At just about any other time, the retirement announcement of the chief justice of the state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would pass without much notice. Few people in the state know the names of the judges on the state's top court. But with Chief Justice Ralph Cappy it's different.

Cappy, 64, who announced this week that he would retire at the end of the year rather than stand for a retention vote in 2009, is best known as an architect of the controversial pay-raise package of 2005 that sharply raised the salaries of judges and legislators. The public outcry over the unexpected vote for large legislative and judicial pay raises at 2 a.m., just hours before lawmakers left Harrisburg for summer recess, caused the legislature to pass a bill several months later that repealed the pay raises. Legal challenges to that repeal were raised, and the state's highest court ruled, with Cappy recusing himself, that the pay raise for judges would remain.

It's worth noting that Cappy's replacement as chief justice, Ronald Castille, wrote the 2006 decision allowing judges to keep the pay raise. Since that time, however, Castille has criticized the way in which the legislature has passed some controversial legislation, including slot machine gambling.

Cappy, who has served 18 years on the Supreme Court, has been credited with modernizing the court in terms of technology and computerization. But despite that and other positive influences he has had on the court and the state judiciary, his legacy will be forever tied to the ill-fated pay raise that he defended in op-ed pieces published in newspapers across the state, including the Butler Eagle.

The issue of judicial pay and retention is important in terms of attracting and retaining quality judges across the state. But Cappy's efforts behind closed doors with legislative leaders to construct a massive pay boost for judges and lawmakers, without a warning to, or input from, the public, tainted his efforts on this legitimate issue.

Cappy's retirement announcement came as a surprise, and his stated reasons were to spend more time with his family and pursue personal interests. Cappy's retirement announcement acknowledged his role in the pay-raise controversy but made a point of declaring that that scandal and the risk of losing a retention election played no role in his decision.

Many voters, especially those who see a need for changes in Harrisburg, will be glad to see Cappy go. He has been rightly criticized for heading a court that looked the other way when legislators passed laws with little or no advance warning and without any public input — such as the slots law, pay-raise vote and the law exempting casinos from restrictions on when alcohol can be served.

Reformers maintain that one of the Supreme Court's roles is to counter or correct misconduct or abuse of power by another branch of government. Instead of forcing lawmakers to follow constitutional mandates regarding transparency in how laws are passed, the court turned away legal challenges and allowed the secretive practices to continue. Instead of stopping lawmakers from filing bogus expense reports known as unvouchered expenses, which appear to be in clear violation of constitutional provisions on when lawmakers are allowed to receive a pay raise, the court allowed the practice to continue for too long.

Cappy's retirement is an opportunity for the court to shift toward protecting the public from power-abusing lawmakers. The court's past practice of giving the legislature the benefit of the doubt cannot be justified, based on the experiences of recent years. New personnel on the court might enable the court to shift its bias away from lawmakers — and back to the state constitution and the public, which is where it belongs.