Cook County Public Defenders Blog

As we enter into the second half of 2008, it seems like a good time to pause and address some issues of concern to the membership. 

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
In order to gear up for our next contract, I have asked Arlene Floren, a steward at CIVIL, to chair the survey committee.  She will be in charge of creating a survey so the local can assess the issues that are important to the membership.  Your participation in the survey (which may be online) is vital to the local leadership having an accurate understanding of the things that are important to the members.  If you have thoughts on what should be in the survey, please contact Sister Floren at CIVIL.As you know, the current contract expires November 30, 2008.  It’s a shame that even three and a half years into the contract, the County has not lived up to its obligation of printing it for distribution to the membership.  This website, in a previous posting, has a red-lined version for your perusal but it doesn’t have a pay grid.  The last available pay grid can be found at the County website in the appendix to the budget.  That grid, however, is the pay scale in effect as of 12/1/07.

RETRO CHECKS
Speaking of pay grids, where is that retro check?  If I had a dollar for each time this month that I heard the word retro, I could probably fill up the gas tank on my car.  The rumor was that it would come with the paycheck we got today on the 30th of May.  Obviously, that didn’t happen and each call I have made to the Comptroller’s office has gone unanswered.  I will say this much: we will get the retro and we will litigate before the appropriate tribunal our demand for interest on the retro.  What more can I say?

1% AFSCME PAY PLAN INCREASE
And when you voted for or against the last contract ratification, you will remember that we were to get an extra 1% pay increase on top of the 2.75% increase that is to go into effect after the first full pay period after 6/1/08.  This was an attempt to offset the additional burden we will be carrying for health  insurance that also goes into effect the same day.  As I mentioned in a previous posting, the County is saying they didn’t TA(tentative agreement) that pay plan - even though they presented it to us and are agreeing to all other AFSCME local’s pay plans.  This is unacceptable and is the subject of, as yet, an unscheduled arbitration.  But the arbitrator has been selected.

BURNETTE V. STROGER
Judge Riley heard arguments in the motion to dismiss filed by President Stroger today and decided to keep the suit alive.  The only count that was dismissed in its entirety is the count having to do with injunctive relief for the job terminations and layoffs.  The prayer for relief for count 1 asked for back-pay and reinstatement of laid off attorneys.  While all members who were laid off were recalled, the back-pay issue is still one that we are pursuing.  The pursuit, though, is via our intervenor petition and complaint.  That has now been placed on a breifing schedule with the next status date set for 7/21/08.  In short, this case is not even close to being over.

CPD SCANDAL ON 60 MINUTES
For those who have been following the Chicago Police Department’s SOS unit’s problems, you are no doubt aware that Katie Couric will be airing an interview with a crooked cop on CBS’s news magazine 60 minutes.  The broadcast will be on Channel 2 on Sunday, 6/1/08 at 6pm.  You can hear a simulcast on WBBM AM 780.Watch the show.  You may see someone you have cross-examined before.  But this time you will not only see a cop admit he lied – but tell how he learned how to do so from his supervisors. In Solidarity, K. S. Galhotra

Dear brothers and sisters, please keep in mind the limited amount of tickets available for the 9/3/08 Astros at Cubs game with a special pre-party in the upper deck.  Remember, the money we raise (above and beyond the cash laid out for tickets and party) goes to fund the three $2000 scholarships we give to law students who clerk for us  each year.  Get the  cubs/astros game flyer here.

The Chicago Tribune reported on May 29, 2008, that private law firms are facing attorney layoffs as a result of slow business in today’s difficult economic times. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-thu_sonnenschein-law-firmmay29,0,7316409.story  However, there are some important differences between layoffs in the private sector and layoffs in the Public Defender Office: 1) in the private sector layoffs may mean less attorneys but there are correspondingly fewer clients to represent whereas layoffs in the Public Defender Office means less attorneys but no reduction in the number of clients who need our help, and 2) attorneys facing layoff in the private sector have no seniority or recall rights.

Day Reporting Time Counts!The Illinois Supreme Court affirms the Appellate Courts’ decision in  People v Beachem, 374 Ill App 3d 145, that our clients are entitled to time credit for days spent in the sheriff’s day reporting program. (No. 104976 5/22/08). Read a pdf version of the opinion as posted on the Supreme Court Website by clicking here. 

We are not the only Public Defender office in the country to have to fight for our jobs and adequate numbers of attorneys to represent the thousands of indigent clients in need.  Public Defenders in Minnesota are now facing the same budget issues we have faced the last several years: http://www.startribune.com/local/19160754.html.  We can only hope that someone there will stand up for the front-line attorneys and their clients.

We have been patiently waiting for the County to provide us with copies of our current collective bargaining agreement so we can distribute it to the membership.  The contract was ratified in June of 2006 and expires in November of this year.  But the language regarding contract printing in the signed contract doesn’t have any teeth:

Section 14.11. Contract Printing:The County agrees to arrange for the printing of this Agreement in such numbers so as to provide a copy for every attorney currently in the office and those likely to be hired with while this Agreement is in effect.

