New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

As reported by nj.com, parole requirements would be eased for some prisoners and job restrictions lifted for convicted felons under a package of bills that Democratic sponsors said Monday would redirect State funds from incarceration to rehabilitation.

The measures, introduced last week amid the start of the new legislative session and an address by the governor, were described by State Senators, Raymond Lesniak and Sandra Cunningham, the sponsors, as a way to revamp the criminal justice system by encouraging drug treatment and removing employment barriers.

One bill, S907, would require the State Parole Board to release inmates when they reached their parole eligibility date unless they had committed a serious infraction while in prison or had not participated in rehabilitation programs. As for the others: S881 would give judges and prosecutors greater discretion on who could be tried in a drug court. S876 would repeal the ban on convicted felons working in places where alcohol is sold. S878 would prohibit public and private employers from automatically disqualifying convicted felons from jobs.

The measures differ from the proposal put forward by Governor Chris Christie in his State of the State address, which called from mandatory drug treatment for nonviolent offenders. Lesniak said his legislation would not require drug treatment for those who did not want it because that would be counterproductive and costly.

Lesniak said the changes in parole requirements proposed by him and Cunningham could reduce the prison population by 2,300 inmates a year, saving about $100 million that could instead go toward preparing inmates for release by helping find jobs, housing, counseling, and other services. He also said he would like to see a 50 percent increase in drug court participation by giving judges and prosecutors more latitude in deciding who could be admitted.

Drug courts, started more than a decade ago, divert offenders from prison as long as they complete drug treatment programs. But the current program does not admit people who have committed several offenses even if they are not considered violent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, complaints against New Jersey State Police troopers for everything from excessive force to minor paperwork violations fell for the fourth year in a row in 2010, but more troopers faced the most serious allegations of misconduct, a new report shows. The public and other officers filed 848 complaints against troopers in 2010, down from 886 in 2009 and the fewest of any year during the past decade, according to the report, issued late last week by the division’s Office of Professional Standards.

The complaints spawned misconduct investigations of 437 troopers, the most since 2006. With only about half of these 290 investigations against the troopers completed, 62 charges were substantiated, also the most since 2006, according to the report and past statistics. The State Police did not identify the troopers involved or elaborate on their infractions. The report also said that the division received 1,137 citizen compliments last year thanking troopers for their work.

Christopher Burgos, the newly-elected president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association, said the numbers were impressive given that troopers had more than two million encounters with citizens in 2010. “Put us against any agency out there, and no one’s under the scrutiny we are,” Burgos said. “The high performance and professionalism far excels any other agency out there. But we take seriously what goes on with disciplinary matters and will defend our members appropriately.”  

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey said it was still reviewing the report but criticized the division for not including the race or ethnicity of those who filed complaints, the number of pending cases from prior years or the number of punishments handed down by the type of complaint. Deborah Jacobs, president of the ACLU, said it will be hard to draw any conclusions from the report because it is too vague. “Unfortunately, the state provides less and less information to the public about the State Police rather than more and more,” Jacobs said. “We’re also very concerned that it took a full calendar year to release.”

Lieutenant Stephen Jones, a spokesman for the State Police, said the report included the same information as it always has in the past. He said it came out late in the year because the office was more focused on closing outstanding cases. Jones also said a higher percentage of complaints are being generated internally, which shows the division is better policing itself.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, after rolling out tougher rules in May for police departments’ internal affairs units, State Attorney General Paula Dow has released new reporting forms that omit a crucial question: How many complaints about police officers are being investigated at the end of each year? The new forms published Tuesday don’t require police departments to list the number of open investigations at year’s end, raising concerns among rights’ advocates that cases will continue to fall off the books, as they have for years.

“The intention with these forms is to provide a snapshot of accountability,” Peter Aseltine, a spokesman for Dow, said yesterday. “That reporting was never intended as a means to track individual cases.” But Deborah Jacobs, executive director of ACLU-NJ, who initially supported Dow’s proposals until she saw the finished product on Tuesday, called it a “huge step backward.” She added, “It’s the more serious internal affairs complaints that take longer to investigate.”

