Our Office received notice from President Todd Stroger that he plans on attempting to impose 4-day work weeks and 10-day furloughs. The Notice states the following in pertinent part:
As you know, Cook County is facing a severe budget crisis. I am writing to inform A.F.S.C.M.E. Local 3315 that Cook County will take the following actions that will effect members of A.F.S.C.M.E. Local 3315 employed in the Office of the Public Defender:
1. Effective March 5, 2007, no work week of any assistant public defender will exceed four (4) days, and ten (10) of the workweeks during the period between March 5, 2007, and the end of 2007will not exceed three (3) days.
2. Effective March 5, 2007, the salary of each assistant public defender will be reduced proportionately to reflect the reduced workweeks.
3. Effective as of the close of business on March 16, 2007, Cook County will lay off thirty-six assistant public defenders.
What does this mean? It means that Todd Stroger has notified us of his intent to impose forced dead time that amounts to a 24% reduction in pay, in addition to the layoffs.
What will be done about this? We have a Collective Bargaining Agreement that sets our wages and benefits during the duration of the contract. The notice from Todd Stroger evinces a clear intent to violate our CBA. AFSCME has already contacted the law firm that handles our labor litigation, and we will be working with them to determine the best legal route to take here. We have called a meeting of the Union Executive Board for Monday. We will keep you abreast of any new developments, and we will post our plan to combat this by early next week.
What should you do? Call Stroger or your commissioner and tell them about how the above cuts are going to bring the criminal justice system to a halt and how the taxpayers will pay more in the long run.
February 1st, 2007
Don’t worry everybody. Ed told everyone at Juvenile he has a secret plan to save everyone’s jobs.
February 2nd, 2007
Very funny!
February 2nd, 2007
Cook County PDs
As I have discussed before, Todd Stroger is forcing the Cook County Public Defender’s Office to make drastic cuts - both in number of employees and in wages. Here is what it comes down to:Our Office received notice from President Todd Stroger that he…
February 2nd, 2007
I believe in the “secret plan” just like I believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
February 2nd, 2007
I think Todd Stroger is using the media to get his message out that he is against taxes. It’s like being against crime, everyone is. Our office was played for a sucker because Ed gave the store away when he was scared with threats of unemployment, i.e., his unemployment. Todd simply cannot do what he has indicated he will do.
Here’s my two cents. First, we have a contract, which the board and the union bargained-for in good faith. Second, forget about the contract for a minute, we, as assistant public defenders our creatures of state statute who cannot have our salarys taken away or reduced by county officials. There is existing case law that would find that Todd Stroger’s indicated actions would be wholly unlawful because we assistant public defenders hold “public office.”
In People v. Majewski, 28 Ill. App. 3d 269 (1st Dist. 1975), the appellate court found that assistant public defenders hold “public office” because their positions are created by statute (the Public Defender Act) and because their positions are permanent. The appellate court further found that “in a county as large as Cook County, the demand for services of the public defender is so great as to insure the continued existence of the office.” Majewski, 28 Ill. App. 3d at 273. Thus, although an assistant public defender’s conduct may “render him liable to removal” . . . ” when the statute makes no deduction for absence or neglect of duty and the State takes no steps as a consequence of such absence or delinquency, we suppose it is the legal right of the officer to demand the full salary allowed him by law.” Majewski, 28 Ill. App. 3d at 273 (citing an older case). The Majewski case was cited later in Chief Judge of the Sixteenth Circuit v. the Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 178 Ill. 2d 333, 344 (1997) and remains good law.
By statute and by precedent (not to mention) by contract, Todd Stroger cannot take away the full salary we are legally entitled to as holders of permanent public office. The fact is we can be laid off pursuant to our contract and we can be removed for bad conduct, but absent such a contingency or such a removal we have a right to demand our full salary while we hold “public office.”
February 2nd, 2007
As a former union rep. I had to research the issue of full-time versus part-time APD employment. What I learned was that under Cook County ordinance, an employee is considered full time as long as they work 30 or more hours a week. Assistant Public Defenders are, and have been, salaried employees, not hourly employees. Our contract has always stated that our hours of employment are commensurate with the time necessary to complete our tasks. Arguably, then, we should be paid our current salaries regardless of the hours we are told to work. We should accumulate full-time benefits as long as we work at least 30 hours a week. However, our benefits could be reduced proportionately, but not our salaries, when our work hours are reduced to between half-time (20 hours) and full-time (30 hours)under Cook County ordinance. This position would be supported by the Majewski case cited by Dan Walsh as well.
February 2nd, 2007
The Majewski argument would apply to supervisors too because they are also assistant public defenders and thus hold “public office.”
February 2nd, 2007
I agree with Dan & Julie. I’ve looked high & low for some sort of authority for Stroger to be able to do this and couldn’t find any. On the other hand, if we aren’t fully prepared to go to war over this, what’s legal becomes a moot issue.
February 4th, 2007
As much as I respect Dan, I don’t think we can rely on the law to win this fight. This is all about politics and we all need to be speaking with our commissioners and making the penny wise pound foolish argument. We all need to call our commissioners daily and let them know that under the Todd plan:
1. the jail and detention center will become overcrowded in a matter of weeks;
2. the county will be sued over the overcrowding and by clients complaining about not having a full time lawyer;
3. We will be having paid furloughs as we will win in court and receive back pay for the time we did not work;
4. No one is being laid off or furloughed in the Clerk’s office despite the fact that they will have less to do and more time to do it when we are not in court;
5. There is plenty of fat at the highest levels in our office.
Also, we all need to join PEOPLE.