Needless to say, it doesn’t say when itneeds to be printed.

In the meantime, we are providing the “redlined” version here for our members to review.  Just click this link : 2004-2008 contract

Here is the text of the complaint filed by Council 31 in the Burnette v. Stroger matter:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31

vs.

TODD STROGER

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff complains against Defendant as follows:

1. The Plaintiff in this action is Council 31 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (”AFSCME Council 31″). Council 31 is a statewide labor organization representing over 70,000 members in the State of Illinois. Council 31 represents several hundred employees in the Office of the Cook County Public Defender (”the Public Defender”), including those in the classifications of Assistant Public Defender I, II, III and IV. Council 31 also represents investigators and other support staff employees of the Public Defender whose services are essential for the Office to implement its statutory mission.

2. The employees represented by AFSCME have designated Council 31 to be their exclusive bargaining representative with respect to the wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. AFSCME Council 31 therefore has standing to bring this lawsuit on their behalf.

3. The Assistant Public Defenders represented by Plaintiff AFSCME are responsible for representing indigent defendants who have been accused of crimes and in certain civil matters. Accordingly, the Assistant Public Defenders represented by Plaintiff AFSCME who work for the Public Defender handled approximately three hundred thousand felony and misdemeanor cases for poor defendants last year. The Assistant Public Defenders represented by AFSCME are organized into approximately 15 different divisions and work out offices in Chicago, Markham, Bridgeview, Skokie, Maywood, and Rolling Meadows. Similarly the investigators employed by the Public Defender and represented by AFSCME handled over 150,000 assignments last year.

4. The Office of the Public Defender is an independent agency within Cook County government. It is currently headed by Edwin A. Burnette. The powers and obligations of the Office and of the Public Defender are defined in 55 Illinois Compiled Laws, Section 5/3-4000 et. seq. In particular, 55 ILCS 5/3-4008.1 provides that the “compensation of and the appropriate number of assistants, clerks and employees [in the Office of the Public Defender] shall be fixed by the County Board and paid out of the County Treasury.”

5. The Defendant in this action is Todd Stroger. Stroger is the President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. As President he has the responsibility to implement the annual budget enacted by the Board of Commissioners and to properly administer several departments in Cook County, including the Office of the Public Defender.

6. The 2007 budget enacted by the County Board of Commissioners appropriated funds for 465 Assistant Public Defender I, II, III and IV positions in the Office of the Public Defender.

7. Immediately after the appropriation measure was enacted, Defendant Stroger withheld funding for 34 positions within the Office of the Public Defender. These positions included 13 Assistant Public Defenders represented by AFSCME, 4 Assistant Public Defenders who were supervisors and/or managers and 17 support staff. This refusal to honor the appropriation ordinance caused the layoff of 13 Assistant Public Defenders and 13 support staff. These layoffs were illegal because they contravened the budget appropriations measure enacted by the Cook County Board of Commissioners. These layoffs were implemented in April 2007.

8. In addition to causing the layoffs set forth in the preceding paragraph, Defendant Stroger has refused to allow the Public Defender to fill vacant positions. The result has been that the total number of attorneys in the office has decreased by 42 positions since the end of 2006. This number includes 32 lawyers who are in the classifications represented by AFSCME and 10 supervisor/managers. Defendant Stroger’s refusal to allow the filling of vacant positions has also resulted in a decrease in the number of investigators and support staff.

9. The impact of the decrease in the number of attorneys has been to increase the caseloads of the remaining Assistant Public Defenders. Consequently, the caseloads of the Assistant Public Defenders now greatly exceed the recommended caseloads for Public Defenders as established by recognized standard setting agencies such as the American Bar Association. The Assistant Public Defenders assigned to felony courtrooms now have caseloads which average 60% more than the caseloads recommended by national standards. The Assistant Public Defenders assigned to misdemeanor courtrooms now have caseloads which average more than 400% than the caseloads recommended by national standards.

Count I

(Relief for Illegal Layoffs)

This Count is brought by AFSCME on behalf the Assistant Public Defenders and the support staff employees of the Public Defender for their unlawful layoff. AFSCME realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 9 above as Paragraphs 1-9 of this Count. It seeks reinstatement and damages for the support staff employees who are still laid off from the Public Defender and damages in the form of back pay for the support staff and the Assistant Public Defenders who have now been recalled to work.

10. The decision of Defendant Stroger to withhold the money appropriated by the County Board for the Office of the Public Defender caused the layoffs of 13 Assistant Public Defenders and 13 support staff employees. The actions of Defendant Stroger contravened the appropriations measure passed by the Cook County Board of Commissioners and state law.

11. All of the Assistant Public Defenders represented by AFSCME and all but 2 of the support staff represented by AFSCME who have been laid off have now been recalled to work. Wherefore, AFSCME seeks the following relief on behalf of its members and requests the Court to take the following action:

a) declare that the layoffs ordered by Defendant Stroger violated the appropriations measure and state law;

b) order the reinstatement of the employees who are still laid off;

c) order the payment of back pay to employees for the period they were illegally laid off; and

d) order any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

Count II

This Count is brought by AFSCME obtain an order to require Defendant Stroger to promptly take action to allow the Public Defender to fill vacancies in his Office. AFSCME realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 to 9 above as Paragraphs 1-9 of this Count.