Critics said it was the second time this month that Dow limited access to public data. Earlier this month, she restricted information on overtime compensation for state law enforcement officers. Her office said today she was only codifying a set of legal precedents dating to 2002. Jacobs said there was another problem as well. “We need an attorney general who will stick around for more than a year or two and dig in to fix the serious ongoing police practices issues that the ACLU has been raising for years,” she said.

State and local officials said that despite the omission on the new forms, police departments will have no problems policing their own. Critics said it leaves members of the public out of the loop if they want to track important data that has been consistently spotty for the last decade.

The Attorney General’s Office said that under Dow’s new system, county prosecutors have a more prominent role monitoring internal affairs complaints, analyzing all the numbers and squaring away any discrepancies. Previously, counties have not carried out those duties. The forms in question allow the public to review police departments’ data.

Jacobs did praise other parts of Dow’s new policies. Police departments must now track complaints by officer to watch for patterns; they must devote more resources to training; and they must publicize summaries of the most serious complaints, though they don’t have to name officers. “It is absolutely critical that law enforcement agencies investigate allegations against officers thoroughly and fairly, and that we provide the public with meaningful data about the complaints,” Dow said in May.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue’s residents-only hiring policy discriminates against blacks applying to be on the force, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. In issuing its decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Newark branch of the NAACP, which brought the initial lawsuit in 2007 on behalf of firefighter candidates Allen Wallace, Lamara Wapples, and Altarik White.

“The judges’ decision covered every issue…the argument that a broader hiring process would discriminate against Hispanics (in North Hudson) is thoroughly incorrect,” said one of the NAACP’s attorneys in the matter. ‘Obviously, we’re pleased.”

The Court noted that as of 2000, the population of North Hudson’s member municipalities North Bergen, Weehawken, West New York, Guttenberg, and Union City was 69.6 percent Hispanic, 22.9 percent white non-Hispanic, and 3.4 percent African-American. 

The attorney for North Hudson Regional said the department is “disappointed” by the Court’s ruling. “The decision is inherently unfair to NHRFR communities, particularly the large Hispanic population. There are various other federally mandated policies in other jurisdictions,” he said, adding the department will file for an “en banc” hearing.

A “en banc” hearing would be heard by all of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. An application for such a hearing must be filed within 14 days of the original ruling. If it is heard, the majority opinion rules. The only other arena for an appeal would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the federal appeals court took into consideration reports from experts that in the tri-county area of Hudson, Bergen, and Essex, 37.4 percent of firefighters were African-American. Based on this percentage, 121 North Hudson Regional firefighters should be African-American, the court stated. Statewide, the percent of African-American firefighters is 20 percent. Based on that percentage, 65 North Hudson firefighters should be African-American, the court said.

Instead, out of 302 North Hudson Regional firefighters, 240 were white non-Hispanic, 58 were Hispanic, and only two were African-American, according to 2008 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) figures, the court said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, in what some advocates of open government call an unprecedented overreach, Attorney General Paula Dow has blocked the public from knowing how much overtime State Police troopers and other state law enforcement officials earn. Dow’s rule, which took effect this month, is part of a larger effort by the Attorney General to make confidential any records that “may reveal or lead to information that may reveal” an officer’s assignment.

The measure applies to the State Police and any other law enforcement officers that work under the Department of Law and Public Safety, but not local police departments, said Leland Moore, a spokesman for Dow. But open government advocates said the move by Dow restricts basic financial information, and that the taxpayers of New Jersey have a right to track public spending, including overtime. “Public employees, including law enforcement, have never liked the public knowing how much they make,” said Ron Miskoff of the New Jersey Foundation for Open Government. “But the public is paying the freight and I don’t see how knowing someone’s overtime is going to put anyone in danger.”

State records show that troopers earned $25.5 million in overtime last year, and as of September they made $15.7 million. Topping the list was Sergeant Robert Galik, assigned to Turnpike duty, who earned $63,221 in overtime last year. He had made $50,685 through the first nine months of this year, the second highest amount among troopers.

The State Treasury currently makes payroll information available for all state employees, including police, through a website created under Governor Chris Christie’s open government initiative. The website, yourmoney.nj.gov, billed as Christie’s “Transparency Center,” is updated every three months and is intended to help “taxpayers better understand public finances” and to “make government more accountable.” Moore said the Trasury will comply with Dow’s new rule and no longer post overtime information for police under the Department of Law and Public Safety.

