chairman Mudd.
I had presumed that this section is not
explicitly disciplinary, but that it also
deals with the question of illness, which a
judge may or may not recognize. On the
basis of this assumption, if it be correct, I
would like to ask whether or not an en-
forced retirement for illness circumstances
might apply just as the last sentence says,
and without putting any disability upon
the judge's right to draw pension.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you mis-
understood the last answer of Delegate
Mudd. He stated unequivocally that the
last sentence provided that the judge who
was retired, whether voluntarily or invol-
untarily, had whatever pension rights he
had under the law.
Are there any further questions? Dele-
gate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Delegate Mudd,
just so we would be clear, in line 15 you
refer to "spouse". Was that intended? You
refer to "spouse" instead of the word "de-
pendent".
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Is that section
5.25, line 15?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE MUDD: Well, are there
any retirement benefits that might survive
to the dependent other than a surviving
spouse?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: My question was,
do we constitutionally limit this to the sur-
|
viving spouse, or do we want to allow a
flexibility and put in "surviving depend-
ent"?
DELEGATE MUDD: That was my
understanding because there is no pension
benefit that can now accrue other than to
a surviving spouse or retired judge.
THE CHAIRMAN: My recollection of
the memorandum, Delegate Mudd, and I
may be confusing this with something else
said in the Committee Report, was that
there was a deliberate intention to limit
retirement benefits to a removed judge to
his spouse. I may be wrong that that was
in the memorandum, but I thought it was.
^DELEGATE MUDD: I think we are
talking about two different things, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me restate the
question that I understand Delegate Grant
is asking: Under the present laws fixing
pensions, there are no pensions to depend-
ents of a judge other than a spouse, but
Delegate Grant is asking whether or not
the limitation in line 15 to surviving spouse
is intended to limit the pension granted to,
in the event of a removed judge, to his
spouse, even though the law should be
amended hereafter to provide pensions for
the dependents. Is that your question, Dele-
gate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: No, I do not think
that was the intention of the Committee.
If there are benefits, in other words, there
was no intention on the part of the Com-
mittee to penalize a retired judge, his sur-
viving spouse, or his dependents.
THE CHAIRMAN: We are talking
about removed judge.
DELEGATE MUDD: Removed judge;
then only with respect to a spouse, yes, I
think that was the intention of the Com-
mittee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: That answers my
question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Delegate L. Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Will Chair-
man Mudd yield to a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd, do
you yield to a question?
|
