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.
May 15th, 2008
Kumbaya!!!!!!!
Todd Stroger’s fundraiser is tonight!!!!!!!
Too late for Ed to figure out which way the wind blows in Cook County!
Time to buy Popeyes and Jeans if Furmin gets the gig.
Ed and Woody Jordan can go out together at Moretti’s!!!!!!!!
Woody can get Ed a great land deal in Camden, Tennessee……..whooooooo doggie!!!!
May 15th, 2008
The only reason for members to attend is to find out why the
Public Defender has posted a D6 managment position ($104,234)but
has not posted any unionized job postings when we are so short of
court room attorneys. I just do not get it? The shortage in
managment is with front line supervisors at the D3 position who
can work a court room and handle cases. This single posting
requires one year experience as a D5. Only the vacant labor counsel ord
lobbyist position qualified as D5. Why is the union asking us
to support the Public Defender when I do not see him supporting
us by filing vacant front line positions in the court room.
May 15th, 2008
Great post, Ingrid.
May 15th, 2008
There were only 2 D6 positions in the 2008 budget:
child protection and forensic science unit. The Public
Defender’s answer to the President’s Resolution to Terminate
addresses the D6 supervisory position.
For the unionized attorneys, we lost 5 unionized grade one
attorney positions from the 2008 budget during a period in
2007 when we had members laid off. All of our attorneys have
done the tasks that the PD determined that he needed clericals
more than he needed us. APD have “answere phones,done copying,
filing, and delivered filings.” The only thing we have not
done is payroll. Can clericals go into court and represent
clients? Can they go to the jails and interview clients?
At private law firms, senior partners and sole practicioners
recognize that attorneys can multi-task performing legal and
clerical work. In our office, the Public defender gets rid of the
front line unionized attorneys.
I cannot support any Public Defender who eliminates entry level unionized attorney positions so that he can substitute non-unionized clericals.
Let the politicians deal with the Public Defender, I am done.
Don’t ask the rank and file to use vacation and personal time
off to sit outside the close door session on May 20.
May 15th, 2008
Clericals in our office are union. We are AFSCME. You are wrong to say the clericals are non-unionized. Last time I checked, attorneys don’t answer phones at the office. When people call the office between 9 aand 5 and get a recorded message, it’s because there aren’t enough support staff. Ed was not wrong to try to replace the some 55 vacancies that were eliminated and 17 were laid off. So Ed tried to get clericals. Get real sister. You is wrong!
May 15th, 2008
When I say attorneys don’t answer phones, I mean the main phone lines, not the phones on their desks.
May 15th, 2008
Ingrid, unfortunately, we have to disagree on this one. I am going to go to the hearing.
May 16th, 2008
You are mistaken that all clericals are unionized.
Non unionized clericals who reported to the Public Defender
and first assistant were laid off. Law clerks hired by the
office before they are sworn in are non-union.
Five unionized attorney position were eliminated. There is
no evidence that they were replaced with unionized clericals
who were laid off when the PD reclassified these positions.
Until anyone can provide me with evidence that five of our laid
off unionized clericals were call back from lay off during this
time period, I stand by position that the Public Defender
engaged in union busting.
May 16th, 2008
Dan,
I think going to the closed door meeting of the termination
resolution to ensure a fair hearing makes as much sense at
the RJ Kelly groupies going to sit outside Judge Gaughan’s
court room to ensure a fair trial. Contacting your local
commissioner might make more sense.
May 16th, 2008
Ingrid, thank you for comparing me to an R. Kelly groupie .
And, I have been contacting my commissioner about this
and other PD issues going back to last year.
I am not sure I can “ensure a fair hearing.” But I can
let the commissioners know that I am watching them, that I vote,
and that I influence others about how I vote
and how they might consider voting.
It’s that simple.
May 16th, 2008
I think I know a union buster when I see one and Ed Burnette is no union buster. Calling him one is like calling Todd Stroger and anti-nepotist or R Kelly a chaste individual.
May 16th, 2008
DID ED BURNETTE CIRCUMVENT THE RIGHTS OF OUR MEMBERS TO RECALL FROM LAYOFF?
On June 25, 2007, WBEZ Radio broadcast a report questioning why our members had not been recalled from layoff when the County Booard had funded 6 APD positions beyond the number of existing attorneys. Ed was out of town and unavailable for comment.
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=11607
The resolution against Ed alleges that in July 2007 he converted 5 Grade I positions to clerical positions.
The response filed by Ed to the County Board’s resolution admits that he converted those 5 positions.
Many laid-off members of this local did not get recalled from layoff until well after July and obviously were deprived of a paycheck in the interim.
Before members of our Executive Board cajole us to rally around Ed in blind affirmation of his purported judgment and wisdom, we deserve an explanation from Ed of the above facts which suggest that he circumvented the right to recall provisions of our collective bargaining agreement.
May 16th, 2008
R KELLY is being “hooked up” by his paid lawyers.
May 16th, 2008
This “rallying around Ed” is a total waste of time.
He is employed in his position at the pleasure of the President of the Cook County Board.
The May 20 hearing is a sham.
I always found it pathetic that when Ed did show up at 26th Street, he brought his “handlers”, “X” and Lauren…..Lauren was busy jotting down whatever the wise man had to say to us….it was kind of sad to watch….As the clients’ mothers so often tell us: “My baby was just hanging out with the wrong crowd.”