Under the rules, total overtime figures for the department and its divisions will still be available. Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for Dow, said the rule reflected the long-standing position of the Attorney General’s Office. The Department of Corrections said there is no rule like the one imposed by the Attorney General to block overtime data for correctional officers.

Dow’s rule regarding overtime was enacted as part of several measures to make more records confidential, including those that detail background investigations or evaluations for job applicants and those concerning employee discipline, discharges or promotions. Many of the rules, other than the overtime provision, are similar to restrictions on public records under the state open records act. But Miskoff said they went too far in curtailing public access.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, the sponsor of a bill to end five and six figure sick-leave payouts for retiring public employees in New Jersey is calling on Governor Chris Christie to sign compromise legislation.

Senator Paul Sarlo of Bergen County told The Associated Press the Governor is holding up the bill over a relatively small difference that would end unlimited payouts for all future employees. On Monday, Christie said he is unlikely to compromise.

The sticking point is over whether to eliminate the sick time’s cash value, as Christie wants. Sarlo wants retiring employees to cash out a nominal amount to discourage employees from using up their sick-leave every year. Christie vetoed legislation a year ago that would have capped the payouts at $15,000. Democrats then offered to reduce the cap to $7,500.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, a divided state employee benefits commission today backed a Republican proposal to rein in rising accidental disability claims but said lawmakers should remove a provision that unfairly punishes workers who are permanently injured on the job.

The GOP bill would reduce accidental disability pensions across all retirement systems to 40 percent of final salaries. Currently, police and firefighters on accidental disability, for example, receive two-thirds of their final salaries. The pension reduction would bring accidental disability benefits on par with those offered under the ordinary disability plan and take away a major financial incentive that is helping drive up applications, supporters argue.

But a majority of members on the Pension and Health Benefits Commission said merging the two benefits ignores an important distinction: accidental disability pensions are supposed to compensate workers permanently injured by traumatic events. Others argue there are still important distinctions between the two, such as accidental pensions are tax free and workers qualify for them from their first day on the job while it takes 10 years for workers to qualify for an ordinary pension.     

The proposed changes come on the heels of multiple media reports on how accidental disability pension applications and awards have spiked since two separate Supreme Court decisions in 2007 and 2008 broadened eligibility requirements. The rulings forced the state’s pension boards to consider slip and fall injuries as eligible, along with mental illness.

Overall, applications for accidental disability pensions were up 34 percent and awards were up 87 percent over the five years, according to the Treasury Department. The rate of approval also rose to 53 percent in 2011 from 38 percent in 2007. Payouts for accidental disability pensions also increased during this time by 33 percent from $98.8 million to $131.5 million compared to a 20 percent increase in ordinary pension payouts from $270.6 million to $323.1 million.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblymen Declan O’Scanlon and Gary Chiusano, would stiffen requirements by requiring applicants to also qualify for the more stringent federal workman’s compensation benefits. It would also penalize accidental disability pension beneficiaries if they get another job by reducing their pensions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, two federal lawmakers from New Jersey want to ensure that the government will continue funding what they say is a “vital” public safety program. U.S. Senator Robert Menendez and Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr., both Democrats, will be among the officials speaking at a news conference in Clifton this afternoon. They will be voicing support for the Community Oriented Policing Services program, commonly known as “COPS.”

The program provides money that local police departments can use to hire and keep officers on the job, but Republicans and Democrats in Washington have been sparring over the program. Menendez and Pascrell note 12 New Jersey communities got a total of $20.8 million in grants last month. That money will be used to hire 78 police officers overall for the next three years.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, state officials will distribute nearly $3.6 million to more than 500 New Jersey law enforcement agencies to buy or replace body armor vests for their officers.

The awards announced by State Attorney General Paula Dow will be given to state, county, and local law enforcement and corrections agencies. Officials say grants were given to all 544 agencies that applied, and the minimum grant amount awarded is $500.

