The County Board will address the proposed resolution to remove the Public Defender on Wednesday, May 7, 2008. All members are encouraged to take time off to attend the hearing, which will probably be scheduled for 10 am, but when it will actually be heard is another matter. The official agenda for the meeting is not yet out but can be found a few days before the hearing on the County website. Please do not confuse the County Board’s hearing with the hearing that will take place two days earlier. That is the hearing before Judge Riley of the Chancery Division in the case of Burnette v. Stroger. Please come out and show your support for fairness.
April 17th, 2008
The Cubs have an afternoon game in Cincinnati that day.
Can’t this be postponed?
April 17th, 2008
We need somebody to bring the words to ‘Kumbaya’!!!!!
We’ll sure impress the hell out of Todd and the Board!!!!!
April 17th, 2008
Aggravated White sox Fan Bob aka Ben Cardozo must be upset because Jenks blew a save in Baltimore tonight. I’m not speaking for the Board of Local 3315, but I think most all of our members favor an independent Public Defender… not one controlled by the Chief Judge or the Democratic Party or the County Board Chairman. Its unusual for a labor union to care about who the boss is… but this is an unusual situation and I think it perfectly appropriate to try to protect the office, if not Ed, from a takeover by Todd and friends. Cardozo well remembers the old days when promotions and transfers and salaries were often based on who your ward committeeman was. Lets not go there again.
Go Sox
April 17th, 2008
Here is a letter that was published in the Daily Law Bulletin today.
Letter to the Editor: County Board urged to scrap resolution to dismiss public defender
To the editor:
The Cook County Board of Commissioners is considering a resolution calling for the removal of Edwin A. Burnette as the public defender. According to Illinois law, the public defender may be removed by the president of the board ”only for good cause or dereliction of duty after notice and a hearing before the board.”
The proposed resolution contains several allegations. It is clear, however, that the primary concern is that Burnette recently filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of County Board President Todd H. Stroger’s interference with the operation of the public defender’s office.
The research of the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and the professional experience of the Chicago Council of Lawyers make it clear that Burnette is committed to bringing about constructive reform in our courts. Challenging the legality of Stroger’s actions concerning the operation of the office is not dereliction of duty. Rather, it is the action of a courageous individual fighting to meet the constitutional mandate of representing the indigent of Cook County.
It is important that the public defender be independent and not subject to political influence. This resolution is a clear political intrusion into what should be the independent administration of criminal justice in Cook County.
In its December 2007 report on the felony courts in Chicago, Chicago Appleseed described a public defender’s office that each year provides representation to tens of thousands of defendants, while its lawyers struggle with massive caseloads and limited resources. The recommendations in the report called on the County Board to provide needed resources so that the criminal justice system can function effectively and fairly.
Burnette cooperated with the evaluation of his office, and he is continuing to cooperate as Chicago Appleseed and the Council work to implement the recommendations. He is not the problem.
The sheer volume of cases in our system threatens to overwhelm Cook County judges, prosecutors and public defenders. Retaliating against Burnette’s lawsuit by seeking to remove him from office only highlights the need for a change in the way Stroger and the County Board view the criminal justice system.
It is time for Stroger and the County Board to cooperate with other officeholders and with advocates for reform to bring about a more effective system. We urge the commissioners to withdraw support for the resolution, and further urge Stroger to lead an effort to implement meaningful reform in the criminal justice system that will be economically and socially beneficial to the residents of the county.
Mary E. Anderson
President, Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
Daniel T. Coyne
President, Chicago Council of Lawyers
Malcolm C. Rich
Executive Director, Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and Chicago Council of Lawyers
April 18th, 2008
You can bet that the membership of the Chicago Council of Lawyers voted in masse for Forrest Claypool in the Primary against John Stroger, who was incapacited with a soon to be fatal stroke.
Instead of cluttering my mailbox with the Council 31 newspaper where AFSCME pretends to be some sort of political powerhouse, maybe these hat in hand Officers of the Union nationally and locally, who WE DON’T GET TO VOTE FOR in this nice little Soviet they have set up, ought to stop their knee jerk endorsements of such utter buffoons like Rod Blagojevich and Todd Stroger.
April 18th, 2008
I think people forget that it is Cook County Board President Todd Stroger who will
choose the next Public Defender in March of 2009 when Ed’s contract runs out.
Do you really think he will pick someone he can’t control?
April 19th, 2008
Anyone who has ever had a palm card thrust into their hand while walking into a polling place perfectly understands Todd Stroger wants his own loyalist as Public Defender.
Why else would there be a hearing on May 7 to remove Burnette based upon ludicrous accusations?