What a waste of resources it is to run some sort of publicity campaign for our Office in the African American Churches….somebody forgot that we are a LAW FIRM….efforts should be made to help us improve our representation of clients….The perception of us by our “Customers” rarely changes….they want a REAL LAWYER….so deal with it and do your damned job.
May 16th, 2008
I think that instead of wasting our time at the County Board meeting, we ought to invite Ed to the Woody Jordan Retirement Gala and sing “For he’s a Jolly Good Fellow” to the both of them. I’m looking forward the the R.Kelly groupies swarming 26th Street and have little time available for a trip Downtown.
May 16th, 2008
Ingrid, here’s what you said on April 22, 2008 on this blog:
“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 monies according to
the Public Defender Act.”
What caused the sudden change of heart?
Justic Cardozo, here’s what you said on this blog on April 19, 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?”
Hope to see both of you on 5-20-08.
May 17th, 2008
Dan, we KNOW the accusations are LUDICROUS.
We also know that Burnette’s fate is sealed.
I have been contacting Mike Quigley since the furloughs and layoffs were being bandied about.
There are more Commissioners against the firing of Burnette than for it, without a doubt…..but Burnette serves at the pleasure of Todd Stroger….HERE IS MY BOTTOM LINE….When Burnette came to 26th Street and acted like Stroger’s fool, he was toast….All of the sudden he gets a spine when Stroger wants too know which Directors and Chief spots are not Shakman protected….Burnette lost the rank and file when he told us we were going to be furloughed and then he turned on Stroger….May 20 is the final voyage of the S.S. Burnette-Titanic….
Auld Lang Syne will be sung at the Woody Jordan Retirement Party!!!!!!
Stroger is a goof, but he has the winning hand in this situation.
May 17th, 2008
I changed my mind when I read the Public Defender’s answer to the resolution. I do not support or endorse elected officials who eliminate union jobs. Appointed officials like the Public Defender will not receive my public support or endorsement either.
The resolution hearing is a closed door meaning. The Commissioners will hear the Public defender’s defense to the President’s complaint but these Commissioners cannot even vote on a non-bidding resolution according to the statute. I think concerns that the Commissioners will not allow the Public Defender to respond is unfounded. The statute governing the notice of the hearing and hearing are vague, but that will be resolved by the courts. Since the Public Defender chose the courts to litigate his concerns, I do not see why union members should now lobby the political arena at this stage. Pre-lawsuit is when we should have been lobbying commissioners for independence from political patronage. If independence from political patronage is the real issue, why did the Public Defender not walk into federal court since the Shakman case is ongoing despite the 2006 consent degree.
If in the future, the courts were to reverse the possible termination of the Public Defender, then the unions can lobby the democratic party and the voters to vote the current Cook County Board President out of office.
Maybe the union should start lobbying Springfield to address the due process concerns over the format of the hearing.
May 17th, 2008
If anyone wants to watch their commissioners in action, the cable companies broadcast the board meetings every Monday from 7 to 11 p.m. on the local public access channel. On the May 7, 2008 meeting, Commissioner Quigley introduced his resolution to create a hearing officer to preside over the termination hearing. The resolution also provided for a procedure for the hearing to address the due process concerns. The majority of the commissioners vetoed the resolution because they were concerned that the hearing officer was unconstitutional as violation of the separation of powers. The resolution circumvented the President’s sole authority to terminate the Public Defender.
Only these commissioners voted for the resolution: Quigley, Claypool, Schneider, and Maldonado. Sufferiden was absent when the debate and vote wsa taken.
May 17th, 2008
Ed Burnette was just on live with Rev. Jesse Jackson at the PUSH meeting.
Too bad Burnette’s handlers downtown didn’t think of this political alignment the day Todd Stroger was elected.
May 17th, 2008
Of the last 20 comments posted on the blog, 60% have been from Cardozo and Ingrid Gill. Thanks for speaking up everyone.
May 17th, 2008
Ok Kulmeet, I’ll throw in my two cents.
Its difficult to challenge arguments based on “facts” that, as our friends on the 10th floor would say, are not reality based. But I will try:
Ingrid: Ed did not eliminate even one union job. He turned five AFSCME lawyer jobs into five AFSCME support staff jobs. Those lawyer AFSCME jobs were put into the earlier budget by Ed during the last budget cycle. Budget priorities are management’s business. The Public Defender is not just in charge of the lawyers, but of the whole office including unionized support staff and unionized investigators. Moreover, its difficult to imagine a Public Defender more understanding and appreciative of what our union does for this office than Ed.
Justice Cardozo: Although your political insights are reality based, and I agree that we will probably have a new Public Defender and new Directors and new Chiefs very soon, I still think we need to let the County politicians know that we, members of Local 3315, are not fooled by their process or ludicrious arguments. We need to stand up for the idea of an independent and professional Public Defender and well qualified experienced management. Perhaps, for example, under the next Public Defender, Chiefs and above will need to be first chair death qualifed. We have very few of those now. So, if I’m not on trial, I’ll be at the County Building on the 20th.
In brotherhood,
Bruce
May 18th, 2008
Well said Bruce. I usually have my three-year-old son poking at me when I am writing on this blog, so I can’t be as articulate as you.
May 19th, 2008
There will be no hearing on May 20.
Ed gets another date!!!!
May 19th, 2008
Justice:
The way he gets dates you would think he was trained in HTF. Was he?
QQ
May 19th, 2008
Thank you Bob & Bruce. Bob, I agree with Bruce about the difficulty challenging “facts”. But in solidarity I will do my best. Thanks, guys.