Funding for the grants comes from New Jersey’s Body Armor Replacement Fund, which was established by legislation in 1998. It has funded through a $1 surcharge on traffic tickets and forfeitures of bail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, the state wants to keep taking increasing pension and health benefits contributions from Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices while it appeals a judge’s ruling that the hikes are unconstitutional. 

The state Attorney General’s Office filed a motion to postpone implementation of Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg’s ruling blocking the higher pension and health benefit payments for the judges and justices, spokesman Paul Loriquet said.

The first increased contributions under Governor Chris Christie’s new plan were taken from the judges’ October 14 paychecks. Feinberg’s ruling would have stopped those hikes from being deducted from their future bi-weekly checks, but the state wants to continue with those higher collections during the appeals process.

Feinberg rules judges and justices are exempt from paying more because a provision in the state Constitution prohibits their salaries from being “diminished” during their terms. Feinberg did not agree with the state’s contention that increasing pension and health benefits contributions does not constitute a reduction in their pay, infuriating Christie, who denounced the ruling as “self-interested and outrageous.”

Christie called for a constitutional amendment to allow for a reduction of judges’ salaries, but Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver sad they don’t support calling for a vote on it, preferring to see how it is handled in the courts.

Feinberg has been criticized for ruling on a case that affects her, but case law allows judges to hear cases that directly affect them when there is no other appropriate court to address the matter. She has not set a date yet to hear the motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver have no plans to post a constitutional amendment ensuring judges are subject to increases in pension and benefit payments proposed by Governor Chris Christie. “I am not inclined to support pursuing a constitutional amendment,” Oliver said. “It sets a very unhealthy precedent.”

Christie’s call for an amendment to the state Constitution stems from a decision issued by Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, who wrote requiring judges to pay more for pension and benefits is an indirect reduction in salary. The state Constitution prohibits pay cuts for judges and justices. The amendment would define justices and judges’ salary as exclusively salary, not encompassing pension and benefit payments.

Without support from Sweeney and Oliver, both of whom spearheaded the changes for public workers in June, Christie’s proposal is dead in the water. While Oliver said she is not inclined to post the amendment under any circumstances, Sweeney said he will re-evaluate based on the decisions of the higher courts. “Changing the Constitution based on one decision may not be warranted,” Sweeney said in a statement. “After the appeals process has been completed, the legislature will then determine the appropriate reaction, if any.”

In a press conference, Christie personally attacked Feinberg and called the decision “self-interested,” “outrageous” and “extraordinary hubris.” “Judge Feinberg’s decision yesterday, in addition to being legally indefensible, is morally indefensible,” Christie said. “If the courts will not fix this problem, then the Legislature has to give the people the opportunity to fix this problem.”

Christie said he will send language for a constitutional amendment to legislative leaders by the end of this week. He wants the Legislature to act in the lame-duck session after the November election, so the measure appears on the November 2012 ballot when voter turnout is highest.

To be on the ballot, a constitutional amendment must be approved by three-fifths of each house in the Legislature, 24 senators, and 48 assemblymen. Or, it can be approved by a majority of legislators in two consecutive legislative years. Once on the ballot, a simple majority of voters must approve the amendment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices, protected by the state Constitution from salary reductions while in office, are exempt from Governor Chris Christie’s new pension and health benefits plan requiring them to contribute a larger share of their salary, a judge ruled yesterday. 

Christie immediately lashed out at the ruling handed down by Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg and indicated the state would appeal. “This outrageous, self-serving decision, where a judge is protecting her own pocketbook and those of her colleagues, is why the public has grown to have such little faith in the objectivity of the judiciary,” the governor said in statement issued by his office.

In reaching her decision, Feinberg concluded that the increased contributions Christie is requiring of judges and almost 700,000 current and retired state employees is an indirect reduction in pay that the Constitution specifically forbids for judges and justices. Feinberg also rejected the State’s contention that the increase is similar to a tax and is not discriminatory because it applies to all state employees.”

Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale of Hudson County filed the lawsuit challenging the measure in July after Christie signed legislation on June 28 increasing judges’ pension contributions from 3 percent to 12 percent of their annual salaries and requiring them to pay 35 percent of their health care premiums.

State law allows judges to hear cases that directly affect them when there is no other appropriate court to address the matter. The case did not go to U.S. District Court because it does not involve any federal allegations.

