Regarding the June 28 editorial “Nix this special deal”: It was never our intent that District Court judges be treated any differently under the pension changes than any of the other judges. What occurred was an error in the language in the budget, which was corrected with a trailer bill that passed both houses June 26 and was transmitted to the governor along with the budget.

When drafting the proposed pension changes for judges to the appropriate sections of law, staff had discovered that there was already a statute, RIGL §8-8-10, that showed District Court judges were entitled to a different and lower pension benefit than all other judges. Since this benefit was based on 75 percent of salary instead of the newly proposed 80 percent, District Court judges were exempted from the new changes. Briefing materials provided in support of the budget indicated this exemption.

However, the section of law in question was eventually found to conflict with two other statues, RIGL §8-3-7 and §8-3-8, that provide District Court judges pension benefits consistent with other judges. In fact, the 2008 Assembly reduced pension benefits for newly hired District Court judges along with all other judges in the 2008 session, at which time the conflicting statute should have been discovered and repealed. Unfortunately, it was not. Once it became clear that District Court judges would have enjoyed higher benefits than other judges, I had a trailer bill drafted to ensure that all new District Court judges are subject to the same benefit reductions as the other judges.

STEVEN M. COSTANTINO

Providence

The writer is chairman of the Rhode Island House Finance Committee.