Cook County Public Defenders Association

Rx

You may have noticed recently that your prescriptions copays have gone up.  In the contract that we ratified in June of 2006, we negotiated a modest increase in our prescription drug benefit which went into effect on 12/1/07. The new plan now calls for copays of $7, $15, and $25 for generic, formulary and non-formulary drugs, respectively. While it is a jump from the $5 and $10  we were paying, the new plan is still more favorable than other public and private employee prescription plans.

Wage Increases and Step Increases

Our wages increased 1% on 12/1/04, 1% on 12/1/05, 2% on 6/1/06, 1.5% on 12/1/06, and 2.5% on 6/1/07.  The 2% increase scheduled for the first full pay period after 12/1/07 however, has not appeared on our checks which we received on 12/28/07.  Needless to say, this is not the first time the County has frozen our wages while trying to pass the next fiscal year’s budget resolution.  In previous years, we filed grievances which were withdrawn when the budget was passed and retroactive payments were made to the membership.  Last year, Council 31, our exclusive bargaining agent, decided not to withdraw the grievance and took it to arbitration.  The result of the arbitration decision last year was that we won by convincing the arbitrator that the County was engaging in an unfair labor practice.  While we asked for 6% interest, the arbitrator ruled that the County didn’t really know any better so he wouldn’t award interest.  Now, even with that precedent, the County continues to engage in this most unfair of labor practices.  This time we will advocate, once again, for interest on our retro checks–and hopefully, we will get it.

And finally, we are scheduled to get a wage increase of 2.75% on 6/1/08.  In addition, we negotiated  an extra 1% to our to our pay grid to offset the increase in health care contributions that are scheduled to take effect the same day as our pay increase.  This extra 1% is currently the topic of another arbitration that has not yet been scheduled.  We are anticipating that arbitration will be resolved in our favor well before the pay increase is scheduled to go into effect.

Union Dues

The local has been notified that as of 1/1/08, the amount taken form our paycheck of AFSCME union dues will increase.  The increase in membership dues is imposed pursuant to the International Constitution, Article IX, Section 6.  The increase is not large enough to require a vote of the general membership but the increase may, nevertheless, be noticed by some of you. 

Currently, members pay roughly $550 per year. (Refer to your deductions on your pay stub and multiply by 26 pay periods).  An increase of $1.29 per pay period will be added  to the previous deduction amount ($21.11) so the total will now be $22.40 per pay period.  Hence, your union dues for 2008 will be approximately $582. 

Our sole fair share member will see his dues go to $18.14 per pay period. 

The members of this local are tired of reading the onslaught of editorials from the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board in recent days which advocate across the board cuts to the County’s budget and oppose any tax increase.  The Tribune has characterized county workers as folks who are “whining” about the budget.  The fact is that Tribune Editorial Board doesn’t have a clue as to what a budget cut of 10% would mean to the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender.  We have printed below, in its entirety, the letter that Vice President Brendan Max sent to the Tribune in response to their recent editorials on the county budget.

Letter to the Editor of the Chicago Tribune

December 18, 2007

  The broad-brush strokes applied by this paper’s editorial board, and other commentators, to the County budget process sometimes misses important detail.  To those of us who provide needed services to the citizens of Cook County, the details matter.For instance, in support of 10% across-the-board budget cuts, the Tribune editorial board characterized discussion of the impact of such cuts on the criminal justice system as “whining.”  While there is always much whining over the politics of the County budget process, there are also objective assessments of the budgetary needs of some county departments that should be part of the budget debate.  And reference to these objective assessments isn’t whining, it’s reality.So, for those in favor of further reducing the Cook County Public Defender Office staffing by 55 attorneys as part of indiscriminate across-the-board cuts, you should consider the reality of these cuts on our Office.Just this month, a commission of judges, law professors, and other attorneys completed a 2-year review of the Cook County justice system, including an in-depth review of the Office of the Public Defender.  While others may inform their budget commentary by momentary “strolls” through county departments in search of lazy personnel, this Commission of 11 members and dozens of other staff studied the Cook County justice system for months, conducted over 100 interviews, and observed 160 hours of court proceedings. And here is what they found:

• Assistant public defenders in Cook County handle case loads way in excess of national standards, and in excess of their counterparts in many other public defender systems.
• The average felony attorney in Cook County handles 229 cases, while public defenders in New York and Minnesota handle between 100-150 cases.
• This understaffing problem is compounded by the chronic shortage of support staff, including paralegals, secretaries, and investigators.  Our Office is nowhere near the national minimum standards for support staff.
• Newly hired attorneys in the Office don’t receive adequate training, and the lack of available budget impacts this failure.
• Office space is characterized by desks that are scotch-taped together, broken water fountains, and insect infestations.

The members of this Commission recommend that hiring practices in the Office of the Public Defender be reformed, that steps be taken to reduce the excessive caseloads carried by assistant public defenders, and that more resources be provided for attorney training.Far from whining, this is reality.  For those in favor of cutting dozens more attorneys from the Office of the Public Defender, you owe it to the public discourse to either concede that such cuts will result in the further gutting of an Office that is already teetering on the edge by all objective measures, or tell us how “an automation plan” is going to solve our problems and reduce our caseloads.  The fact is, cutting staffing levels further in our understaffed Office makes illusory the constitutional guarantee to effective counsel for citizens facing criminal punishment.  In a society where we have chosen to prosecute and lock up so many of our citizens for ever-increasing sentences, yet simultaneously cut funding to public defender services, discussion of this reality should never be labeled “whining.”As the men and women of our understaffed and under-resourced Office fight daily from our scotch-taped desks to keep the justice system afloat, we would appreciate seeing this bit of reality reported.                                                                           Brendan P. Max, Assistant Public Defender 

The Chicago Appleseed organization just published a report on the functioning of our felony courts system in Cook County.  The report was based on a 2-year review of the system.  This report discusses the public defender system, in part, and makes recommendations for reforms to our system.  The bottom line conclusion of the report is that our system is seriously overburdened, and changes must occur. 