April 19th, 2008
The point that many people seem to be missing about the seriousness of the upcoming removal hearing is the chilling affect it may have on our ability to do our job. In the past, the late John Stroger gave us a budget and left us alone. The overall recklessness of his son’s administration is disturbing to me not just as an Assistant Public Defender, but as a taxpayer and registered voter.
As attorneys we should be seeking autonomy from county control. Our office exists as a constitutional mandate. Stroger has no other option but to fund us and allow us to operate the way we were intended to by statute.
That is the intent and spirit of the lawsuit that Ed Burnette filed and our Union joined. Keep in mind that Stroger’s current move to remove the Public Defender is blatant retaliation. If any first year law student can see that, certainly all of us should. That said, the County Board’s Resolution is a huge smack down to all of us. I have worked hard in this office for the last ten years, and I have had the privilege to work with PDs who gave their lives to this work. I worked hard to get my education and my license which I guard jealously. I am insulted to have my professional abilities besmirched in this way by people who have no political sophistication. Quite frankly, so should all of you.
April 20th, 2008
I can’t wait to see the Daleys try and clean up Todd Stroger in the next 2 1/2 years.
They know if voters countywide say they are fed up and steamroll Todd out of a job, the Mayor’s Office is up the next year.
Incumbents don’t like fired up voters…in fact, they like very few voters.
April 21st, 2008
According to the Public Defender Act, the decision about who shall be appointed as Public Defender is not left up to Stroger alone but must be approved by the County Board.
The appointment is for a six year term only. It is my understanding that Ed Burnette’s term will expire in less than a year regardless of the outcome of the resolution and that the County Board may appoint whomever it chooses come April 1, 2009.
Perhaps the most pragmatic course is to focus on influencing the Commissioners on the process for selecting the Public Defender for the April 1, 2009 appointment rather than diverting our energies to fighting over a resolution which at best will have only a short term impact.
Sec. 3-4004.2. Qualifications of Public Defender and terms of employment in counties over 1,000,000. In counties with a population over 1,000,000, the following qualifications and terms of employment shall apply:
(a) The president shall select as Public Defender only a person with the following qualifications: an attorney whose practice of law has clearly demonstrated experience in the representation of persons accused of crime; who has been licensed to practice law in this State or in another state for at least 5 years; who has had administrative experience; and who is dedicated to the goals of providing high quality representation for eligible persons and to improving the quality of defense services generally.
(b) The Public Defender shall devote full time to the duties of the public defender system and shall not otherwise engage in the practice of law.
(c) The Public Defender once approved by the Board shall serve for 6 years and may be removed by the President only for good cause or dereliction of duty after notice and a hearing before the Board. The effective date of this amendatory Act of 1991 shall be deemed the commencement of the term of the current public defender.
(d) The Public Defender’s compensation shall be set at a level that is commensurate with his qualifications and experience and professionally appropriate with the responsibility of the position. The Public Defender’s compensation shall be comparable with that paid to circuit court judges, but in no event shall be more than that of the State’s Attorney of the county.
55 ILCS 5/3-4004.2
April 22nd, 2008
Great post, Pragmatist…..
Rumor has it that Ed had meeting set up with County Commissioners in the past and simply blew them off.
You would think that SOMEONE……ANYONE in the ‘Downtown Brain Trust’ would have made damn sure Burnette was at those meetings to protect HIMSELF and US!!!!
This is a POLITICAL TOWN!!!!!
A lot of the practice of Law is POLITICAL……How else to you cut a damned deal in Court?????
Other than the fact that Burnette is well liked personally, there is little reason to go to the County Board meeting.
The County Board memebers are going to look at Burnette and his ‘brain trust’ like rubes who arrived in a cabbage truck.
April 22nd, 2008
Ed had MEETINGS…set up…plural……over a year ago…..with various Commissioners that he somehow missed.
To put it in PD lingo…..May 7 seems like a VOP Hearing for failure to report….plus the fact Todd wants him gone.
April 22nd, 2008
As an assistant public defender, I will attend the board meeting
because I want to hear the evidence presented by both the
President, and the Public Defender on the issue of removal for
good cause and dereliction of duty. The commissioners have the
right to cross examine the Public Defender on these issues and
to demand accountability for the taxpayer’s moniesaccording to
the Public Defender Act.
Attendence at the meeting should not be view as endorsment for
either the President or the Public Defender but should be
viewed as a fact finding mission for the collective bargaining
unit.
