Retired justices and judges; per diem payments for attendance at mandatory judicial conferences.
Summary
SB1069 amends Virginia law governing compensation for retired justices and judges who are temporarily recalled to service. Under the bill, recalled retired justices, judges, State Corporation Commission members, and Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission members continue to receive reimbursement for actual expenses and a $400 per diem for each day they actually sit, excluding travel time. The bill also adds a separate provision for retired justices and judges eligible for recall to receive a per diem rate, set by the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, for attending mandatory judicial conferences.
The measure further directs the Office of the Executive Secretary to study whether recalled retired judges should instead be paid an hourly rate for time necessarily spent performing service when they are not actually sitting. That office must report findings and recommendations to the chairs of the Senate and House Courts of Justice Committees by October 1, 2025. The bill’s first enactment is contingent and will not take effect unless reenacted by the 2026 General Assembly session, indicating that the compensation change is being tested or deferred pending further legislative review.
Impact
The bill amends Code of Virginia § 17.1-327, affecting compensation rules for retired judicial officers and certain commission members who are recalled to service. It creates or clarifies a per diem payment for mandatory judicial conference attendance for retired judges eligible for recall and preserves existing expense reimbursement and per diem for days actually sitting. It also initiates a study that could lead to future changes in how non-sitting service time is compensated, potentially affecting judicial administration and state payroll practices.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and moved through both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each stage. Committee and floor actions show no recorded opposition in the available history, and the House and Senate agreed to amendments without dissent. Overall, the sentiment around the bill is favorable, suggesting the compensation adjustment for retired judges was viewed as a routine or administrative matter rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little visible contention in the available record, but the main policy question embedded in the bill is whether retired judges who are recalled should be paid only a per diem for sitting and conference attendance or also an hourly rate for other necessary service time. The bill does not immediately adopt the hourly-rate approach; instead, it directs a study by the Supreme Court’s Executive Secretary, which suggests some uncertainty about the appropriate compensation structure. Any future debate would likely center on cost, fairness, and how to value non-sitting judicial work.