All assistant public defenders should read this report and be familiar with its findings and recommendations.  To access the complete report, go to www.chicagoappleseed.org. 

Many members have asked to see the Petition to Intervene in the lawsuit filed by special assistant state’s attorney William Hooks on behalf of Cook County Public Defender Edwin Burnette and the Law Office against President Stroger and some of his staff.  We are able at this time to provide you with a pdf version of not only the Petition to Intervene that was filed, but our Complaint as well.  Just click AFSCME v. STROGER . Look for developments regarding this litigation right here on our website. 

For the information of our members, we are in another budget cycle, the results of which are uncertain right now.  There have been hearings on the 2008 budget for weeks, and there are more hearings today (Friday, 11/30/07) that could have an affect on our office. 

In preparation for the budget battle in general and for today’s hearings in particular, members of the union executive board have met in person with key county commissioners to make a pitch for our office.  In addition, AFSCME has been working the budget cycle as hard as ever.  While the outcome is still not yet clear, and we don’t know where the votes will fall for revenue generation or budget cuts, we continue to fight for our members in particular and our office in general.

All members are encouraged to follow the budget battle in the media and check our website for more information.

Our Holiday Party RSVP issue has been resolved.  RSVPs are being accepted until the deadline, of December 10, 2007.  

The union holiday party will be held on December 14, 2007 at Moretti’s.  Flyers have gone out but please note that there is a problem in that the email address is sending out an automatic “it’s too late to rsvp” message.  We will fix it as soon as possible.  Thanks for your understanding.

November 20, 2007- Today, AFSCME Council 31 announced that the Union will file suit against the County Board President Todd Stroger, asserting that Stroger has improperly suppressed staffing levels at the Office of the Public Defender, and improperly laid off 13 assistant public defenders earlier this year, both in violation of state law.This suit will be filed at the request of the Executive Board of Public Defender Local 3315.Since the 2007 budget process and the improper public defender layoffs, the Executive Board has been working to address our unacceptable staffing levels. We will be seeking injunctive relief, and back pay for attorneys who were laid off. We are represented by the law firm of Cornfield & Feldman in this suit.Specifically, the lawsuit will assert that state law grants only the County Board the authority to set staffing levels in the Cook County Public Defender Office. When the County Board exercised this authority during the 2007 budget process, the Board authorized enough positions for every assistant public defender then employed by the Office. In contravention to this staffing plan by the County Board, President Stroger laid off 13 assistant public defenders.In addition to layoffs, the suit will allege that President Stroger improperly permitted the number of attorneys in the Office to decline further by refusing to hire assistant public defenders to replace the dozens of attorneys who have recently left our Office, further acting in contravention of the County Board staffing plan and state law. The lawsuit will seek an injunction that prevents President Stroger from disregarding the authority of the County Board to set staffing levels in the Office of the Public Defender, will seek a declaration that President Stroger must take necessary steps to increase the number of attorneys in the Office to the level authorized by the County Board, and will seek back pay for our members who were improperly laid off in 2007.Through this lawsuit, AFSCME Council 31 and your Executive Board hope to restore justice to this Office and its clients by fighting for appropriate staffing levels. One measure of justice in our system is the caseloads carried by our attorneys. In an Office where caseloads are excessive by any measure, justice requires that action be taken to fully staff our Office.

Walter Allen’s conviction for attempt murder and 43 year prison sentence was reversed in a scholarly opinion by Justice Wolfson because he found the trial court “failed to conduct a meaningful inquiry” into the Allen’s proposed testimony by an expert in the field of eye witness identification prior to barring the testimony. Justice Wolfson writes that the trial court’s “conclusion that the proposed {expert} testimony would confuse the jury had no considered basis.”  This opinion is a must read for anyone with an identification case or even a case in which you are trying to call an expert witness in a field that is not regularly accepted in Illinois courts.  People v. Walter Allen, 2007 Ill App LEXIS 1054 (9/28/2007) .

President K S “Bob” Galhotra spoke to a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Cook County Board at the Skokie Courthouse on October 30, 2007. He made three points on behalf of our members. First, he thanked the board for and increase in the number of APDs in next years budget but told the board that the budget was meaningless unless the office was actually allowed to hire the attorneys the budget sets out. He pointed out to the gathered commissioners that the office has not been allowed to hire any currently budgeted lawyers for many months and the office is short many lawyers as a result. He asked for “Parity in Hiring”, making a reference to the meetings held earlier this year in January when ASAs asked for Parity for Prosecutors. Several commissioners seemed surprised to learn of this de facto hiring freeze. Second, Galhotra told the board members of his concern about the spread of MRSA (staph) infections at the jail and the risk our members face as a result in the cutbacks of medical staff at Cermack Hospital. Finally the President told the board that staff cutbacks at the jail has led to members being denied jail visits to clients because of staff shortages. Galhotra’s presentation was met by applause by many present at the meeting.