10. Defendant Stroger has a legal duty to honor the appropriation for the Public Defender by the Cook County Board of Commissioners under state law.

11. Since the beginning of the 2007 budget year, Defendant Stroger has prevented the Public Defender from filling vacancies in his office for positions for which funds were appropriated by the Cook County Board of Commissioners in the 2007 budget ordinance. The actions of Defendant Stroger have therefore violated his legal duty under state law to honor the appropriations of the Board for the Public Defender.

12. These actions of Defendant Stroger will continue unless halted by this Court.

13. These actions by Defendant Stroger have caused the caseloads of the Assistant Public Defenders represented by AFSCME to increase substantially.

14. This increase in caseloads has undermined the ability of the Assistant Public Defenders represented by AFSCME to carry out their constitutional, statutory and ethical obligation to effectively represent their clients. It has also made their jobs more difficult and time consuming without any concomitant increase in compensation.

15. Sufficient funds exist in the Treasury of the County of Cook to honor the appropriations ordinance enacted by the Cook County Board of Commissioners for the Public Defender.

Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that this court order the following relief:

a) declare that Defendant Stroger has violated his obligation to honor the appropriations of the Cook County Board of Commissioners and that he has a duty to allow the Public Defender to promptly fill vacancies that occur in his Office;

b) order Defendant Stroger to allow the Public Defender to promptly fill vacancies in budgeted positions and to cease actions that interfere with the efforts of the Public Defender to fill such positions; and

c) any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

The hearing on the proposed resolution to remove Ed Burnette has been cancelled.  Upon information and belief, attorneys representing Ed Burnette have reached an agreement with attorneys for President Todd Stroger to resolve their differences in court through the pending litigation in Burnette v. Stroger.NO HEARING ON THE RESOLUTION WILL BE HEARD ON 5/20/08 SO DO NOT ATTEND THE COUNTY BOARD MEETING

As printed in the May 17, 2008 edition of the Daily Herald: 
Let public in on public defender hearing

Few people, even the most ardent advocates of open government, would argue that personnel evaluations ought generally to be conducted in open public meetings. But there are times …Take the case of Cook County Public Defender Ed Burnette. Here we have a civil servant whose job is specifically designed to be independent of politics facing the possibility of being fired for purely political reasons.It won’t surprise you to learn who is trying to fire him in such circumstances. That would be Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Nor, sadly, will the specifics of Burnette’s case surprise anyone remotely familiar with the brazen cynicism of Cook County government. Burnette’s job is on the line because he challenged Stroger at least twice. First by filing suit to assert his independence when the Cook County board president ordered him to trim the size of his staff, then by objecting when Stroger placed on Burnette’s payroll an employee who did no work for the public defender and was answerable only to the county board president.For such determination, Burnette was labeled insubordinate and Stroger set a hearing for his firing. The hearing is required because state law pointedly distinguishes the public defender position from every other administrative role in the county. The public defender’s office exists to ensure justice for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals — the indigent accused of crimes but lacking the means to defend themselves. Such a function, the law wisely realizes, must be protected against the whims of fickle politics, and the person leading it cannot be constantly answering to political rather than legal demands.Thus, the job is established as a fixed six-year appointment, and any attempt to remove the public defender requires a formal hearing. If a political powerbroker aiming to find a new department in which to stash patronage workers wants to remove an impediment, he at least has to show a legitimate job-based cause.Does Stroger have job-based justification here? Well, Burnette certainly has defied his authority. But the question, as Burnette’s suit seeks to clarify, is what authority the public defender has defied.The answer to that question ought to be left to the courts. Curiously, Stroger seems unable to wait that long. Burnette has only a year remaining on his appointment, so the county board president will be able to name whatever puppet he likes soon enough, as long as the person isn’t so clearly incompetent that even the board members in Stroger’s pocket can’t vote to confirm.Why then is Burnette’s dismissal so urgent? What offense has he committed that justifies challenging the critical independence built into the nature of his office? Burnette himself has asked these questions and wants the county board to let them be presented on the public stage. We do, too.This is not a case of violating an employee’s privacy. It’s a case either of the county board president’s simple assertion of power or of the public defender’s inability to accomplish the job he’s been doing for five years. The public should get a free and open opportunity to watch the proceeding and judge for itself.

The hearing on whether to terminate the employment of Edwin Burnette, Public Defender of Cook County is now set for next week on the 20th.  As mentioned before, members are encouraged to attend the hearing but should put in for appropriate time off in advance of the date.  It has been suggested that the proceedings will be behind closed doors, even though Mr. Burnette wants the world to see what is going on.As concerned citizens, we have a right to attend and at least let our elected commissioners know what we think of the allegations in the resolution.  It is unlikely that the commissioners will “vote” on the removal, leaving the decision up to the President,  but perhaps our presence will make him think twice about conducting a sham hearing. Please make an effort to attend the hearing.