We have received many inquiries from assistant public defenders about the real number of layoffs that our Office is facing. In response to those inquiries, we have explained that the final number is uncertain right now, and that we do not want to give out inaccurate information on such an important matter.
Despite a Suntimes claim several days ago that the accurate number of layoffs in our Office is 10, the fact is that no one knows the final number at this point- not the Union, not Mr. Burnette, and not the Commissioners. This is because the budget process in not over. In fact, the Tribune reported the following today: “The new numbers are not final because some figures, such as those for the public defender’s office, still must be fully reconciled, budget officials said.”
As soon as we have a reliable and accurate number, we will report that number here. As we have throughout this process, we will continue to fight for every position possible for assistant public defenders.
February 28th, 2007
Anyone know what “fully reconciled” means or who the “budget officials” are?
February 28th, 2007
Someone should ask Mickey Ciokajlo what that means and who they are.
March 2nd, 2007
This is of interest:
(http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/279543,021NWS5.article)
March 2nd, 2007
From this morning’s Sun-Times article entitled “Prosecutors: County budget cuts let crooks off the hook”:
“The public defender’s office is likely to lose only 11 lawyer positions, according to the union that represents them.”
So is that true? Or not true?
And, if true, why am I reading about it in the Sun-Times, and not here?
March 2nd, 2007
It is quite possible that Eric Herman (the sun-times reporter) did not recently contact the union for a quote but relied on previous newspaper reports where 11 pd’s were mentioned as being layed off. Eric Herman could have relied on Dave Erickson’s reports of what he heard. The article seems to be nothing more than a press release from the State’s Attorney’s office.
March 2nd, 2007
I just logged onto Suffredin’s website and found all of the amendments in a pdf file on his site. The amendments passed around midnight are on pages 6 and 7. (Not all of the line items pertain to the Public Defender’s Office.) The amendments passed after midnight are on the last two pages — 69 and 70.
March 3rd, 2007
Okay, I looked at the suffredin.org site and now just talking about supervisors and pds , not the support staff or the investigators. The original Stroger budget cut no supervisors and 36 pds and made us all part-time. That’s what it says anyway.
So you look at pages 6 and 7. First, it cuts 2 of the positions currently held by Furmin, Lauren, and Xavier.
Then, it cuts 2 frontline supervisors.
But pages 6 and 7 put back 15 pds (the grade 1s)
But it also cut five grade IV pd positions.
It also budgets us all full-time again.
So those changes alter cuts Strogers made and reduces the layoff number to 21 pds (grade 1) and increases the layoff number to 5 pds (grade 4).
But, in pages 69 and 70 the 5 grade 4s are restored and 10 more (grade 1) pds are put back.
That would leave a total of 11 pds cut (grade 1)(the math being 36-15-10 equals 11), 2 supervisors, and some cuts at the top. If in the intervening time some pds have left to find other jobs or retire or quit the business, we would even have less of our less senior pds “actually” cut.
That’s how I see it. So I guess after things are “fully reconciled” by the “budget officials” we may know differently. But in any event, it seems that the Board contemplated that at most 11 pd positions cut and 2 frontline supervisor positions would be cut. That’s the budget they passed.
March 3rd, 2007
Dan:
For the most part, I agree with your analysis of the budget.
However, I do not believe that 2 “frontline” supervisors are at risk of getting the ax. If you look closely at the “Act/Sub” and “Code” columns on page 6, you can see that the commissioners intended to cut a D05 and a D03 from the “Administration” portion of the original budget. (See the original budget on the county’s website in a pdf file on pages 50-59 where “Administration” is coded 01 and “Administrative and Clerical” is coded 01.) There are D05 and D03 “supervisors” who work in the “Administration,” and I by no means would call them “frontline” supervisors.
I also believe that the ivestigators and investigator supervisors are okay. The original budget shows a total of 76 positions appropriated in 2006 and 73 positions in 2007. I believe that the 3 positions which were eliminated were unfilled positions.
Figuring out the status of our support staff is difficult. Whatever cuts were made in the original budget must stand because none of them were restored in the amendments. Complicating the matter is the fact that our office was lumped together with other offices under the Bureau of Administration on page 6. Determining what office many of those positions were cut from is difficult. Clearly, our office does not have any Environmental Control Engineer III positions, but we certainly do have Administrative Assistant V positions. That begs the question — did more support staff or lower level administrators/managers get slashed? I am now beginning to fear for our librarian because there were only 2 Librarian Vs in the county (i.e., you can see that if you go onto cookemployees.com), and the other one was in the Department of Health.
And restoring 25 Level 1 attorney positions instead of a combination of Level 1 and Level 2 attorney positions is funky. I bet our union is grappling with that issue. Maybe that is something that needs to be “fully reconciled.”
March 12th, 2007
When will the budget be finalized so that Level 1 PDs will receive the promised step increase once they become Level 2. All raises were frozen by Bobby Steele about 5 months ago.