April 22nd, 2008
Ingrid, are you sure this hearing is going to be a “fact finding mission?” I don’t know the commissioners, but I have read the allegations that they signed against Ed. Anyone who would sign that nonsense is an ignoramus. The allegations equate to retaliation against Ed because he tried to protect the position of Cook County Public Defender through a lawsuit. And, the back story is likely that certain commissioners are trying to get their hands on patronage positions in the public defender’s office. Getting Ed out would be a necessary means to that end.
Ed’s not perfect, none of us are, but I will take Ed over any of these signee/commissioners anyday of the week. Dereliction of duty? Ed? Come on let’s get real. I don’t see that at all. I have not been around that long, but long enough to see a guy who has been walking a tight rope trying to do his job. Hence the lawsuit from Ed. I think we should all cross our fingers and hope that Ed wins.
I really want to hear what our union’s Executive Board has to say on 4/28/08 about what action is being required from us. As for now, I plan on attending the county board hearing.
April 23rd, 2008
Thank you to the Chicago Council of Lawyers for their letter. Thank you Monique for your thoughtful & cogent comment, but you know that you’re my girl. Thank you Dan for keeping the faith. Ingrid, get a clue.
Don’t you think that the resolution will be heard in closed session as are all personal matters and as is indicated in Item #88 in the link in Comment #6 in the Blog under “Proposed Resolution Concerning the ….. of the Public Defender?
April 23rd, 2008
One more thing: Justice Cardozo if you won’t reveal your true identity, would you at least proof your comments for sense? My goodness! Are you under the influence when you comment?
April 24th, 2008
I agree with the Honorable Justice Cardozo that the reaction to this appears to be based more on personal feelings of loyalty for Ed Burnette than on a dispassionate assessment of where the actual interests of our local lie.
Is it a good idea to potentially alienate some of the same Commissioners who passed the ordinance to recognize our union for the sake of a Public Defender who could be replaced anyway in less than a year? Wouldn’t we be better off advocating the Commissioners to establish a search committee for the next Public Defender?
Many of the people commenting on this issue assume that an attack on Ed Burnette is an attack on us. However, the substance of some of the resolutions does not support that point of view. And before we leap in, we should take a hard look at just what interest we would have in the allegations against Ed.
The first allegation in the resolution is that Ed did not make the attorneys at Juvenile Court work enough hours. Whining to the County Board that we shouldn’t have to work hard would display, in Justice Cardozo’s words, all the political acumen of rubes on a cabbage truck.
The second allegation is that Ed failed to fill vacant Grade III and Grade IV slots by promotion and thus failed to create room for more entry level hires. It also alleges that Ed converted 5 Grade I positions into clerical positions. If these allegations are true, we should be leading the charge against Ed instead of defending him.
The third allegation involves failure to dock the supervisors for furloughs. We do not represent the supervisors and this is not our issue.
The fourth concerns the lack of appropriate discipline for a support staff member who was arrested for delivery of marijuana to the office. Again, we do not represent the support staff and this is not our issue.
The fifth allegation is that Ed is violating the Shakman consent decree. The Shakman consent decree protects all of our union members from political discrimination. If the allegations of violation are true, it would not be in our interest to argue that the Public Defender need not respect the constitutional rights of his own employees.
The sixth and final allegation is that Ed misled the Board with respect to the lawsuit he filed. From many of the posts, it appears that there is a misconception about the actual claims for relief in the Complaint filed by Ed. The Complaint was not filed in federal court and does not seek any relief for our caseloads or relief on behalf of our clients. Instead, the complaint was filed in Chancery for injunctive relief and the bulk of those claims involve the proposed furloughs for supervisors. Again, we do not represent the supervisors and this is not our issue.
In short, there are potential political downsides to getting involved here and very little of the matters raised in the resolution either involve our members or could be construed as an attack on our members.
April 24th, 2008
Could it be construed as an attack on our ability to efectively represent our clients?
April 25th, 2008
I think the April 4th posting by the Executive Board addresses many of the issues that Pragmatist raises in comment 17.
Notably, that post stated:
To say that the public defender is responsible for the lack of staffing is insulting. Human Resources, under President Stroger, controls when someone is hired by the office. (See April 4th posting on this website).
Pragmatist, I like your search committee idea, but isn’t there a problem with advocating for a search committe now? Isn’t the first question that the prospective applicant will ask is: “what happened to the last Public Defender?” Yikes! Then you have to explain about how Ed got fired because he filed a lawsuit, wanted independence to do his job, complained about people on the payroll that didn’t actually work for the office (ingrate that he is), and then when he worked with major universities about fixing problems in the system, he got blamed for the problems, and, oh yeah, there were 34 cases that were on the docket for more than five years that just had to be all Ed’s fault and Ed’s alone. After the applicant picks his or her jaw up from the floor, you can go over the benefits package.