Bruce Mosbacher
847-470-7400
February 5th, 2007
Since this letter from Todd came out on Thursday I have not heard anything about our Union holding a meeting so that we can discuss details and possible plans of moving foward. What is going on?
February 5th, 2007
My understanding is that the union has already started the wheels rolling on this and are suppose to be meeting again on this today. I would keep checking this website for updates.
February 5th, 2007
I believe battles are won on several fronts simultaneously and successively. As attorneys we should know this.
At trial we attempt to create advantages with pre-trial motions to quash and suppress, motions in limine to bar certain evidence, etc., and we submit questions for potential jurors. During the trial we use objections, direct, cross-examination, rebuttal witnesses, etc. to get our theory of the case across and defeat that of the State. In closing, we remind the trier of fact of our theory of the case, the evidence that supports that, and explain how the State’s hypothesis is just that and not supported by the mass of evidence. If we lose, we prepare post-trial motions to not just preserve the defendant’s appellate rights, but actually attempt to demonstrate to the trial court that the errors we see have merit.
In the same manner, we should be fighting the battle to keep all assistant public defenders working and keep our hard-fought-for level of pay and benefits by using all means necessary: poltical and legal. There is no reason to abandon any remedy at this time in battle. In other words, Bruce’s suggestions and Dan’s suggestions are not antagonistic nor incompatible. Let us work together in all arenas to defeat this assault on the Constitution, indigent defendants and hard working assistant public defenders.
February 5th, 2007
I am too waiting on the union’s official response. I think we have good reps on the executive board and in our membership as to ways of fighting this. Calling each commissioner is a great idea as Bruce (and others on the exec board) have suggested. It has been my experience that, when I call Claypool’s office, they are very receptive to listening to me. Peraica’s office too wants to listen and hear from us. I have called them. I talked to Peraica’s office today about the Majewski case. They put me on hold and called Tony and asked me to email some information to them. The commissioners are thinking about nothing but the budget these days and want to lisent to you. Don’t be nervous just pick up the phone and call them.
My thought about the legalities of this thing that Todd was proposing could be used three ways.
First, it could be used to fight any action taken by the county to reduce or pay. Thus, we could get our back salary in a cause of action based not only on breach of contract but on a separation of powers argument as was found in Majewski.
Second, an injunction could be sought on the basis that Todd has no authority to take this action, if and when he ever tries to takes it. I am not sure whether we can construe this notice as having any binding authority yet.
Third, the commissioners could be put on notice that what Todd is proposing is wholly illegal. Thus, if they were to sign off on a 4-day work week plan/3-day work week plan that reduces our pay, they would be signing off on an illegal plan because they have no authority to reduce our pay either. Only Ed can do that, in cases where he has good cause.
This argument would be in addition to the labor relations board complaint that the union indicated it would be filing.
February 5th, 2007
I think we should attack Stroger on as many fronts as exist. That’s how you win a battle. You send in troops from every angle, apply pressure from all angles, and leave no escape route. We have the law on our side, we have the contract on our side, and we have the ear of the commissioners right now. I say throw everything we got at them.
February 5th, 2007
The actions to cut or reduce public defenders should be stopped for the following reasons, in addition to those above:
1. It is in excess of the President’s authority under the Code of Ordinances of Cook County Art II, sec. 2-42 and abrogates the power of the Cook County Commissioners, who alone vote and pass a budget;
2. It violates the Illinois Constitution, separation of powers between the Executive Branch/Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch in Art. II., sec. 1 because it limits the work week of officers of the court, Assistant Public Defenders, in violation of General Order No. 5, hours of court by Chief Judge Evans.
3. It subjects the County to sanctions for bad faith negotiation of a contract with the AFSCME local representing collective bargaining on behalf of Assistant Public Defenders at a time when the basis for the “cuts” was known to the County;
4. It subjects the County to quantum meruit lawsuits to reimburse Assistant Public Defenders for the time that they must work according to Rules of Professional Responsibility, at an hourly rate set by the Courts which is $75 to $134.20/hour.
5. It subjects the Cook County Public Defender system to being declared unconstitutional by Federal and State Judges for failure to adequately finance and provide required constitutional representation and availability of attorneys to their clients;
6. It exceeds home rule authority granted to Cook County by violating State law 55 ILCS 5/3-4006, with respect to Public Defenders and the authority of the Appointed Public Defender, Edwin Burnette;
7. It unduly burdens the public interest attorneys who are disproportionately affected by law school debt by greatly reducing their salary and laying them off -actions that directly are contrary to U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s Senate Bill S. 1322 designed to combat gang crimes and promote the retention of highly skilled prosecutors and public defenders.
8. It evidences a complete disregard of the working class, public employees, unions, and principles of equality and justice thereby threatening to change the perceived values and commitment to these values by the Democratic Party -unnecessarily undermining the Presidential bids of Democratic Party contenders.
9. In a larger context disbanding security and civilian protections of the citizens of Cook County by laying off public defenders, prosecutors, clerks and sheriffs will probably encourage warlord like violence on the streets of Chicago thereby threatening our attempts to be a world class city and endangering Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics.
February 5th, 2007
Chris: Not a single employee of the Clerk’s office is being laid off per Commissioner Claypool’s interesting letter to the editor in Sunday’s Tribune. Otherwise, your post is right on. How can I get some of the stuff you must be smokin?
Bruce
February 8th, 2007
Florida is watching you. Public Defenders are the last line of defense and eliminating them is INSANE.