It is not the first time Christie has tangled with the courts, though this time he is seeking redress from the very body he has had sharp words for. He has repeatedly said the state Supreme Court justices have overstepped their bounds by influencing policy and budget decisions best left to the governor and the Legislature.

In making her ruling, Feinberg said the salaries cannot be touched, even in difficult economic times, and noted the provision is in the Constitution to protect judges from potentially vindictive acts of the executive and legislative branches of government.

Two weeks ago a group of state employees tried to tie their own legal challenge to the changes in pensions and benefits to DePascale’s case, but Feinberg ruled the two were not closely enough related to consolidate them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, two state panels approved higher rates for health insurance plans today, raising premium rates for coverage of all state employees, municipal workers, and public school teachers and staff. These new, higher rates for health insurance plans, mean the state will pay more for benefits and so will approximately 850,000 workers who are being asked to pay an increased cost of those benefits.

Today’s votes mark the next step in a statewide shift to make public employees pay a larger share of their healthcare. Rates for 2012 health insurance plans will rise by an average of 9 percent for active state employees, and by 3 percent for retirees, witnesses told the state health benefits commission today. For Medicare-eligible retirees, rates will be frozen at this year’s rate. Health plan rates for municipal employees grow an average of 10.3 percent. Early retirees increase 10.5 percent and Medicare-eligible retirees see a 2 percent change. 

The state commission in charge of reviewing health plan rates for school board employees have approved the following rate raises: for current teachers and all school administrative staff, plan rates rise by 10.1 percent in 2012. Rates for early retirees, who retire before the age of 65, rise by 6.5 percent. Medicare-eligible retirees see their rates freeze at 2011 levels.

The state hopes to offer 15 health plans in 2012, compared with three choices for state and local employees last year. Governor Chris Christie ordered that expansion as part of his successful change to public pension and benefits laws. Officials anticipate saving $10 million this year, a savings which they said Tuesday reflected “limited” enrollment in the new, cheaper plans by public employees.

Treasury officials announced last week that the state would also take up $90 million in federal dollars to pay towards retiree prescription costs, available as a result of federal healthcare reform proposed by President Obama and passed by Congress. The timing of that program’s availability this year is coincidental, and unrelated to Christie’s reforms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, public employees, from state workers to local school teachers, may now choose from a wider range of health plans that include low-cost options and some with narrower coverage as they start paying more for their benefits. The signature benefit reform enacted by Governor Chris Christie calls for cheaper plans while demanding higher contributions from workers. 

The state hopes to save $10 million this year through those changes alone. The future savings will grow because as workers pay a greater share of their health plan costs they may select cheaper options, lowering the expense to the state, officials said. But New Jersey is also asking for help from the federal government. The state applied for a $90 million federal program, which will cover part of the state’s bill for retiree prescription plans.

Two state panels created to review health benefits voted this week to approve a raft of new health plans, amounting to 15 choices for public employees. The rates are not fixed until they get approved by a permanent state commission, which is scheduled to act next week.

In building the health insurance plans, Treasury officials anticipate using a new federal Employee Group Waiver plan to save around $90 million in the state’s obligation for retiree prescriptions. The waiver plan is available through President Obama’s health care reform, which allows employers and states to benefit from changes to Medicare. State Treasury officials confirmed the state would file an application to the federal government, through insurance provider Medco. Part of that savings, $20 million, will be used this year to offset rises in health care costs for retired workers. The amount ensures a cap on certain co-pays for retirees in plans at 2011 levels.

The new health plans are part of a shift away from what Christie has called “Cadillac” health care coverage offered to state workers and largely paid for by the state. State employers and local governments could pay $2,000 more for an employee’s family coverage annually than current plans, according to summaries provided by state officials. But at the lower end of the scale, the cheapest plans would be an estimated $7,000 lower than the current affordable options. Workers will pay a fraction of that total premium, but that fraction will increase in July over the next three years.

In late June, Christie ordered a 12-member panel to devise the new plans as part of a controversial law to make public workers contribute more for their health care. The panel missed an August deadline, raising questions over whether Christie’s signature policy would be implemented smoothly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link