Yes, a search committee may a good idea, but not now. No high quality person would want this job under the current circumstances. A political hack would want the job however, and I fear he may already be hand-picked. So, if we don’t stop the commissioners from doing what they are doing, even if it aggravates them or alienates them, as Pragmatist contends, what will we get? A political hack as the next Public Defender, who is in the current administration’s pocket.
That’s how this proposal to remove Ed hurts us, if you need a good reason to fight for it. So I hope you join us and fight this proposal to remove Ed, buy some time at least, keep Ed under his current contract (he probably ain’t gonna get another one), and then conduct a search for a new PD, with input from the union, the current supervisors, and possibly the judiciary. We might be able to convince a high quality candidate under those circumstances.
Lastly, it is not out of loyalty to Ed Burnette that I make my comments. I hardly know Ed. He strikes me as a competent and friendly chap though. But I really do appreciate his showing of loyalty to this office, by filing a lawsuit and trying to keep political and other influence from making the hiring and firing decisions in the public defender’s office. And, if you think about it, Ed did not have to file this lawsuit and make it so hard on himself. He could have played ball with Stroger. Instead he chose to fight for the office, and that is admirable. That takes guts, so I will give him credit for that.
I think Stroger hitting Ed is the same as Stroger hitting us because we all have to work together. On that note, I urge you, Pragmatist, to be “pragmatic” and come to the meeting on 4-28-08.
April 26th, 2008
Why should anyone bother to come to the meeting? When the Board sends out a message urging everyone to take a half day off work to go to a meeting to support Ed, it’s obvious that the decision has already been made and that the “General Membership Meeting” is designed to be nothing more than a pro-Ed pep rally. I wonder if the Board has bothered to talk to those attorneys who were laid off and those attorneys who have been arbitrarily denied promotions to see if they feel that Ed filing a lawsuit for the benefit of his supervisors alone has transformed him into the champion of all of the union members.
April 26th, 2008
Dear Pragmatist,
We called the meeting for the purpose of allowing the membership to air it’s views on the matter and to ask questions. Membership meetings are not a new thing. I don’t how long you’ve been a Public Defender assuming you are one at all. So instead of proselytizing behind an alias, why don’t you show your face Monday 4p.m., auditorium of Juvenile Court, and report back to us what your Commissioner said when you called him or her about this matter. I’d be more than glad to tell you what my Commissioner’s response was when I phoned his office several weeks ago about the issue.
I respect anyone’s right to have an opinion, but your opinion should be rooted in fact. Have you been down to the County Building and looked at the job postings. Let me know if you see any for Assistant Public Defender, Lane 1.
April 26th, 2008
Pragmatist, thanks for your response, and I too hope to see you at the meeting. You know, you could just come to the meeting and tell us more about your search committe idea. How does the search committee work? Who is on the search committee? How do we select members for the committee? Where do we draw the members from? What should we be looking for in a new PD? Should the new PD be someone who has experience with the office? Or an outsider? Should we look to someone from out of state? Or in state? Please come to the meeting and tell us all about it. Also, will you lead the committee or someone else? Do you have someone in mind to lead the committee?
Also, what is your answer to my comment that if we just let this happen to our office, we are likely going to be stuck with a political hack as the next PD? You don’t respond to that. You simply say that no one should bother to go to the meeting. I am assuming, you like me, would want a high-quality PD (hence this whole search committee idea that you came up with). You don’t want somebody hand-picked by politicians looking to add to their patronage army, do you?
Think about it or take a hard look at it, as you say in comment 17. This whole ordeal has been probably pretty embarrassing to Ed (i.e., being accussed of dereliction of duty in the press). Could not the same thing happen to the next PD too? Assuming the next PD wants to act with some independence, as Ed expressed that he did. With this kind of track record for Stroger and the county commissioners, would a really good candidate want this job? If Stroger and the 9 who signed this proposal can get away with this garbage (and it is clearly garbage), wouldn’t high-quality applicants be cautious about accepting this job? If they are cautious about accepting the PD position, what will we end up with? A second-rater? A lackey? A hack?
Ed is not the champion of all union members, but that’s not his job either. That could be your job though.
My position is that at least Ed let me do my job within reason. He let me be a lawyer. Would a second-rater hand-picked by Stroger do that? Would a lackey do that? How about one of the hacks he has placed in other positions? Could the back door to this office be opened up to a patronage army of workers because the new PD turns a blind eye to it? What is the damage that they could do to the office? Your career? Our clients? What’s your response?